Seòmar agus comataidhean

Our principal item of business is the continuation of our inquiry into the A9 dualling project, on the back of the petition that was lodged by Laura Hansler, who I see joins us in the public gallery for this morning’s evidence. This meeting follows on from evidence that we have heard along the way from representatives of the Civil Engineering Contractors Association; current and former senior leaders at Transport Scotland; and Màiri McAllan MSP, who was transport secretary when she gave evidence, before Fiona Hyslop resumed her responsibility in that direction.

We are joined this morning by Edward Mountain, who is here as a reporter for the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee in relation to the inquiry. Thank you, Edward, for joining us again. Edward is moving amendments to a bill at stage 2 elsewhere this morning, so if he gets a jab from a knitting needle to tell him that his amendment is about to be called, he will have to leave our proceedings.

Those of you who have been following the progress of the inquiry will know that we are primarily focused on what action needs to be taken to get the project back on track. That is what the petitioner and all those who are interested in the A9 project are looking for us to achieve. Along the way, we have heard evidence about the major capital infrastructure projects that are likely to unfold over the next five years and decade. The access to, and ability to capitalise on, those projects would be compromised by not having the infrastructure eventually in place.

In this inquiry, we also want to look back to understand why we are where we are, what led to the delays and at what point those delays became apparent.

This week in Parliament has felt like a very retro week, if I can put it that way, with John Swinney re-emerging as the leader of the Scottish National Party and our First Minister; with a retro look back into the affairs of the A9; and with evidence this morning from Alex Salmond, who is the former First Minister of Scotland and whom I am very pleased to welcome. I recall that one former leader revisiting events said that the Mummy had returned; I do not know what epitaph Mr Salmond would wish to offer for his own evidence this morning.

I am not sure that it would.

I can empathise with that—I have had a similar experience. I do not think that there can be many people who have travelled on that road and have not, from a distance, seen a manoeuvre on the road and thought, “Crikey!”, because the driver was running a risk in what they were trying to achieve. We understand how people can lose sight of how fast things are moving on some sections of that road and think that they have more capacity to move than they do.

The other thing that you touched on, which we will come back to, was the fact that the dualling was just one of the infrastructure projects that the Government was looking at. I know that because I was the convener of the ad hoc committee that was set up to look into the Queensferry crossing route and the way in which the Parliament engaged with the planning of that process. We had some interesting exchanges with the Government about whether there might be more oversight of the project and whether parliamentary oversight helped to generate and sustain momentum. I will perhaps come back to that later, as well.

During the pre-planning phase in the initial period, to what extent did you leave that work to Alex Neil and other ministers? To what extent did it continue to be something around which the Government was having a more general discussion and which you, as First Minister, might have been involved in or apprised of?

I have a final question for you before we move on, and I will come back to some of those other points later on.

In the Government that you led, you represented the north-east and came from a background in economics; John Swinney was the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth and represented Perthshire and mid-Scotland; and Jim Mather was very much a man who had an understanding of business and economics, as well. That was the economic team that was driving matters forward. I have often wondered whether, when you left office, the Government became more central belt-centric. Do you think that, as we moved forward from your time as First Minister, it became less of a priority to look at infrastructure development from the perspective of the spine of the whole of Scotland?

Good morning, and welcome to the seventh meeting in 2024 of the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee—excuse my slightly hoarse voice. The first item on our agenda is a decision on taking items 4 and 5 in private. Item 4 relates to PE1975 and item 5 relates to the consideration of content for our annual report. Are members content to take those items in private?

Members indicated agreement.

Thank you. Given that that is the case, our questions might be quite focused and to the point. I do not think that we are pushing a stone up a hill, in the sense that the Government appears to have accepted the argument. However, it would be interesting to explore some of the issues underpinning the need for all of this.

That remains to be seen. Thank you, Mr Ewing.

Do any other colleagues wish to come in?

Thank you very much for that, Mr Ewing. I think that that is correct.

It is open to us to write to the Government to say that we are closing the petition on the basis of good faith, given that the Government has said that it will progress the issue. It would be helpful to try to tie it down to a more specific timeline.

I thank Mr Izatt very much for bringing an important petition before the committee. In the event that no progress is made, it would be open to him to lodge a fresh petition. As matters stand, the committee has taken the issue as far forward as we can, given the Government’s response and assurance. Are members content to proceed on that basis?

Members indicated agreement.

PE2019, which was lodged by Alan McLeod, calls on the Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to prevent all owners of self-catering holiday accommodation from obtaining rates relief under the small business bonus scheme. We last considered the petition on 28 June last year, when we agreed to write to the Scottish Assessors Association, the Holiday Home Association, the Association of Scotland’s Self-Caterers and the Scottish Government.

We asked the Scottish Government whether it would consider adding self-catering holiday accommodation to the list of properties that are unable to qualify for the small business bonus scheme. Its response outlines the current arrangements for self-catering holiday accommodation but does not provide any indication of its position on the petition. Its submission notes that a consultation on council tax for second and empty homes invited views on the thresholds that apply for self-catering accommodation to be liable for non-domestic rates, and that the responses were being analysed at the time of the submission.

I am very disappointed in the Government’s response. What is the point of sending us a response that is almost like a public information leaflet but does not address in any way, either positively or negatively, the ask of the petition and the question that we put? I would therefore like to go back to the Government in a direct way and say that the committee does not at all appreciate receiving a statement that we could reasonably have downloaded from the internet; we are asking about an instrument of future policy relating to the ask of the petition; and we would appreciate the Government’s views on the petition as put.

We would much prefer that to a cut and paste from the internet.