Seòmar agus comataidhean

I would be delighted, convener.

Thank you. The petitioners would contest the level of complication that is being suggested, but the difficulty that I have is that there needs to be a reality check, because it looks as though, in its response to you, the national park authority is likely to object to the existing route. That will take time in itself. If that is the scenario that is being suggested—it is certainly what I read from its submission—we could be talking about ages, in planning terms, before that is concluded.

The STAG is the accepted way forward. I would not want it to be held up unduly—I do not think that anybody would—but the reality is that it is likely to be contested, regardless of which route is picked.

Speak for yourself, convener. [Laughter.]

Good morning, convener. I am indeed perplexed by the definition of spring. Spring 2023 has now passed. We are ever hopeful, but I assume that we are now entering summer.

I recognise, as the petitioners do, that a new minister is in place and that budgets are tight, but the petitioners—and, indeed, the entire area—are keen to know whether there has been any slippage, what the timetable is for identifying a preferred solution and when the road will eventually be built. Understandably, the local aspiration is for it to be built by 2026, but the last time that a Scottish Government official opined on the matter, they said 2033. It is clear that there is a significant difference.

We are keen to understand what is going on, and the petitioners are keen to have an indication of the timetable and to know the magnitude of the slippage, if there has been any. It has to be said that they are slightly sceptical in that, although the investment in the old military road is welcome, it will be only a sticking-plaster approach, as a permanent solution has not been identified and progressed in good time. More money is being spent on a project that has consumed vast amounts of public money over the years without a permanent solution being in place.

I understand that the committee might not be entirely in favour of a public inquiry. However, the core of the petition is the petitioners’ request for a public inquiry, because they do not think that value of money is being achieved.

We have a temporary solution in place at the Rest and Be Thankful that involves catch pits. Quotes for the cost of the pits started off at around £2 million to £3 million, but the cost is now over £100 million. There is no permanent solution in place, and the investment being made in the old military road is a sticking plaster.

When is this ever going to end? We would like dates for the preferred choice and when the road will be built and completed, and we would like to know what the slippage is. I recognise that there is a new minister, but the issue has gone on for long enough.

You have taken me neatly to my final question, which is about health and social care staff. We know that they were on the front line of the pandemic, initially operating without adequate personal protective equipment. Those are the people who are suffering from long Covid. Their employment protection from Covid was removed, so now the staff are on half pay and some are on no pay. Some have been forced to leave their employment.

I have been contacted by a staff member from NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde who said that its objective was simply to get her out the door and get her to quit her job. After 35 years in the NHS, she feels very angry and very let down. What can the cabinet secretary do to protect our health and social care workers who have long Covid from being dismissed by their employers?

—so we have a postcode lottery.

By May 2022, NHS England had allocated £224 million to support assessment and treatment of long Covid, and £90 million was for 2022-23 alone. Our share of that in Barnett consequentials would produce £21.7 million in Scotland. I therefore ask the cabinet secretary where that money has gone and whether he will use some of it to enhance the Covid services that are currently a postcode lottery on the ground.

For the benefit of your officials, those statistics are from the Scottish Parliament information centre and the House of Commons library.

You will be waiting a long time.

Well, I heard that.

I want to take you on to the primary care improvement fund. In your paper entitled “Scotland’s Long COVID Service”, which was published in September 2021, you said:

“Through our Primary Care Improvement Fund, we will continue to support and expand the range of professional roles in primary care that play a key role in the provision of services that can support people with long COVID.”

Therefore, we all agree, but the fund was cut by £65 million in the emergency budget review. Did that not have an impact on primary care and community-based support for long Covid services?

Thank you.

Okay. So you are carrying that bit forward. That is fine.

Less than £3 million was allocated to health boards as part of the £10 million over three years and you will recall that, at the point that you made the allocation, 74,000 people were affected by long Covid. Of course, now, unfortunately, 175,000 people are affected. Do you intend to increase the overall resource available?