Seòmar agus comataidhean

No—I will wait until my colleague has finished.

What about local authority decisions, though? I am asking how many were overturned by the Scottish Government.

I was not going to ask about nuclear, but I think that, underlying all the objections, there is a series of wider principled concerns. That is really why I am asking the question; I think that a lot of people would like answers.

I will ask about community ownership in a minute but, before we leave the current topic, I will put one point to you, minister. Although the grid certainly requires to be upgraded, the costs of upgrading it were, this week, estimated at £4 trillion, although that figure is disputed by NESO. That is the scale of the cost. In addition, the timescale for that work will be much longer than Mr Miliband or anyone else who supports it has said will be the case. It will take decades. Is the problem, therefore, that, although there may be solutions in the future such as hydrogen and nuclear fission, and all sorts of possibilities, including more storage, it will be too slow?

Even if we support your policies and Mr Miliband’s policies, the grid upgrade process will inevitably take much longer than he says that it will. The transition from wood to coal took 200 years. The transition from coal to oil, according to Daniel Yergin, the world’s foremost energy expert, took 100 years. How can we expect to move from oil and gas to renewables in just a decade? It is just not on, is it? It is not going to happen. It is for the birds, and therefore the risks that I have described are very serious, and are growing in severity.

I support Mr Torrance’s recommendation, but I add that the work that was done by NHS Forth Valley, which I think has been described as the best-performing health board in the area of stroke care, will inform further procedures with regard to whether FAST should be changed to BE FAST, inter alia. As I understand it, the relevant work on that began in October and will be completed fairly soon. It will then be open to the petitioner to review whether to lodge a new petition in the next session of Parliament, because I think that some of the achievements that you have described, convener, have come about as a result of the petitioner’s efforts and the consideration of this committee. It is very much a developing story in terms of policy making in the next session of Parliament, I hope.

I very much endorse that approach, especially as the petitioner has outlined her pretty horrible experience. This is a relatively modern crime that has become a thing over the past few years, and I have increasing concern that, although it might not start off as too serious, it can very rapidly ruin people’s lives and even cause them to take their own lives, as has been the case in some of the circumstances that I have read about. It is a newish and alarming development in the sad history of sexual offences, so I very much want to hear the Scottish Government’s thoughts about how it can be tackled. We might also ask the Lord Advocate to offer advice about such matters.

The witnesses have said that, as one would expect, careful consideration was given to the issues in arriving at the key recommendation that there should be three units, which would be in Glasgow, Edinburgh and Aberdeen. What consideration was given to Inverness?

Finally, did you consider demographic trends? The point that I am making is perhaps not immediately obvious, but Inverness is the fastest-growing city in Scotland, and possibly the fastest-growing city in Europe. The population is increasing. I do not know whether it is because of the fresh air or something in the water, but, over the next 10 or 20 years, the population is due to expand more rapidly than anywhere else in Scotland, not least because of renewables activity in the inner Moray Firth. Various figures have been put on it, but I think that the rise will amount to around 30,000 people over the next 15 years. That will substantially increase the pressure on Raigmore hospital, which is falling apart at the seams and needs to be replaced—there is no doubt about that.

If we are thinking strategically about Scotland, these decisions need to be made on a long-term basis, and that means that, surely, we cannot just isolate the Highlands. Paragraph 56 of your report, which covers risks and conclusions—I was going to quote from it, but it would take too long—specifically says that Aberdeen is fine because it negates the problem of long journeys from the north. I am very sorry, but no, it does not. I was surprised to see that comment in your report, and I wonder whether you might want to rephrase or recast it.

More important, is there not a case for looking again very carefully at the changing circumstances, demographic and otherwise, in the Highlands, which I think would offer a strong case for providing four centres and not three?

I absolutely support the tributes that the convener and Mr Torrance have eloquently paid to the petitioner for her efforts. I will make a few other remarks.

The petition is now just over four years old. Had it not been pursued so determinedly and doggedly by the petitioner, I do not think that the pilot for the scanner would ever have been granted. Because that pilot began in May 2025 in Glasgow, it would make sense to see what the outcome is. I thoroughly endorse the idea of bringing back a petition, but if CT scanners had been used, some of the anguish that was caused to the petitioner in the loss of Richard would have been avoided. Therefore, I think that it makes sense for the petitioner to consider ascertaining more information, perhaps through local MSPs or MPs, as to how that pilot is doing, when it will conclude and when the outcome will be known, as well as whether there will be any delay—as, sadly, there so often is. That might inform a further petition.

I also support what Monica Lennon has said. For the life of me, I cannot understand why the Lord Advocate—a lady for whom I have the utmost respect—did not see fit to offer an apology. In her submission, she said that the reason why no change is being proposed is that the need to have independent investigations cannot be prejudiced. That is absolutely true. The whole point of having a prosecution system that is separate from Parliament is that it is entirely independent of politicians. That is at the core of a system of democracy. However, in no way does that prevent the return of tissue or, indeed, the avoidance of invasive post-mortem techniques. In other words, that does not prejudice independent investigations. That is a completely false argument and a non sequitur. It is very disappointing that the Lord Advocate should present an argument that appears to be flawed, I would argue. I am pretty sure that those of us who are here will return to the matter in the next session.

The exact wording that the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government used in her written submission of 5 November was:

“I can confirm that the Scottish Government is actively exploring legislative options and intends to bring forward proposals in the coming months to address this issue.”

I do not mean to be pedantic, but that does not necessarily mean that the cabinet secretary is going to do what the petitioner has asked for. I am not suggesting that we keep the petition open, because I think that, with the petitioner’s stimulus, we have achieved the outcome that he appears to have set out to achieve, but I wonder whether we might, in closing the petition, write to the cabinet secretary to urge her to make it clear to the Parliament as soon as possible precisely what will be done. At the same time, as a matter of courtesy, we could copy her letter to the petitioner.

I am grateful to Mr Torrance for those suggestions, with which I heartily concur. Obviously, I have a strong constituency interest, and have had such an interest for 26 years now, and I know that the Nairn bypass scheme was promised to be delivered as part of the dualled A96 by 2030. That ain’t gonna happen. In the summer, Nairn is probably about as congested as any town in Scotland, because there is really only one way in and one way out for most traffic. Increasingly, smaller roads are being used as rat runs to cut out delays arising from using the A96 to go through Nairn, which can take up to an hour. However, that is causing huge concern and, indeed, road traffic incidents.

This is a serious matter. The Inverness Courier held a public meeting that the transport secretary attended, to be fair to her, but she was not able to answer questions about the timeline or the financing, despite the fact that the Scottish Government’s budget is now £7,000 million a year. There is more than enough money over the next few years to deliver on the promises that have, I am sad to say, been broken.

Lastly, on the A96 as a whole, a sum of no less than £92 million has been spent on the dualling programme, including the section from Smithton to Auldearn, but not an inch of tarmac has been laid. How that can possibly have been achieved is something that is completely beyond me and my constituents.

I hope that, in writing to the minister, we can ask when she will make the statement to Parliament that has been promised. Will it happen this year, or will it happen at the very fag end of this session of Parliament, in the same way that an announcement about a section of A9 dualling was made in February or March 2021—a section that, incidentally, has not yet been dualled?

This has been a tale of woe. I do not wish to take up the committee’s time, but it is a highly important matter for the people of Nairn and the Highlands.