Seòmar agus comataidhean

All the benefits would accrue.

I appreciate your time, convener; I would like to ask one further question.

I apologise to Mr Torrance for stealing his thunder, but I think that that is worth while, out of justice to the petitioner, because we do not really have a clear answer. We should at least get an answer to that.

The profit margin in the contracts is 2 per cent. Is that standard?

A framework contract could involve several companies, perhaps mostly from Scotland, sharing the work to complete the A9. It would be possible to put the section of the A96 from Smithton to Auldearn, which is also a Government commitment not affected by the Bute house agreement, into that framework. That might have the benefit of limiting the disruption, or spreading it out across the road network, rather than risking the closure of the A9 to Inverness, which is an unattractive prospect for many of my constituents. Would it be possible to put that into the framework contract?

Is there a risk that the retender of the Tomatin to Moy section will lead to an even higher price, as we heard Mr Barn elucidate? Can you answer his point and recommendation that, although one must treat all parties equally in a tender process—that is a plain and clear legal requirement of procurement—that does not prevent you from reaching out to all the contractors to inquire about their progress, provided that they are asked the same questions, in order to be able to ascertain whether it is likely that you will end up in the same situation again, with one bidder only, but this time with an even higher price than the price that was previously rejected because it was deemed to be too high?

Are you saying that you have not been held back by the lack of funding from the Scottish Government? I have been critical of my own Government because the delays cannot be justified or defended in any way. It is disgraceful. I am sad to say that, but that is what I have said.

We want to know to what extent the Scottish Government has had the money ready but you have not got the process ready. We also want to know to what extent you have asked for money but you have not got yes as an answer. We need to know that for our inquiry. Moreover, to be frank, the public have a right to know.

Good morning, Lord Advocate. I absolutely understand your central point that the concerns that other colleagues have expressed this morning are not matters for which you, as Lord Advocate, have legal responsibility. I understand that.

We are here because not only did the petitioners lose a child, that horrific experience for any parent was compounded, as Monica Lennon has eloquently said on previous occasions, by what happened afterwards. Therefore, my question to you is really about the role of Lord Advocate in Scotland. After all, you are leading the system of criminal prosecutions and the investigations of death. Is there not a statable argument that, although there are certain specific legal responsibilities, which you have clearly set out and are clearly delineated, there is perhaps a higher obligation? If not the Lord Advocate, who can deal with this? It seems to me that the professional bodies will patently not really be able to do this.

Lord Advocate, is it not the case that some people might see your role not so much as one of an umpire or a referee but as one of a team manager? If something really goes wrong, some kind of action would be expected of the Lord Advocate in order to initiate action, if not by yourself, because you lack the legal power and competence to do so, by urging others to do so, whether that be the Scottish Government, the royal colleges or otherwise.

Our job is to speak for the petitioner—that is why we are here; it is, as the convener has said, nothing to do with politics—so, in that respect, is there not a statable argument that some people see your role in a much wider sense than you appear to have set out to us today? If there is merit in that argument, is it worth reflecting on whether there is any way in which your esteemed and distinguished office, which is so important to the dispatch of justice in Scotland, can take action to deal with the horrendous grievance that the petitioner in this case has suffered?

I have a final question for Laura Hansler. I know that the petitioner has not only come here today but been extensively involved in taking the matter forward in other ways, in the media and by directly lobbying. I believe that she might have reached out across the political spectrum in order to garner support, and cross-party support, which I hope that we have on this issue, is always a good thing. Has the petitioner done that and, if so, what response has she received from the various parties that she has approached?

Thank you.

I have two further questions. Was it the case that Transport Scotland did, in fact, do some work that has not been made public in which some use of private finance was considered, but, by the time that the work came to fruition, the financial crisis had emerged and interest rates had risen, so that option no longer became applicable? If that was the case, can you share with us the document that shows what consideration has been given to all those matters?

I appreciate that that decision may not be for you and that it may be for the Scottish Government, because under FOI—FOI requests have been made to you on such things frequently—there is an exemption to cover ministers’ desire to have candour of internal discussions. That has been invoked in response to a FOI request about the A96 that I have seen recently, for example. Have you given advice to ministers on that? Will you share that with us? Have you considered the options that Mr Barn set out? Did you leave things too late because, by the time that you came up with the proposal, interest rates had risen, which made the finance package unaffordable? Can you share with us what work you have been doing over the past two and a half years on all of that?