Seòmar agus comataidhean

“Hair today, gone tomorrow” comes to mind. However, I had better not stray into facetious territory, because, to be fair, the petitioner has raised a point about which he and other people feel strongly. For that reason, I do not think that we could close the petition yet; we should allow it serious consideration.

I am just re-reading that exchange, which you described as “grisly”, convener. I note that you said:

“I am happy to say to the petitioner that we will not bury the petition but will make efforts to keep it alive.”—[Official Report, Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee, 15 May 2024; c 18.]

Given that undertaking, convener, perhaps we should keep it open so that it is not given a premature burial.

The background to the petition as originally set out by Mr Macdonald is a little bit alarming. It is worth quoting, for the sake of the petitioner. It says:

“On Saturday 4th November 2023, Police Scotland attempted to arrest a paramedic at home due to missing a court date. The summons had been sent to a previous address and thus the paramedic had no knowledge of it. On the evening of the 6th of November, the individual was arrested and spent the night in the cells. The summons was for a court date in 2018.”

The attempted arrest was around five years after the original summons. I am concerned that we have not had a proper explanation for that.

I have had a very disturbing case in the constituency of an individual—obviously, I will not mention their name—who was the victim of a road traffic incident. Information about a court diet was mistakenly sent to the accused person and not to him, for which no full explanation has ever been provided. Therefore, I am not sure that this is just a one-off.

I wonder whether, out of fairness to the individual whose situation is described in the petition, we need to give a little bit more thought to how to get to the bottom of this. It is not clear to me what the status of the paramedic was, nor whether the requirement in the explanation that was provided by the public authority involved is applicable in this case—namely, that the onus was on the individual to inform the court of a change of address. If that is applicable, the point probably applies. However, if it is not applicable, we have not had an answer for the petitioner, and they have not had a proper hearing.

Perhaps we could give careful thought to this, in case I have got any of the detail of the situation wrong, in which case I would sincerely apologise to the committee for wasting time. However, this man was put in a cell in circumstances that seem to indicate some possible fault on the part of the state, and we cannot allow that to happen.

This is an excellent petition that raises very important questions. There is no doubt that there are serious problems in the Highlands and Islands—not just in Orkney and Shetland but in many other parts, including in my constituency—throughout rural Scotland and, as you mentioned, in our cities, where there are some gaps. Broadband connection is regarded as a sine qua non. Twenty years ago, it was a luxury, but it has now become, frankly, a necessity.

Broadband connection in rural properties can allow people to work remotely and carry out work anywhere in the world. That might be one of the key ways to stem the depopulation problem that remote parts of the Highlands, particularly the islands, face. Therefore, I wonder whether we could write to the Scottish Government to seek a bit more information. Its response was very comprehensive, to be fair to it, and it detailed the various programmes.

I should say that I had an involvement with the reaching 100 per cent—R100—programme and, indeed, its predecessor, which actually exceeded performance expectations. That is not something that one always hears in relation to public infrastructure projects, convener.

I suggest that we write to the Scottish Government to ask whether it will develop a new digital connectivity plan for the Highlands and Islands and request a timeline for procurement for project gigabit in the Highlands and Islands. That project was highlighted in the Government’s submission, but there is very little detail. There are promises of lots of money, but nobody really knows what is going to happen in the area or when. That is the basic problem, and people become a bit cynical about promises of such a grand nature, unless the meat can be placed in the middle of the sandwich.

Yes—a rich tapestry of transport issues.

On a practical level, Nairn is really a one-horse town, in the sense that there is one road in and one road out. There are various rabbit runs, which contain diverted traffic and cause danger, because people drive far too fast on them, particularly in the south of Nairn. However, it is basically a one-road town and, in the summer, with tourism and an increased number of visitors, it can take up to an hour to get from one end of it to another, which is about a mile and a half. I do not know whether there is another town in Scotland that has such a serious congestion problem. Nairn feels that it is a forgotten town.

The final point that I want to make—this is important, and I have put it to the cabinet secretary, but we have not really had an answer—is that the cabinet secretary says that she cannot announce a plan because the Government has not decided how to fund it. Well, it has announced a plan and a timeline for the A9, but it has not decided how to fund those sections north of Drumochter, for exactly the same reasons as for the A96. If the argument is that it cannot publish a plan because it does not quite know how it should be financed, I note that the A9 is in exactly the same position as the A96. Ergo, that argument is plainly fallacious. I am afraid that, locally, there is cynicism that that argument is just a pretext, because it is dragging its feet.

I believe that the main parties—not the Greens—support dualling. With the commitments to dual the rest of the A9 under question, unless there is a clear timeline, there is a concern that, after the 2026 election, the Inverness to Nairn section commitment will be dropped like those for the rest of the A9. I am sorry to take up so much committee time on a constituency matter, but I cannot allow that to happen. I cannot remain in my current position unless there is a timeline; that is not compatible with my standing up for my constituents. It would be a betrayal, and I am not prepared to be part of that betrayal. I just wanted to put that on the record.

I have some sympathy with Mr McLeod’s arguments, which are that the current system distorts the market by providing an unfair subsidy to those who operate on a hobby or minor basis. He has a point, albeit a free-market capitalist point. I commend him for setting out the argument, but it is clear that the Scottish Government is not going to move. I do not think that there is any chance that the petition will be granted, but he has aired the argument.

In case Mr McLeod is noting these proceedings, I add that self-catering properties have been the subject of what some people feel is a pretty punitive licensing regime, coupled with the need to obtain planning permission, which, in some cases, has caused thousands and thousands of pounds of expense. Self-catering properties also face a visitor levy that could be as much as 5 per cent on top of the accommodation costs, although it is not clear what the accommodation costs would be in bed-and-breakfast establishments, for example.

To balance out the equation, it seems to me that Mr McLeod, as a free marketeer, might not be too keen on the regulation or the taxation. Mentioning that might soften the blow of the petition being closed. However, given the plight of self-catering and small accommodation providers, particularly those who run the accommodation as a business, there are very real problems in that area. I am sure that we will have a lot more work on that in the next session of Parliament.

Do not get me into even more trouble than I might already be in, convener. [Laughter.]

The serious point is that at least one practice in my constituency—Culloden medical practice, with which I have been working on the upgrade of its facilities—cannot accept, and is not accepting, new patients. More and more people are moving to the area within its curtilage, as it were, but the practice has said that it is full and it cannot take any more patients. That has caused enormous problems. The practice has worked for years and I have tried to support it and other practices in the constituency, but they feel that they have hit a brick wall, and I know that the issue is not unique to Inverness.

Spending 8 per cent of the budget on primary care and the rest of it on hospitals therefore seems to be an imbalance. I think that that is the meat of Dr Shotton’s point—she is arguing not so much for more expansion, but for general practice to be allocated a greater share. She has pointed out that, frankly, most of the daily legwork is done by our very hard-working general practitioners.

I wanted to make that point on the record, with the request that the clerks perhaps try to make it a bit more succinct and less wordy. I would like to get the cabinet secretary’s views on that and find out whether the Scottish Government might wish to emphasise primary care in the deployment of its capital budget in the future in order to help practices such as the one at Culloden.

I am pleased that the Inverness Courier, in its wisdom, has chosen to lodge the petition. I thank it for doing so and for championing the issue, which is of massive concern to everyone in Nairn as well as the wider north-east. In one way, it is quite a modest ask. It is not demanding that the whole project be completed by a certain time. It is simply asking for the Government to publish a clear timeline for the dualling of the A96 between Inverness and Nairn, and for the construction of a bypass for Nairn.

You have outlined the sad history of the work to dual the A96 by 2030. Thus far, £90 million has been spent on preparatory work for the dualling of the A96, but not one centimetre of tarmac has been laid. Many people, including me, find that almost incomprehensible.

In the Government response in defence of the lack of a timeline, a number of points are made, which I will cover briefly, in the hope that the cabinet secretary might appear before us to give evidence on that and other transport measures, as we might have mooted before. I hope that that will give her some indication of the issues with which she will be concerned and which will certainly be put to her.

The first point is on the made orders, which are an important milestone in the statutory process to determine which properties require to be compulsorily purchased and which ancillary roads need to be adjusted to fit in with the new road. Those are the two main made orders, although there are subsidiary ones. The response says that they were made on 12 March 2024, which is quite true.

There is something that the response does not say, however. I have a document here—I believe that we are not allowed to brandish documents, otherwise I would do so right now—from Transport Scotland. It is a 2016 document, which states that the made orders were expected to be published later that year. Well, that was 2016; we then got to 2024. What happened?

It used to be that draft made orders were displayed on the Transport Scotland website. They were displayed in draft, and they were ready for ages in draft. The year in the provisional date on this draft was 2-0-1-blank. In other words, it was planned that this work would be done nearly a decade ago. It was also promised in the 2011 manifesto and slightly before that by Alex Salmond.

The first point that I want to make is that no explanation has ever been given as to why there was a delay of eight years, which is the longest delay ever in respect of reaching this important stage of the proceedings. That is point 1.

The Cabinet Secretary for Transport has a personal enthusiasm for taking the issue on, to be fair to her. She is the fourth transport minister that we have had in four years, which is not terrific. Setting that aside, the submission says that the reason for the delay is that

“It is fundamental that ... authorities allow sufficient time to properly consider the range of procurement routes available”.

How much more time do they need? I do not want to be too political, but the Government has had four years of this parliamentary session, and I have raised the issue, as members will appreciate, fairly frequently during those four years. That is point 2.

There are two final points that I want to make. I do not want to go on forever, convener—I have a habit of doing that.

I suppose that I should declare that I am still on the roll of solicitors and am registered with the Law Society of Scotland, although that is more of an expense than an interest, albeit a merited expense.

The thesis of Mr Miller’s petition is that he is calling for the legislation to be amended to enable the dismissal of property factors or for other regulations to be laid that would achieve the same aim. It seems to me that two things should be said about that. First, I think that Mr Miller is concerned not about tenement properties but about housing estates with open land that requires maintenance. The difficult issue of green belt has been a running theme with which I grappled—unsuccessfully, I should confess—during my time in your shoes, minister.

Secondly, it seems to me that the nub of Mr Miller’s concern is not so much the issue of who is the factor but of how much they charge. In her evidence to the committee on 13 November 2024, Sarah Boyack cited an example in which the charges had increased dramatically, with quarterly fees rising from £300 to £800 pounds.

If I am right that the nub—the beef—of the issue is not so much who the factor is but what they are doing and whether they are fleecing the owners, the owners’ problem is that going through the ordinary cause procedure in the sheriff court is too expensive. I know that they are absolutely right about that and can say beyond peradventure that only the very rich or those who are on legal aid can litigate in ordinary cause courts and that the cost deters everyone else.

I understand, minister, that you are providing the orthodox answer—as perhaps I did; not always but too often—that there is a remedy. The orthodox answer is that people can go to court and that is fine, but they cannot go to court because they do not have the money to go to court, so that is a theoretical remedy and not a practical one.

I will suggest a possible solution, although I do not know whether it will fly. We have, as alternatives to the ordinary cause court, the small claims court and the summary cause court. The small claims court is intended as one to which parties can go to explain their case, first in writing and then in person to the sheriff, with no lawyers involved—at least, lawyers should not be involved, although companies often send King’s counsel. That is absurd, but that is what they do. Expenses are not usually awarded by that court unless there is an abuse of process. I am not talking about the summary cause court but about the small claims court, because summary cause is similar to ordinary procedure and practice, in which lawyers end up being involved.

There could be a stipulation regarding charges that are shown to be excessive in accordance with simple evidence given by a tradesman about the ordinary rates for that trade. A change from £300 to £800 per quarter is an absurd increase by any account. The example that Sarah Boyack cites is an increase of almost 300 per cent and we have no reason to doubt that that is correct.

Would the answer not be to confer privative jurisdiction on the small claims court and give the sheriff in that court the power under legislation, if, in his discretion, he finds that the factor has overcharged and abused the system and a claim has been completely excessive, to say, “Look, you’ve abused your power. You’re no longer the factor”? That could be set out quite simply in law as a matter of principle. I checked “Gloag on Contract” and I think that the claim would be dealt on a quantum meruit basis. I have no doubt that Jill Clark and Megan Stefaniak can correct me if I am mistaken on the law.

I do not expect the minister to be able to answer that, because I have not given her notice of my question—I thought of it only last night when I was looking at the committee papers. I wanted to set out my suggestion and I am grateful to the convener for allowing me to do so at some length.

The evidence that we have heard from our colleagues today indicates that there has been a lack of response from health boards. I do not know why that is, but that is the situation. Because that is the case, Katy Clark sought to obtain relevant information but has not received it. Were we to close the petition today, the petitioners could easily and legitimately lodge a fresh petition, calling for the data to be analysed. Rather than have all that delay and extra work, we might as well keep the petition open so that we can ask for the information that Katy Clark has, quite rightly, sought. I am aware of the evidence that Clare Adamson gave on behalf of her constituents. Plainly, those who are affected have been affected very profoundly.