Seòmar agus comataidhean

I have a quick question for some members of the panel. If there were to be a statutory right to learn to swim, would there be more use of pools due to more children being taught how to swim than at present? Would there therefore be additional income to pools as a general proposition? If so, can the panellists quantify that factor to help to take forward the delivery of a statutory right to learn to swim? That would be on the basis that it would help to bring in additional income, which would thereby help to meet the steep costs of running swimming pools.

Rarely have I heard an answer from any witness that combines such clarity with a comprehensive account of what needs to be done. Perhaps that is a model for our ministers and Governments to emulate. In all seriousness, it is time for the parties to sign the cheque, instead of just uttering words.

I declare a very strong interest as the constituency MSP for this section of the A96 and as someone who has campaigned for at least three and a half decades for the dualling of the road.

The cabinet secretary’s evidence raised more questions than it provided answers, so I respectfully suggest that we write to her to seek clarity on a number of issues. The first issue is the progress that the Scottish Government is making to develop a detailed timeline for the dualling of the A96 between Inverness and Nairn and the construction of a bypass for Nairn, given that the acquisition of the land is now about to take place or is about to be completed.

The second issue is whether the expected statement to the Parliament, to which the convener alluded, on the decision on the use of mutual investment model contracts for the remaining sections of the A9 will also include an update on the use of MIM as a procurement option for dualling the A96 between Inverness and Nairn, or whether the cabinet secretary expects that there will be separate parliamentary statements—one for the A9 and one for the A96.

There are three other brief issues that I wish to include in the letter to the cabinet secretary. First, the Auditor General has expressed some criticism about the use of MIM, and it would be interesting to hear the cabinet secretary’s response to that.

Secondly, the convener referenced the review of the capital budget. However, the capital budget this year is over £6 billion, and it is to be expected that it would be of that order for the next 10 years—in other words, £50 billion or £60 billion over the next 10 years. By my reckoning, the combined cost of the commitments on the A96 and the A9 would be far less than a tenth of that. What the cabinet secretary has never done—and what we might usefully invite her to do—is say why we cannot use the existing capital budget and the design and build options. It seems that, if the Highlands is to be attributed the priority that I believe that the area should be given, there is more than enough money for the investments in those roads, given the likely scale of the capital budget historically and going forward.

Lastly, there is considerable industry concern about the method of procurement at present—and under MIM, which might be unpopular with some contractors, because they would not be able to bid against European companies due to the scale of the contract. There is a belief that a framework approach, as used by Scottish Water and SSEN, should be used, which would mean that a number of companies would be qualified to obtain work over the next, say, 10 years, which considerably reduces the costs and bureaucracy involved and would provide certainty for the companies, as they would know that they would have an order book. It would also mean that we can deliver our roads contracts. Otherwise, the civil engineering contracting companies in the Highlands may well choose to do other less risky and more profitable work, such as projects involving pump storage, railways, grid upgrades, wind farms, housing, health infrastructure and so on.

Even if, after 15 years of dithering and indecision, we resolve the funding issue, there are increasing worries, as expressed by Grahame Barn of the Civil Engineering Contractors Association, that we might find that there is no one left to come to the ball—that is, there is no dance partner or contractor, because they are doing other work that has to be done, to the scale of around £50 billion to £60 billion in the Highlands alone over the next 10 years.

I am sorry to speak at such length—not for the first time, I daresay, convener—but I hope that members will agree that we should seek answers now to each of those issues, rather than waiting to the very fag end of the parliamentary session. Lastly, I thank the Inverness Courier for its campaigning efforts to stand up for the people whom I represent and the people who read it.

I am sorry that I am not able to be with you in person today. Thank you for all the work that you are doing in your different ways, which is hugely valuable to Scotland. As someone who is even older than the other members of the committee—I will not say by what margin, but I learned to swim 60 years ago—I feel that the advantages of swimming, as the panellists have explained in different ways, are myriad and immense. They affect just about every area of life, including mental health, physical wellbeing and the ability to learn—we have heard that in the evidence.

I want to ask just one question: should there not be a statutory duty in Scotland to ensure that every child has the opportunity to learn how to swim at school at the appropriate age? I presume that the younger they do that, the better, although I defer to your knowledge on that aspect. I ask that question for a very simple reason. We have already heard about the very real pressures and costs that local authorities face, which will never go away. It seems to me that, unless there is a very clear legal duty to ensure that every child has the opportunity to learn how to swim, we will always be floundering around as we face the pressures of pools closing, and we will never achieve what we all want to achieve.

In order to fund that, we could stop spending money on a range of things—I could make suggestions about those but, frankly, now is not the time to do so—and could instead spend that money on ensuring that every child in Scotland at least has the opportunity, as a right, by law, to learn how to swim, because it is so important that they do that, for the reasons that the witnesses have identified. I do not know whether the witnesses are able to answer that question now or whether they wish to go away and reflect on it, because it is a big one.

My final point is that there is an election coming up, so you have an opportunity to make a pitch to all the parties to include such a proposal in their manifestos at the forthcoming election, which some of us may hope to participate in.

Gillian Martin has taken a close interest in the petition and, from statements in and outside the chamber, I know that she has a keen interest in pursuing that work.

I am aware of a number of dynamic developments that are taking place at the moment. For example, the Republic of Ireland now mandates community benefit at a rate, in effect, of €8,000 per megawatt. That is compulsory. Here, the £5,000 per megawatt rate is not mandatory because there are no legal powers to mandate it, as has been noted by the Scottish Government.

However, there is movement. Just yesterday, a senior official at Highlands and Islands Enterprise informed me that SSEN Transmission is to set up a model of community benefit for upgrades to pylons and infrastructure. That is a new development, and I am keen to find out more about it.

In addition, at least one offshore wind developer—BlueFloat Energy, together with Nadara—is considering and promoting community ownership for offshore wind. That is an example that many other projects may wish to follow, so it could have enormous importance.

Finally, coupled with that, I understand that the UK Government is not unsympathetic to some kind of scheme for community ownership, and one wonders whether that might be one of the most practical purposes for funding from Great British Energy, possibly alongside the Scottish National Investment Bank.

HIE has a close interest in taking all of that forward, because much of the activity is in the Highlands and Islands.

Although I appreciate that we are moving towards the end of this session of Parliament, all of those developments—and probably others of which I am unaware—mean that I am keen to write again to the Acting Minister for Climate Action to ask for further information as to when the energy strategy and just transition plan will be published and whether, specifically, it will contain proposals for community ownership, and to ask for some detail of the work that is being done with the UK Government and for a ministerial statement at some point, perhaps in the autumn.

Community ownership is an idea for which the time has come—interest in it is growing throughout the country, and concern is growing about some aspects, including visual impacts, of renewable energy in Aberdeenshire, the Highlands and many other places south of Scotland.

If we do not get on with it now, Scotland and Britain will be missing a trick. I am sorry to go on about it for so long, but I think that there are compelling reasons to keep the petition open and to allow the petitioners the full opportunity to benefit from what seems to be a congenial political environment.

Gillian Martin has taken a close interest in the petition and, from statements in and outside the chamber, I know that she has a keen interest in pursuing that work.

I am aware of a number of dynamic developments that are taking place at the moment. For example, the Republic of Ireland now mandates community benefit at a rate, in effect, of €8,000 per megawatt. That is compulsory. Here, the £5,000 per megawatt rate is not mandatory because there are no legal powers to mandate it, as has been noted by the Scottish Government.

However, there is movement. Just yesterday, a senior official at Highlands and Islands Enterprise informed me that SSEN Transmission is to set up a model of community benefit for upgrades to pylons and infrastructure. That is a new development, and I am keen to find out more about it.

In addition, at least one offshore wind developer—BlueFloat Energy, together with Nadara—is considering and promoting community ownership for offshore wind. That is an example that many other projects may wish to follow, so it could have enormous importance.

Finally, coupled with that, I understand that the UK Government is not unsympathetic to some kind of scheme for community ownership, and one wonders whether that might be one of the most practical purposes for funding from Great British Energy, possibly alongside the Scottish National Investment Bank.

HIE has a close interest in taking all of that forward, because much of the activity is in the Highlands and Islands.

Although I appreciate that we are moving towards the end of this session of Parliament, all of those developments—and probably others of which I am unaware—mean that I am keen to write again to the Acting Minister for Climate Action to ask for further information as to when the energy strategy and just transition plan will be published and whether, specifically, it will contain proposals for community ownership, and to ask for some detail of the work that is being done with the UK Government and for a ministerial statement at some point, perhaps in the autumn.

Community ownership is an idea for which the time has come—interest in it is growing throughout the country, and concern is growing about some aspects, including visual impacts, of renewable energy in Aberdeenshire, the Highlands and many other places south of Scotland.

If we do not get on with it now, Scotland and Britain will be missing a trick. I am sorry to go on about it for so long, but I think that there are compelling reasons to keep the petition open and to allow the petitioners the full opportunity to benefit from what seems to be a congenial political environment.

We now travel from Loch Lomond up to the inner Moray Firth as I speak to PE2132.

In her introductory remarks, the cabinet secretary said that orders have been issued, that the compulsory purchase process will be completed and that, thereafter, the procurement will be determined and a timetable will be set. The petitioner asked for a timeline and a completion date for the dualling of the Inverness to Auldearn section of the A96, including the Nairn bypass, to be published by this Easter. Although I do not want to dwell on what is now classified as ancient history, the pledge to deliver a Nairn bypass was first made—by our party, cabinet secretary—in 2009 and became a Government pledge in 2011. As far as I know, it has been repeated at seven elections, which must make it the daddy or the granddaddy of all pledges and the longest extant undelivered promise by the Scottish Government.

I have one very simple question for the cabinet secretary. Will she today provide a clear and unambiguous assurance that a ministerial statement will be made before the end of this session of Parliament to set out a detailed timetable for the delivery of the dualling of the road between Inverness and Auldearn, including the Nairn bypass, and will that statement include a firm date when the work will be completed?

You have not given it. I have asked you for it and you have not given it, so I will move on to the next question.

At the moment, the Scottish Government’s capital budget for 2024-25 is £6.2 billion, of which £4.7 billion comes from His Majesty’s Treasury. That is just one year’s budget. The cost of the work that I am talking about is considerably less than that.

There has not really been a substantial investment in major road improvements in the Highlands. We have seen welcome improvements in the rest of Scotland. I welcome that, as a Scot, and that is great, but we have not seen those improvements in the Highlands. Our argument—the excellent campaigning efforts of the Inverness Courier are exactly aligned with mine—is that it is the Highlands’ turn.

The Government has repeatedly promised that these roads will be delivered, including the A96, by 2030. So far, we have spent £100 million on the dualling of the A96 project but not one centimetre of tarmac has been laid. That is quite an extraordinary feat of profligacy—

I have studied the petitioner’s response to the Scottish Government’s written submission of 31 January. The petitioner’s written response, published on 13 March, raises a whole series of issues, some of which are somewhat technical and legal.

The thrust of it is that the petitioner adduces various examples of statements, notably by the First Minister in 2023, who stated that there should be

“the right to public participation in public affairs as expressed in Article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.”

The petitioner has highlighted that MSPs continue to ignore the Parliament’s motion of 2 September 2012, which acknowledges the sovereign right of the Scottish people to determine the form of Government that is best suited to their needs.

The petitioner also challenges the view that the matter is not within the devolved competence of the Scottish Parliament and he refers to the Scottish Human Rights Commission as endorsing that view. Without rehearsing all that the petitioner said on 13 March, the letter raises further issues of substance that the cabinet secretary, Angus Robertson, should be asked to comment on further in order to do the petitioner justice. This is the first time that we have considered the matter, and the petitioner is perhaps right when he states that it is disappointing that the Scottish Government’s reply was not issued by Angus Robertson but by an official.

Perhaps Mr Robertson could be asked to give detailed comment on all the arguments that the petitioner set out in response to the initial Government position. I appreciate that that will take more time, but this is the first calling of the petition. The issues that have been raised are substantial and a mixture of political, legal and technical. I will not add to that, as I could quote extensively from the petitioner’s detailed and helpful submission, but I feel that the petition requires a further response from the Scottish Government.

Gillian Martin has taken a close interest in the petition and, from statements in and outside the chamber, I know that she has a keen interest in pursuing that work.

I am aware of a number of dynamic developments that are taking place at the moment. For example, the Republic of Ireland now mandates community benefit at a rate, in effect, of €8,000 per megawatt. That is compulsory. Here, the £5,000 per megawatt rate is not mandatory because there are no legal powers to mandate it, as has been noted by the Scottish Government.

However, there is movement. Just yesterday, a senior official at Highlands and Islands Enterprise informed me that SSEN Transmission is to set up a model of community benefit for upgrades to pylons and infrastructure. That is a new development, and I am keen to find out more about it. In addition, at least one offshore wind developer—BlueFloat Energy, together with Nadara—is considering and promoting community ownership for offshore wind. That is an example that many other projects may wish to follow, so it could have enormous importance.

Finally, coupled with that, I understand that the UK Government is not unsympathetic to some kind of scheme for community ownership, and one wonders whether that might be one of the most practical purposes for funding from Great British Energy, possibly alongside the Scottish National Investment Bank. HIE has a close interest in taking all of that forward, because much of the activity is in the Highlands and Islands.

Although I appreciate that we are moving towards the end of this session of Parliament, all of those developments—and probably others of which I am unaware—mean that I am keen to write again to the Acting Minister for Climate Action to ask for further information as to when the energy strategy and just transition plan will be published and whether, specifically, it will contain proposals for community ownership. We could also ask for some detail of the work that is being done with the UK Government and for a ministerial statement at some point, perhaps in the autumn.

Community ownership is an idea for which the time has come—interest in it is growing throughout the country, and concern is growing about some aspects, including visual impacts, of renewable energy in Aberdeenshire, the Highlands and many other places south of Scotland. If we do not get on with it now, Scotland and Britain will be missing a trick. I am sorry to go on about it for so long, but I think that there are compelling reasons to keep the petition open and to allow the petitioners the full opportunity to benefit from what seems to be a congenial political environment.