Seòmar agus comataidhean

Thank you very much, Mr Neil. There is some fascinating new information for the committee in the detail that you have given.

Colleagues are keen to come in with questions. I offer you the opportunity to make one observation, which is to speculate, although that is always a dangerous thing to do. When the decision was announced, you were clearly satisfied that a detailed programme was in place that would allow for the project to be completed by the specified date and that, within the funding allocations that were anticipated to be available, you had a reasonable expectation that the project could be funded without compromising the Government’s ability to proceed with other projects that were also important.

Something therefore happened. When you made the decision, even though there was a manifesto commitment, was there any resistance to the principle underpinning the decision from those, perhaps from Transport Scotland or elsewhere, who did not feel the same obligation to respect manifesto commitments that you, as a minister, might have felt were important? Did you feel that your successors might be influenced by other considerations at that point that you had been determined to overrule and insist were not adhered to?

Okay. Doreen Grove, Amy Watson and minister, thank you very much for your participation and attendance. We will have a brief suspension while we move to the next session.

You can have a final question, Mr Mountain.

You have identified some suggestions for how you feel funding for the project might be realised. In response to Mr Golden, who was looking at the climate change impact requirements that had to be assessed at the time, you talked about the fact that it is not roads but the products that drive on roads that are, potentially, the leading instigators of climate damage. If there are funding ways to do it, I am interested to know whether, in your mind, the inclusion of Greens in the Government who may well just be opposed to the principle of the road, irrespective of how fuel-efficient the vehicles on it are, is one of the key obstacles that prevents the Government that made the manifesto commitment from proceeding, or is there something else? In other words, is that one of the unspoken obstacles that, irrespective of whether a funding mechanism is identified, is potentially halting progress on that road?

PE2032 seeks to improve the support that is available to injured soldiers and veterans in Scotland and was lodged by James Brebner. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to improve the support that is provided by public bodies to injured soldiers and veterans in Scotland by ensuring that there are clear pathways for their injuries to be treated by appropriate consultants; establishing a veterans trauma network, similar to that which operates in England and Wales; ensuring all correspondence raising concerns or making complaints about their treatment from veterans to the Scottish Government is acknowledged and responded to; and reviewing and seeking to update the way in which the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman handles complaints from veterans about the health service.

Mr Brebner tells us that he was injured in the Falklands while serving with the Parachute Regiment, which has left him with severe leg pain.

In responding to the petition, the Scottish Government states that it is working with colleagues across the NHS and the veterans community to develop a Scottish veterans treatment pathway and that it has also been working with the Veterans Trauma Network in England to understand how a similar service might be applied in Scotland. The response also notes that all correspondence that is received by the Scottish Government is logged centrally, with the aim of providing a reply within 20 days of receipt, as well as highlighting the point that it would be a matter for the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman to comment on its own process and any potential review of how it handles complaints from veterans about the health service.

We have also received a submission from the petitioner commenting on the Scottish Government’s response, highlighting his continued concerns about the delay in establishing a trauma network and sharing his experience of trying to navigate the processes.

We have a very interesting petition before us. Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?

Under agenda item 4, we will consider continued petitions. The first such petition is PE1902, on an appeal process for community participation requests. Our parliamentary colleague Edward Mountain has stayed with us to assist in the consideration of the petition, on which he will make a representation. We have also received a submission from Rhoda Grant, to which I will refer in a moment.

The petition, which was lodged by Maria Aitken on behalf of Caithness Health Action Team, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to allow an appeal process for community participation requests under the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015.

We previously considered the petition on 18 January, when the committee agreed to write to the Scottish Government, and we have since received a response from the Minister for Community Wealth and Public Finance. The minister stated that the Scottish Community Development Centre is

“giving careful consideration to when an appeal could be made”,

how the process could be

“fair, open and transparent, and who would be best placed to manage that process.”

As I said, we have received a written submission from Rhoda Grant, who is unable to attend the meeting this morning. She has made the case for CHAT to be accepted by NHS Highland as a community organisation under the participation request process, and she has asked that the committee put the matter to NHS Highland. She has also requested that the committee keep the petition open until the Scottish Community Development Centre has published its proposals on an appeal process.

Before I ask committee members how they would like to proceed, I ask Edward Mountain whether he has any suggestions.

I am tempted to suggest that we keep the petition open and write to NHS Highland, as Rhoda Grant has suggested, seeking the inclusion of CHAT in its community participation representation. There is also a material basis for us to wait for the Scottish Community Development Centre to publish its proposal, so that we can be satisfied that progress will be made on those two fronts.

Are there any other suggestions, or are we content?

Are colleagues minded to accept that suggestion?

Members indicated agreement.

Thank you very much. Doreen, good morning. [Interruption.] I am sorry, we cannot hear you.

The next item on our agenda is an evidence session as part of our inquiry into the A9 dualling project. It relates to our consideration of petition PE1992 on dualling the A9 and improving road safety, as lodged by Laura Hansler. As colleagues and those following our proceedings in relation to that petition might know, we are joined by Edward Mountain in his capacity as a reporter from the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee on this matter. Good morning to you, Edward.

Our consideration of the issue has seen us invite evidence from the petitioner, the transport and civil engineering industries, community councils and road safety organisations. Indeed, we had an evidence session in the region earlier in the summer to gather views from people, businesses and organisations along the route between Perth and Inverness. Key themes that have emerged from that consultation are set out in the SPICe briefing that is included in the committee’s papers.

We have primarily been focusing on the action that needs to be taken to get the project back on track. In early September, however, we agreed to explore the Scottish Government’s decision in 2011 to commit to a 2025 target for dualling the A9 between Perth and Inverness. That is the focus of today’s discussion.

I am absolutely delighted to welcome back a well-kent face to the Scottish Parliament’s proceedings: Alex Neil, the former Cabinet Secretary for Infrastructure and Capital Investment, who is—I am sure—the man to enlighten us on those matters. It is certainly good to see you back with us. You are somebody who, like me or, one might argue, other members of the committee, never shies away from being forthright in your views, so I am sure that we will have an enlightening evidence session. Before we move to questions, it would be helpful if you made an opening statement.