Chamber and committees

I was pleased to hear Sarah Boyack say that, generally speaking, it is beneficial to have a factor rather than none. If you have no factor, common repairs, whether in a tenement or, for that matter, an estate where there is substantial common property to be maintained, can get neglected, and that will lead to huge problems. My experience of factors over 20 years in legal practice was that they had a bit of a thankless task, and the remuneration was generally modest in relation to the amount of work to be undertaken, the sheer amount of time spent on speaking to people and so on.

I have seen mostly good practice but, as I have said, members have received complaints, as indeed I have. However, I do think that many of the problems are not going to be solved by legal reform, because they are more practical difficulties. I might be a bit rusty, because it has been 20 years since I last practised, but as I understand it, if anyone is charging extortionate fees—which I think Sarah Boyack was suggesting in the example that she gave—there are existing legal remedies to challenge any grossly exorbitant fees for the provision of services. If services are worth, say, £1,000, you cannot charge £1 million for them, and people can, I believe, find a remedy through the sheriff court.

I am just not convinced that we are necessarily going to progress this issue through legislation, but I do support Mr Torrance’s recommendation that we find out whether the minister can make any further recommendations and that we see how the voluntary code of practice is getting on.

I was interested in the emphasis that you have given to the ONS decision. I do not recall there being any ministerial statement about that at the time. Why not?

Was SFT given a deadline when it was commissioned, and did it adhere to that deadline? When did it put forward the recommendations?

I will come on to that in a moment, convener.

The first area that I want to ask about is the outline plan for completion of the A9 dualling project by the envisaged date of 2035. That is subject to one important caveat, which raises serious questions in my mind about whether the plan will be delivered. That is that the use of mutual investment model contracts is

“subject to ... further decision making in late 2025”,

based on

“an updated assessment of market conditions.”

That means that a decision could be taken not to use MIM.

What criteria will be applied in 2025 as to whether MIM will be used? If MIM is not used, what is the contingency plan?

I have one final question. Inverness is 168 miles from Glasgow, where Transport Scotland’s big office is located. There is no Transport Scotland office in Inverness or the Highlands. Almost all the capital money will be spent on the A9 or the A96 over the next 10 years. Why is there not a Transport Scotland office based in Inverness, and will there be one? Will staff be relocated there? Is the absence of such a presence not a bit of a sign that there is still not an absolute commitment to delivery of the project? Staff have to travel up the road and stay in a hotel or drive up the road and back. I have met some of the staff—

I am very concerned about the general issue of public bodies marking their own homework. When any complaint is dealt with, whether it is a complaint about staff or management, there is a tendency to circle the wagons, and nothing very much ever happens. That concern is real, and the answers from our witnesses have been very helpful.

I postulate that one solution to resolve the question of what happens if the whistleblower’s recommendation is ignored could be, if it is a criminal matter, to refer the case to, for example, a children’s panel. If it were not a criminal matter and therefore outwith the remit of the children’s panel, could there be a procedure to refer a matter to the Scottish Government’s children’s minister? That, albeit not a perfect remedy or disposal, would at least provide a route to take. I am just thinking out loud here; I have no expertise in this area at all. Would either of those possibilities, or other possibilities, be something that you might want to consider and come back to us on, given the current time constraints?

That is really helpful. I was keen to raise the issue because we blithely assume that, if the money is there, the work can be done. In light of what you have said, that assumption might prove to be naive and optimistic, particularly with the grid work, which—I should have mentioned—has been £40 billion, which is astronomical. We might be left as the Cinderella of the civil engineering sector for roads projects. That is the concern that I wanted to raise.

To close the question, I put to you that the solution is that Transport Scotland must work more collaboratively with industry as partners, not as passive recipients of an occasional piece of work when the Government decides to get around to it, but as partners with the Scottish Government, so that it can keep abreast of the ever-changing commercial realities and challenges that might make it difficult for the Scottish Government to achieve the dualling of the A9, such as capacity and the fact that there might be other, more competitive and financially attractive work for your members.

Okay.

The basic point was about engendering confidence. I want us to have what we have not had over almost the past three years of this session of Parliament: confidence that a stream of work will go ahead in future.

I want to finish off my point, convener. If there is time for me to come back to entirely different matters, I would appreciate that, but other members will want to have their shot.

I have spoken to companies, which I will not name, that are involved in the provision of private capital—whether that is through MIM or by other means is not really important. There is massive appetite to provide private capital to the Scottish Government, because it is recognised as a secure long-term form of investment. Having spoken to three of those companies, I know that there is a desire in Britain and Europe to provide private capital. That means that there is the potential for competitive interest and for Transport Scotland to get a good deal. That approach would involve less risk than investing in, for example, a private plc.

Given that that appetite exists—I heard Transport Scotland officials acknowledge and corroborate that in the recent briefing that we had—is now not the time to strike forward and make progress, rather than kick the can down the road? My constituents have seen that happening for nearly the past three years, and they are sick and tired of that.

I ask you again, Alison Irvine: will you not look again and urge the Scottish Government to reconsider the timescale? People are worried and very sceptical about whether, when 2025 comes along, there will be rapid moves into procurement of the middle and northern sections, which involve my constituency.

That is not such a factor for long-term contracts. For long-term borrowing, the interest rate levels out. That point that has been put to me by the industry, which says that Transport Scotland does not seem to have understood it.