Chamber and committees

The point that I am making is that it is perhaps wrong to postulate that £115 million was a proper estimate at all; it was more or less a stab in the dark. We do not actually know whether that figure was a valid basis for a yardstick of value. Is that a fair comment?

Well, they do not really have much choice, do they?

Seriously, I want to ask one further question. As the petitioner rightly said, nine sections out of 11 have not been done. Only one of those has not had a design sorted out—essentially, the Dunkeld section. Three sections have had ministerial approval, but four have gone to what is called made orders, which means that they have gone through the legal process. The legal process for two of those four sections was completed well over a year ago—coming up for two years ago, I think.

Am I right in saying that absolutely nothing—apart from an unwillingness to devote sufficient funding—prevented the Scottish Government from progressing those four sections immediately after completion of the made orders, had there been a necessary will to implement the promised dualling of the A9? The made order means that you have sorted out compulsory purchase and ancillary roads orders; that you have gone through the process of consultation; that you have your design route; and that everything has been sorted out and is ready to roll—“shovel-ready” is the phrase. Given your knowledge of the practicalities about how those sorts of things work, is that an oversimplification or is it a fair comment and correct explanation?

I have just been refused some information—or, at least, information has been refused under FOI legislation—on the grounds of internal candour. That is the information about which I am talking. It is specifically about the interchange between you and the Scottish Government on value for money and the sufficiency of Scottish Government funding. As long as that information is not published, there will be unanswered questions, frustration, anger and irritation. That just will not go away so the sooner that the Scottish Government does what it did in the Holyrood inquiry in 2003, and the more recent Salmond inquiry, and publishes the available advice notes, the better for our work and, more important, the public interest.

I understand that those are all complex matters, and I know that you have been in regular dialogue with CECA, which you meet several times a year. What I do not understand—I do not say this to be recriminatory—is that you have admitted mea culpa, that the system is broken and that it is not fit for purpose, which is patently the case and has been obvious for quite a long time. Surely, therefore, particularly over the past couple of years of this parliamentary session, the advice about precisely how the contract should be changed—to perhaps some form of contract as set out by Mr Barn—so that risk sharing is used, should have been given back in 2021, at the latest. Why have we not made more progress more quickly? Mr Barn referred to glacial progress. Is he right about that as well?

Okay. I want to put to you a point that Mr Barn made. Four of the sections have made orders. In two sections, the made orders were made well over a year ago; the other two were made more recently but still some time ago. Mr Barn said that, as soon as things reach that point, the contracts are ready to go. People are ready to press the button and ready to go into procurement, provided that the Scottish Government provides the money. Did you ask the Scottish Government to provide the money for each of those sections as soon as they reached made orders? If so, what was the response?

That’s what they all say. [Laughter.]

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 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.