Chamber and committees

The Scottish Government’s first argument, that a policy of automatic exclusion would not be lawful because it would need to consider every case, is fair enough. I have no doubt that that is true, and it is almost certainly true legally. However, the reframing of the aim could be that there should be a presumption that automatic exclusion would be appropriate in extreme circumstances, such as the one that I mentioned. I do not think that that would risk breaching the law, but I am thinking out loud here.

Hold it open.

As you said, convener, the Scottish Government has committed to implementing the core provisions that the petitioner has asked for, from March this year. It has also now announced the introduction of the first set of relevant regulations. Therefore, it would appear that the Scottish Government is committed to doing what the petitioner has asked.

We all probably know of or have helped constituents with severe cases, where their homes are riddled with damp. That is a ghastly situation for any individual to find themselves in. I hope that the petitioner will be satisfied that, although we are not yet there, a successful outcome is promised. In the light of what has been promised, I do not think that there is any more that we can do. I therefore suggest that, in the circumstances, we close the petition.

Yes.

I was there for the debate, and I listened to it. I remember you asking whether the swimming lessons would be offered every year or whether it was a one-off, convener. I remember that exchange—it was a palpable hit.

If the Scottish Government has promised to consider a working group, would it be worth while to write to the minister to ask whether that decision will be taken in this parliamentary session and, if so, what the decision will be? That might not prevent us from closing the petition, because we have probably gone as far as we can with it. However, in doing so, I wonder whether it might be useful to give the minister a prod. Heaven forfend the thought that the minister would just play for time, but others might perhaps suggest that he would.

I do not think that we have any alternative but to close the petition. The residents of Seil island have made their point. It is all very well saying that Ofcom and all the authorities are committed to doing something about it, but that falls short of their actually doing anything about it.

The petitioner, Timothy Bowles, has raised a very fair point, which must apply to other islands, although there cannot be that many islands that will be in this predicament. The Scottish Government points out the considerable expenditure on the reaching 100 per cent—R100—broadband programme, which has laid 16 undersea cables that have assisted communications in many islands. It is not as if nothing has been done—a lot has been done. That means that there can be relatively few places left that are in this predicament. It is not beyond the wit of man for Ofcom and the Scottish Government, with all the mighty resources that they have, to find out which ones are left and sort them out. I hope that the petitioner perseveres.

I suppose that the number of signatories would, in itself, justify taking that somewhat unusual step.

The Government has provided quite a long response, but it does not seem to be much more than a patchwork of random actions and fairly modest grants for small pieces of work here and there. It does not really address the point that the petitioner stressed in her written submission of 5 January, which is that,

“Despite affecting at least 1 in 10 women and people assigned female at birth”—

females—

“Scotland does not collect national outcomes data for endometriosis. As a result, clinicians lack reliable evidence on:

• treatment effectiveness,

• treatment-related harm,

• complications and disease progression,

• and which patient groups are at highest risk of treatment failure.”

I noticed recent press coverage of the issue, in which it was pointed out that females who suffer from endometriosis suffer horrendously—they suffer years and years of unremitting pain.

Given the numbers involved, the Government’s apparent unwillingness to establish a database of outcomes is hard to understand. So determined is it to avoid doing so that it has pointed to all sorts of other things that seem to me to be inadequate substitutes.

There is just no time left. I hope that the ladies in the room and those outwith the Parliament who are interested in and affected by the matter will understand that, if the petition had been presented to us 12 months ago, we would certainly have taken evidence from the Minister for Public Health and Women’s Health. She would have been here answering questions within a couple of weeks.

That is what should happen, and the petitioner can secure that by lodging a similar petition in the next parliamentary session. I am perfectly sure that the issue must be considered for the sake of women who suffer, as I understand it, unbelievable and unbearable pain.

I think that we should close the petition. However, in saying that, I am mindful that Laura Hansler, as the petitioner, has achieved an extraordinary number of things, and that shows the committee’s value in our Parliament as a voice for ordinary people to come here with something that they wish to see achieved.

In paying tribute to Laura Hansler, I want to run through some of the things that are unlikely to have happened were it not for the work that she—and she alone—instituted. First, she paved the way for evidence to be heard from Mr Grahame Barn of the Civil Engineering Contractors Association Scotland, which is the representative body of most of the civil engineering companies—or the large ones, at least. He said that Transport Scotland was

“the worst client to work for in the UK.”

Mr Barn also pointed out, in a forensic display of knowledge of procurement policy, that the particular mode of procurement employed by Transport Scotland had the effect of deterring bidders, which meant that the Tomatin to Moy tender was abortive because there was only one bidder, which was rejected because its bid was too high, at £170 million. Then, later, Transport Scotland retendered that, and I believe that the total cost is £308 million. It may be that the Auditor General for Scotland will wish to examine that, and it may be that I will be inviting him to do so.

It is clear that Transport Scotland then changed its contract to the new engineering contract, which Mr Barn referred to in his evidence—I think that that was in January, early in the inquiry. The evidence that the committee took and Laura Hansler’s efforts led to a major change in Transport Scotland’s procurement policy. Transport Scotland might say that it would have done that anyway, but if it did, I am not sure that I would be too quick to believe it and swallow that.

Secondly, when the committee began the investigation, which became a formal inquiry, there was no revised timetable. However, due to the pressure that was in part exerted by the committee, time after time, meeting after meeting, a revised timetable was produced in December 2023.

The Beatles wrote the song “The Long and Winding Road”, and the A9 is the long and winding road of the Highlands. It has been a long and winding tale, which was supposed to have been concluded by 2025 but will now not be concluded until 2035—and many of us doubt whether it will be concluded by then. Be that as it may, the revised timetable was extracted only because of the work that this committee has done.

The petitioner has pressed for a memorial garden, and she informed me informally that she had had discussions with one of the contractors, which was willing to carry out that work. It is abundantly clear that Transport Scotland has blocked that. I have no doubt that it will redact and conceal the advice that it has given to ministers, as it has frequently done, but the truth will out eventually, and I think that that will have been the case. It is ludicrous for the minister to say that it is up to the community, because the community has not got assets to carry out a contract of hundreds of thousands of pounds—that is for the birds. That issue will have to be revisited.

Lastly, the committee suggested in its report, and I think that this was substantially your idea, convener, that one of the problems since 2011, when Alex Neil first made the promise—he gave a very effective statement of his evidence, as the late Alex Salmond did in his last public appearance in the Parliament before he died—has been slippage. The scrutiny by the Parliament has been sporadic, intermittent and insufficient. That is why I hope that the committee—if it agrees with the convener’s suggestion and with the one that I am repeating now—will write to the incoming Presiding Officer of the next parliamentary session to suggest that there should be a bespoke committee, given the scale and importance of the contract. Its scale is bigger than that of any previous construction contract ever in Scotland. Such a committee would mean that the scrutiny was not sporadic and intermittent; it would be consistent, thorough and forensic, and there would be no hiding place.

I have a personal interest, because I hope to be around for some more terms yet as the representative of the good people of Inverness and Nairn, if they feel that that is a good idea. I am determined to be there at the cutting of the red tape ribbon when the dualled A9 opens. I would prefer that to be in the next session than in the one thereafter.

We would need to also stress to the signatories of the petition that its not being closed does not mean—