Chamber and committees

I have listened with interest to what the petitioners have said. I will mention two issues. One is that Mr Sinclair and our two online witnesses call for reinstatement of local provision of services, whereas Dr Baird calls for a slightly different additional model of advocacy. Both arguments have a rationale behind them. I understand that, but our job is, to some extent, to play devil’s advocate.

I will put this to Dr Baird to see what his response is. Rhoda Grant, Emma Harper, Colin Smyth and I represent constituencies that are largely or partly rural, so we are performing an advocacy service of a sort in the casework that we do. I expect that we all take that job very seriously. It is a big job, and we each represent tens of thousands of people. How on earth can one centralised body hope to advocate for the interests of people throughout the country who live in a plethora of differing remote communities, each of which has its own particular needs, problems, interests and challenges? How could one centralised body effectively perform such an enormous role? How would it be accessible to people? Is there a risk that it would be just another faceless organisation, adding to the number that exist already?

I am sorry that I am putting it a wee bit provocatively, Dr Baird, but I am trying to make a point, as someone who takes advocacy for the remote and rural areas in my constituency seriously. It takes me a day properly to go over a case with an individual, if I want to do it justice. We need to really listen in order to be able then to represent and articulate that individual’s concerns properly. It cannot be done quickly and we cannot cut corners. It is inevitably, and rightly, time consuming. How on earth could a national agency be efficacious?

I do not think that you said you welcomed the national centre for remote and rural healthcare—or perhaps you did—but you said that it was a step in the right direction. Could that new body be set up in such a way that its remit could take up the issues that you have raised? We can raise that with the Scottish Government following this meeting, if you and your colleagues think that that would be a good idea. Would that be a step forward?

I am putting to you that that new body could be tasked specifically, in law, with the remit of addressing the access issues that you raised. It may not operate perfectly in practice, but if we clearly define the remit, duty and tasks that the new body should perform when setting it up then, surely, if we task it to address inequities of access for people who live in remote and rural Scotland, that would at least give the opportunity for things to improve.

Thank you for your answer—you have covered a lot of territory. I will pursue some of the points that you made. Your petition calls for an agency—presumably, that means one agency, if I have understood it correctly. How is one agency going to deliver the kind of advocacy that would be required from the bottom up?

As I understand it, you are suggesting the establishment of an agency not to deliver or procure service provision, but to advocate that services be provided more effectively to people who live in remote and rural areas, and to ensure that inequities in access are addressed and not ignored, with no stonewalling or gaslighting. If that is the case—I put this to you as a devil’s advocate, I suppose—would it not be more efficacious, in respect of achieving what you wish to achieve, to have an advocate for the rural voice on each health board?

Would that be perhaps be a different way to proceed, rather than the establishment of one presumably centrally based agency, or wherever it is based? It would have to be based somewhere. Would that be an alternative model that would not change the way that health boards operate, because they would include an advocate among their number with a specific remit to make sure that remote and rural issues are not overlooked and are addressed? I put that to Gordon Baird and the other petitioners, because you are all covering interlocking aspects of the issue. Would that be a better model than having one agency that would inevitably operate on a high level?

Yes; I concur.

I agree with the suggestions that have been made—to close the petition, but to recommend that the petitioner and others pursue the matter with their MSPs.

As an MSP who drives the A9, I suspect, rather more frequently than others, I add that the 50mph speed limit for HGVs on that road has, I think, in the view of the vast majority of my constituents, added considerably to the safety of the traffic. Previously, lorries going at 40mph and people breaking the speed limit at 80mph gave it a kind of “Wacky Races” feel. To be serious, that massively enhanced the risk of fatalities, which is a very, very serious problem. I must admit that I have moved from being agnostic at the beginning to being a very firm supporter of the 50mph limit. I just wanted to put that on the record, convener.

I very much hope that the safety aspects, particularly on the A9—which I think can be monitored and proven by the study into that that I believe is being undertaken by Transport Scotland—are taken into consideration. That study will be a useful piece of evidence for the measure being extended to apply to the rest of Scotland, as indeed it applies throughout the rest of the UK.

Okay. As you will understand, it is not the function of this committee to go into matters in detail; we simply give voice to petitioners who come to the Parliament with a cause and seek transparency and accountability. It is not our purpose to go into the issue in detail—it is our job to decide whether someone else should do so.

Therefore, I have a simple question. Would you support HIAL’s handling of the air traffic management strategy process being the subject of an external review by an organisation such as Audit Scotland?

Is there any other body that you think could carry out an audit? I am mindful that any body looking into the matter would have to have rather more than a rudimentary understanding of the air traffic control issues, which are, as we have heard from the Civil Aviation Authority, fairly complex. I had pondered whether Audit Scotland is in fact the right body, for the reasons that you have stated. Can you suggest any way in which public accountability could be achieved by a body that has a reasonable knowledge of the issues involved, which would be essential to do a proper job?

Thank you, Inglis Lyon, for setting out clearly why you changed tack. You have set out compelling reasons for doing so in a candid and helpful way.

I want to ask about something that Mr Henderson raised in the previous evidence session, which was the extent to which changing tack has incurred a cost in expenditure that could fairly be described as abortive—in other words, expenditure on pursuing a model that has now been shelved for five years. What level of abortive expenditure has there been on developing the air traffic management strategy?

So the headline figure of £9 million needs to be reduced by various factors. Although the cost was incurred in pursuit of a project that has been shelved, the expenditure is serving other valuable purposes for HIAL—I understand that.

Are you able to say what you expect the price range for the sale of New Century house to be in relation to its purchase? Would the sale, as you seem to imply, further reduce the £9 million cost by perhaps producing a profit?