���˿���

That was quite a low bar.

May I ask about long Covid?

I have a final question, convener. Can I clarify—

Absolutely; I make clear that I am nothing to do with NatureScot, if that pleases the committee.

I thank the convener and committee members for allowing me to speak. I am joined by the petitioners; they are in the public gallery, so I am sure that, if I get anything wrong, they will be passing me notes.

As you rightly point out, at the heart of the issue is the replacement of the A82 between Inverarnan and Tarbet, much of which runs through my constituency. As you rightly highlight, the problem is that the design was undertaken using the design manual for roads and bridges rather than the more formal and more comprehensive STAG process, which we are all used to.

The context is important, because it will be the key capital expenditure in the national park. It is probably the biggest project of its kind and the most significant. Over the years, the Helensburgh and District Access Trust has worked with the national park to develop paths and walkways throughout some of our most iconic countryside. For example, they have developed the three lochs way, which runs from Balloch to Inveruglas and is one of the great Scottish trails. The hope is that we might be able to join it up with Ardlui and create a round-the-loch trail. The potential is enormous, but I do not need to remind any of you—I am sure that you have all visited Loch Lomond—of the heritage of the area and of what an outstanding environment it is. I believe that it is the most beautiful part of Scotland, but I am biased.

Transport Scotland has simply ignored the idea of giving consideration to an alternative option rather than just pushing ahead with the existing road. It has not considered that to the extent that we think possible. If we adopted a high-road option, rather than the existing route, we would protect oak woods and preserve the shoreline, we would have a walking and cycling route on the old road, and people would be able to access that northern part by foot to see some of the forest and woodland on the shoreline. We would have a great walking trail, the road safety issues at Arrochar primary school would be resolved, and we would have a faster and more direct route. All those benefits seem to have been ignored by the appraisal process.

That is a real opportunity but, when you look closer at this, it looks as though the appraisal of the shoreline route—the existing route—and the high route was not done in an unbiased manner. For example, not that I would know much about this, convener—I am sure that you do—but three tunnels were proposed and were costed, whereas no tunnels are required or appear on the diagrams and plans. The three tunnels that do not exist were costed at £90 million per kilometre, whereas PricewaterhouseCoopers estimates that cost to be £30 million per kilometre. I hesitate to say this, but it looks as though somebody was trying to stack the consideration against the alternative route so that they could stick to their engineering plans as they stood. That inflated the cost by £146.55 million. It is unrealistic to suggest that these costs match in some way.

There was insufficient consultation with the local community, and the groups behind the petition, including Friends of Loch Lomond and the Trossachs, were not consulted. They have had to dig away to find out that information. We have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to get this right. I understand the frustration of engineers who just want to get on and build the road on its current configurations. I have to say that that would cause traffic chaos, and the opportunity for a new route absolutely needs to be grabbed.

I know that the committee likes to get out of Holyrood, so may I invite you all to visit the area? We will walk you round the route and the potential options. However, you might also want to consider taking evidence from Transport Scotland; from the national park authority, which has a significant say in the matter; and from the minister, because our judgment is that there has been no political oversight of the issue. We have an opportunity to do the right thing, and if the committee suggested a STAG appraisal, we are confident that the high road would emerge as the preferred option.

The only thing that we find difficult is knowing who we should go to to ask for money, as Matt Holden has already alluded to. We would like to be able to go to one person whom we know is responsible for that and who has the hat of responsibility on their head. However, the current position is not clear, because the test and protect process has stopped. Various departments are involved, as is NHS National Services Scotland, which gets its funding through a different route. If having a chief scientist for public health would make the process easier, that would be good.

Given that you acknowledge—I think—that you have no power to demand what you were demanding in your letter of 3 February, will you withdraw that letter? If ministers, who ignored what you said last year, ignore you again and come down on the side of householders, is it not the case that it really is up to ministers, and not you, to act?

I will certainly try, convener.

My question is for Scottish Water. Last year, you listened to the minister and reduced the charge increase from 6.2 to 4.2 per cent. As I have said, the Water Industry Commission wrote to you on 3 February to try to unpick that. The consequence of that might be that you could impose eye-watering rises of something like 14 per cent on households and businesses, all of which are pedalling harder, and I would like to hear a commitment from you today that an above-inflation price rise is off the table and that a price freeze remains open for consideration.

It might be helpful if I share with the committee a copy of the letter of 3 February, which is quite specific. It says:

“As a result, charges would now need to increase by more than CPI+2% in each of the next four years”.

There is very little mention of the narrative that we have just heard about what projects would require to be cut. I think that I have made the point, but I just wonder whether there has been any discussion with ministers about revisiting objectives. Perhaps I can ask that question now, before I turn to Scottish Water.

I suppose that it depends whose side you are on: the regulator or households.