COLIN MARR: Public authorities need to return to genuine consultations and take the voice of the Highland business community seriously

What is happening with public consultation? As I write this, the public are being consulted on three different issues – each of which could have a huge impact on the future of the Highlands.

Transport Scotland – a Scottish Government department – is consulting about the “National Speed Management Review,” which proposes reducing the speed limit on single carriageway roads from 60 mph to 50 mph. It is also consulting on the future of “the A96 corridor,” while Highland Council is consulting about the “Transient Visitor Levy” – or tourist tax to you and me.

In each case, I worry that these aren’t true consultation exercises – where the consultants want to hear the public’s views to inform their decision-making. My concern is that they are written in a way that pushes the public towards the result that the consultant wants and will then be used to justify a decision that has effectively already been taken.

Let’s take “the A96 corridor review.” Confused by the title? Me too. The Scottish Government’s current position is that it proposes to dual the A96, a commitment made in 2011 but where no real progress, certainly precious little actual dualling, has happened.

But here’s where my concern lies. The consultation only has six questions – and by the time you remove – “how did you hear about this,” “anything else,” and “are you…” – there is only one meaningful question which reads:

“Do you agree that the proposed ‘package’ will improve your experience of living, working, and travelling along the A96 corridor?”

Even the biggest advocates of full dualling would struggle to say no to this question. Of course, it will. Any improvement to road and rail times will make our experience better. But the consultation gives no option to say that our experience would be improved much further if the original plan of full dualling was stuck to.

So, what are the chances of Transport Scotland declaring that most people surveyed said the package will improve their lives, then using that result to say that full dualling is no longer required?

The “National Speed Management Review” is similar. It’s a fancy title, but it only has one real proposal, and that’s to reduce the speed limit on single carriageway roads from 60 mph to 50 mph. I’m sure this makes perfect sense in the central belt, where few of the major arterial routes are single carriageway, but in Inverness, the A9 and A96 are both essential routes and are predominantly single carriageway.

The consultation is not fit for purpose. It asks the public if they think a reduction in speed will reduce injuries. As non-experts, I’m not sure where we get the knowledge to answer these questions. But they are written in an emotive manner and push us towards the idea that lower speeds mean fewer injuries.

Let’s not be surprised if this careful framing of questions leads to lower speed limits. The result may be fewer serious injuries on our roads – and who wouldn’t support that – but then the commitment to dualling the A9 and A96 will be reversed as the roads are safer. No account will be taken of the damage being done to business and personal travel through increased journey times. And we’ll be told the public supported the decision when our personal experience will be that they didn’t.

I don’t think it’s an exaggeration to say that the Highlands has not had its fair share of transport infrastructure improvement – either road or rail – and that Transport Scotland is now looking for reasons to stop progress in a region they have little personal knowledge of.

Finally, Highland Council is currently consulting on a visitor levy. The accommodation industry in the Highlands is in a fragile state due to increasing costs – but in spite of this, it appears willing to support the principle of a visitor levy. They are, however, united in their opposition to the current proposals.

The Highland Council is aware of the industry’s concerns but continues to promote the consultation on social media with supportive, if somewhat confused, statements about what the money will buy. Every question in the survey is accompanied by the same messaging.

They would gain the industry’s respect if they gave a more balanced view, acknowledging their legitimate concerns so that respondents can give a fully informed response. Currently, it looks more like a campaign than a consultation.

Inverness Chamber encourages you to respond to these three consultations. They are all important. But if you agree that the consultations are skewed or are not giving you all the information, then say that. Our public authorities need to return to genuine consultations and take the voice of the Highland business community seriously.

Do you want to respond to this article? If so, click here to submit your thoughts and they may be published in print.