 Rydw i dda i gilydd y 14 yma o'r ddaf yn gyflwyno'r ffordd iawn i'r Cysylltu Aelodau Ieith Brif Weinidog. Rydw i ddim yn gwychgenol i ddim yn gyflwyno'r gilydd i'r cysylltu'r cyfnod yng Nghymru, David Torrance, a rydw i ddim yn gyflwyno'r cyffredinol Morrie McNaer, yn gwybod i'r gwlad ar hyn o'r ei ddweud. Rydw i ddim yn gwybod i'n gwybod i'r cyffredinol i'r cyffredinol. First, agenda item 6 relates to the public participation inquiry. In our report, we recommended the establishment of two further people's panels this session, and that this committee would have a role in choosing the topics for these panels. Item 6 allows us to consider a recommendation about the topic of the first of those panels by Parliament's participation and community team. It also allows us to consider that in the context of the chamber debate that is going to take part in relation to our report on 26 October. I might say that this morning I have been facilitating a spiced business breakfast, which has been about the report that we have published as well. Quite a lot of interest and engagement. Are members content to take item 6 in private? That brings us to item 2, and we have two evidence sessions this morning. We also have quite a packed gallery that is here for the excitement of our consideration of petitions in due course, but we have two evidence sessions that we have immediately to take. The first is unusually for this committee on pre-budget scrutiny. This is normally an opportunity that we resist on the basis that the Public Participation Committee does not have the same involvement in the budget as we normally do. This morning, we are welcomed by George Adam, the Minister for Parliament and Mentor Business, and online the minister is supported by Doreen Groves, head of open government, and Amy Watson, principal research officer at the Scottish Government. Good morning to both of you as well joining us online. I assume that if you want your colleagues to commend you, I can leave it to you to potentially invite them to contribute to any of the thinking that we have. Having said that, I understand that you would just like to make a brief opening statement, which I think would be very helpful. I think that you probably understand the narrow focus of our interests in relation to the budget and over to you. If you feel that you do not need to ask me back in future budgetary reasons, then do you feel obliged to do so in future? I am a bit disappointed that the crowd is not here to see me. It might be the excellent work that we are all doing later on. I thank the committee for asking me along here today. The Scottish Government's vision for public participation is that people can be involved in decisions that affect them, making Scotland a more inclusive, sustainable and successful place. In summer 2021, we established an IPDD working group to help us to develop the infrastructure and skills that are needed to deliver that vision. The working group published its recommendations in March 2022, which focus on developing a broad range of democratic innovations. In March 2023, the Scottish Government published its response to those recommendations. The Scottish Government is in agreement with the working group on the importance of having available high-quality, meaningful and inclusive opportunities for public participation, ensuring that public services are delivering what people need to improve their lives and outcomes and remain their vital driver for reform. We recognise that that means significant changes to the ways that policies and services are developed, implemented with partners, stakeholders and people of Scotland playing a vital role. Our response sets out what we will do in order to deliver on each of the working group's recommendations and notes that there are currently limits to our ability to deliver our complete vision. Those limits are due to the financial situation facing the Scottish Government, which continues to be the most challenging since devolution. Nevertheless, we still recognise important benefits of involving the public in decisions that affect them. We are living in times characterised by complex changes, the climate emergency, substantial economic turmoil and the cost of living crisis, the Covid-19 pandemic and its legacies. By drawing on the considered views of the public, the Government will be better equipped to take complex and difficult decisions that we are facing. Public understanding and input into these difficult decisions can help us to chart a route through to that fairer that is fairer and that meets the fullest range of people's needs. With that, I am happy to take any questions. We did eventually get the Scottish Government's response to its own inquiry. We certainly exchanged calendar dates over when that might be coming for quite some time. I sum it up in short, and I suppose that that underpins my question. Obviously, the committee has now completed its report into deliberative democracy, in consequence of an extensive inquiry that we have held, which the Parliament asked the committee to lead on when the session of Parliament was established following the recommendation that we look into this whole area from Ken Macintosh's commission on parliamentary reform in the previous session. I think that we have been on a journey as a committee, but our report is quite enthusiastic about the opportunities that are presented. It comes down in two forms. One is what the Government can do and what the Parliament can do. Obviously, we have a debate in the chamber on our report at the end of next month, and we hope very much that the parliamentary aspect of this can be taken forward. The Government's response appears to be an acceptance of the emerging use of citizens' panels and their value, also probably the lessons learned even from the experience of the Scottish Government model, but ultimately to say that currently there is no money. I accept that we think that it is probably about a million quid apop to hold a meaningful citizens' panel on the model that we have seen by other national parliaments. What I want to understand in the first instance is whether there has been a dimunition of enthusiasm for the concept of the citizens' panel as a result of the Scottish Government's experience to date for which money is then being used as a lever to suggest that it does not have quite the same role that maybe the Government previously thought, or is it still very much the intention of the Scottish Government to find a way and a means at some point to embrace the concept of citizens' panels as an embedded process in Scottish public life, and if that is the case, is there an idea in your own mind or the Government's mind, is that likely to be in this Parliament or would it most likely be in a subsequent Parliament? You say that citizens' panels are, I am assuming that you are talking about assemblies. The citizens' assemblies, sorry, yes. I did a section, yes. The whole nomenclature of this stuff is difficult to be certain about, but, for citizens' assemblies, let's talk about the idea of a unit of about 100 people convening to undertake a proper exercise. To answer your question as carefully and concisely as I possibly can, we do still believe that citizens' assemblies are a way forward for ourselves. Do we have financial constraints? Yes, we do. For us to participate and actually have the levels of citizens' assemblies that we were looking for, we are looking at £2.8 million to set that up. That at this time is challenging and difficult, as you would be aware, when everyone is looking at every portfolio, cross-portfolio, looking at their budgets. That is quite a difficult one, but are we engaging with the public in other ways? That is why I asked you the question in return. We are using other panels with the public in order to ask the same questions and engage at a smaller level. The enthusiasm is still there for it. If I can manage to get the funding—obviously, the funding has moved from its own going to be the actual individual portfolio that deals with that question, whatever the question is that they are asking with citizens' assembly, that would be the one that we are still looking at them to deliver that. That is still being looked at by various portfolios, but they obviously have the challenges as well. If you ask me about citizens' assemblies in general, my own opinion of how we go forward with it, I think that we do what other nations have done in the past and keep the questions pretty simple. The first two questions that we asked were wide-ranging. How do we save the planet? What is Scotland's future? Big, big questions. It is very difficult to try and find out what you could actually deliver from those reports. If you look at the way that the Republic of Ireland has used citizens' assemblies in the past to deal with questions that they found difficult in the Parliament to discuss, but we are able to use the public as a way to push that forward—in particular, the use of citizens' assemblies for abortion to discuss that as well. That gives you an opportunity to really look at that subject. For me, the ones that we have committed to when we are looking at council tax and how local government is funded, that would be an interesting one as well, because it would be interesting to see what the public would say when they get all the facts and figures in front of them. As politicians, it is a question that we have kicked around for all the time that I have been in this Parliament, and it is one that would be interesting to do that. However, our main issue at this stage is trying to get the funding for those assemblies, but we are still engaging through other means with the public to answer those questions. That is very helpful. Of course, some of that will be the subject of the debate that we will see in the chamber. In fact, I share your analysis of the nature of the types of subjects that can be best deliberated through this process. Given that there is this other engagement going on, as you say, how is that quantified as a cost that the Government is undertaking currently across the different portfolios where it might be being spent? Are you able to quantify what you think the engagement cost that the Scottish Government is currently offering is? The direct answer to that would be no at this stage, but it is something that we have in mind to actually work out. One of the responses that we made to the IPDD working group was the fact that we are looking at getting a central unit within Government that will be able to go out to the various directorates and actually be able to quantify that in the future. The whole point of that is to ensure that the very idea of open government is at the heart of each portfolio and each directorate. They are thinking that that is their normal part of their day-to-day work. It is not just something extra that has been added in from above, but I understand that we still need to get a centralised team there that will be able to correlate all that together so that I can come to you and say, well, that is x-amount of pounds. I will bring in colleagues in a second. On the face of it, it looks as if the public information budget is going to be reduced in the next year. Is that correct, or is it that it is now being allocated in different ways, which might mean that the headline public information budget does not reflect what you expect to spend? We are talking about the mix-up with terms and everything else with this subject. The budget levelling public information and engagement refers to the marketing and comms with regards to rather than the public participation itself. That is £2.3 million for £23.24 million. Compare that to £2.8 million for £21.22 million and £2.7 million for £22.23 million. That budget, although that is not the budget for public participation, is the budget for the comms and marketing, for the wind and nothing to do with citizen assemblies or anything like that. Colleagues, does anybody like to come in? Thank you, convener. I wonder if I could perhaps raise a wider issue about citizens participation, because, as we know, the purpose of this committee, good morning, minister, is to act on the side, as it were, of David versus Goliath, the Government, and to recognise more generally, minister. Generally coming from Mr Ewing, yes. Sorry, Mr Ewing. Well, I will try not to be too predictable, but I guess just extending the myth for one more time, our purpose is to provide David with the sling so that there is some equality to the weaponry. We find, to be serious, that many of our petitions relate to concerns that people, ordinary people, citizens, base layer and Inverness have with Government agencies, with the authorities, with the powers that be. In fact, probably more than half of our petitions actually. I wanted to raise one specific example of that, because last week the convener of the French committee, Kenneth Gibson, pointed out that the commissioners we have, also known as ZARS, the cost of those commissioners now, and there's a whole plethora of them in Scotland, amounts to over a five-year period £88 million. Now that means, then, we're going to come on to discuss the A9 later, but a 10-year saving of the ZARS, if we decided to perch the ZARS in Scotland, we could save £160 million, which just happens to be £10 million more than the cost of dualling the proposed section from Tomatom to Moy. So, what I'm asking really, Minister, and it may be that you don't have direct portfolio responsibility for this, but given that we really do need to look at making savings, do we get value for money from our ZARS? Are they really relevant to our citizens any more relevant than the Romanovs were to the Russians in their daily life? Would it not be worthwhile considering a purge of the ZARS, and if so, doesn't history tell us that October is not a bad month in which to carry it out? As eloquent as ever, Mr Ewing. Yes, it's not my portfolio to discuss with regards to that, but I do take on your point with regards to a conversation that we should have, both, obviously, for the corporate body and the Parliament, because they are the ones that deal with the budget for, as Mr Gibson said during his question last week. However, I think that you're right. I think that there's possibly every single one of those commissioners. There will be stakeholders who value the work that they do and how important the work that they do is. However, there is a question and a debate to be had by us all as to maybe how we go about it. I know that it's in New Zealand that they actually have a commissioner, an office of the commissioners, where they all work under one office, so effectively they no longer have each individual organisation operating on its own. That's not something that the Government is looking at, it's just something that I'm aware of, a different way of working that. However, it's always that balance between, given the stakeholders who value the work of that commissioner and what we can go forward with looking at the finances as well. I have to agree with you, Mr Ewing, that it's possibly a discussion and a debate that we should have within the Parliament. I'm grateful for the reply that the minister has made. It's not an ungenerous reply, so that's appreciated. I've just commented that we spend a lot of time in Parliament deciding how to spend ever more quantities of taxpayers' money. We spend very little time in reviewing how much value for money we get from the billions that we spend every year. I do think that, with the pressures facing us now, it's perhaps an argument whose time has come. Whereas I'm not in favour necessarily of a mass purge and assassination, sunset clause, for example, was another idea put forward, which would be a gradual turning off of the lights. As I say, I think that it's a debate that we definitely need to have a look at and to take forward. That's not a Government view, it's just me looking personally from the point of view of how you would deal with the situation and the question that you asked. Thank you very much. I thank the minister for the view of flexibility beyond, I think, the targeted focus of our agenda this morning. I say that as the mover of the Parliament's only ever sunset clause, which, of course, is going to lead to a bill coming back before Parliament for us to take a further view on. I just finally come back to the issue in hand of the citizen participation in democracy. Obviously, the budgetary constraints that you talk about, which mean that, while the enthusiasm might still be there, the financial underpinning to allow it to proceed currently is not, what implication does that have for any of the institutional experience and architecture that was within the Scottish Government that was involved in the organisation running and understanding learning, in fact, of the citizens engagement work that had previously been done? What is happening to the individuals or, if you like, the kind of infrastructure that was supporting that, given that there is no immediate intention to proceed? What I'll do at this stage is bring in Doreen Gove, who is one of her pet subjects. She'll be able to give you a more complete answer in total. Thank you very much. Doreen, good morning and thank you. You're on mute, I think. We can't hear you. Sorry, have you got your speaker on? Yes. Can you hear me now? We can, thank you. Sorry, apologies. I'm sacked at a conference in Copenhagen on the future of democracy, including citizen assemblies. To answer your question very directly, we aren't sitting on our hands and just sitting around waiting for finance to turn up. What we have been really very careful to do is take the learning from the IPDD report and, indeed, the learning from the two secretariat that were set up in order to make sure that, as we move forward in the ways we use deliberative democracy, we are really sharing that learning. We are improving how we do things, but we're putting in place the sort of foundational basis in order to make all of this kind of work much more focused and better understood by public servants, so they have access to easier ways to procure, both for working with children and young people but also adults. We're putting in place a procurement framework. We have a participation framework that is trying to help guide how best people can be involved in government decision making. What we're trying to do while we look across government to find the skills to bring together to be able to drive some of the higher profile work, like citizen assemblies, is to put high quality participation on the agenda and try and feed it into, as Mr Adam says, the ways we work, so putting in place the advice and identifying how we do that over time, so that when a budget does become available and we are able to create a team that will be able to lead and drive this much more effectively, then all of that foundational work will be there. We also keep entirely up to date, both with the fantastic work that has been done by the Parliament's committee, but also internationally, trying to make sure that Scotland keeps that sort of international standing of being both a reforming place, but one that really does care about how we bring in the voices of our population and to do that in a way that is properly inclusive. So my team have been working around that equality's idea and building up our ways of making sure we're hearing seldom heard voices, because very often it is government that's more difficult to reach, actually, than if we get out and properly talk to people. I just have a point and a follow-up question. The point is that I very much agree about taking as much understanding from other international examples, because our report in fact decided not to recommend a legislative process for this at this time, because we felt that the model that might suit the Scottish dynamic is one that needs to evolve as a result of experience and learning from other jurisdictions, because I think our experience, having visited Ireland, Paris and also the engagement that we had with Brussels, is that there isn't a one-size-fits-all, and it has to be a model that evolves within the constitutional architecture of every country to ensure that it achieves its proper outcome. So I'm delighted that that work is still going on. I suppose that my follow-up question then is just that you are satisfied that within the Scottish budget, as it's currently constituted, the funds are in place to allow you to undertake that continuous evaluation and work in terms of determining where we might land in respect of any architecture that we put in place ourselves for participation at that kind of level. So I'm in Copenhagen with the leaders of all of the work that you just outlined. They are all here. The answer on the budget is, satisfied is a really big word. I would really love quite a bit more money, thank you very much. But we have sufficient at the moment and sufficient weight and understanding. We run the kind of virtual team within government to bring in the expertise that we need. As we develop and properly put in place what the IPD report recommended, then we will be much better placed to work on those things. But absolutely at the moment the team that is working on this is conscious both of what's happening at home in the community empowerment world as well as what's happening internationally. We will make sure that that feeds into our work and hopefully coming back to the committee so that we can share that experience. Thank you very much. Thank you for your candor. Thank you for that, it was very enlightening. Mr Adam, I don't think that we have any further questions. Sorry, Mr Golden. Do you want to comment before, Mr Golden? I was just going to say, after Dory's very public pitch for more funds, that the fact that we are constantly, Dory is, engaging internationally with colleagues across the world to try and do as we've had, there's yearly events in Rome last year and this year in Tallinn, which I never managed to make incidentally because it was Rome when I was at Aberdeen at the SNP conference because I know what the right thing to do is and also a story I had to deal with the programme for government when we were here. But at the end of the day it's important that we do these engagements because we do not believe we have got every single good idea and the right idea and seen what the other models might fit with us. You may have felt that it was the right idea, Mr Adam. I'm not sure if it was the most enlightening of the options that was before you, Mr Golden. I'm sure members of this committee would be willing to fill in on your behalf, minister, to any of those events that you mentioned. Really just two interlinked points, minister. Obviously we've seen a reduction in the real terms budget of 37.7 per cent in that. I wonder if either now or in writing you could give us a breakdown of how that total budget is going to be spent, you know, the relevant work streams that might be allocated with the proposed £2.3 million. Secondly, you mentioned public participation across different departments, so I'm interested to know how you monitor that. For example, this year we'll have the climate change plan, a really meaty document, and you mentioned about how we save the planet as one of the examples previously mentioned. I wonder how you monitor how that climate change plan has been disseminated, and how the public are allowed to participate in what can be a very technical document. Okay, to answer your first question very quickly, the £2.3 million, as I said, isn't actually our budget for public participation, so that's not the case. With regards to how we actually manage to bring it all together, again it's what I said earlier on. One of the things that came out from the IPDD's working group was the fact that there was a lot of good work happening within Government, happening in pockets all over Government, and it's a case of us having to find a central group that will bring all that together, both how much the costs are and what we're doing so that I can sit here in front of you and actually say that we are doing X and Y in various different directorates. So we've decided that we're going to get that team in place to make sure that we've got that information so that we can do that. Can I tell you right here right now what's happening within various other places? Probably not, and definitely not off the top of my head because the whole idea is to try and get the whole idea of the culture of public participation into every kind of part of Government, and you understand that an organisation the size of the Scottish Government, that can be quite challenging, you know, but I've had from experience because I've got FOIs part of my portfolio as well, and I've seen how when you do make that change, as we have done recently, and you make sure that these things are kind of pushed to Government and it's part of their day-to-day work, it's not an addition, I think it's getting that mentality of this is what we do, this is part of the job, and us getting that into the organisation as a whole is extremely important. Now, do these things happen overnight? No, but Atty, as a minister, and obviously Doreen and her team as well are pushing for this within Government all the time, and we've committed ourselves to that centralised team in order. At a time when we're looking at taking resource away from Zairie Perry's places, we're going to invest in that in order to make sure that we get that detail. And what metrics do you use to assess whether departments are successfully engaging with the public? I'll ask Doreen, because she's at the coalface on this one. Thank you. There isn't a coalface, so I guess my answer is in two ways. We have a tiny team currently in Government and we try, through our open Government work, to ensure that there is at least an understanding of the very biggest areas. You mentioned climate change, there's an action plan commitment around climate change, and also one around how the public get involved in health and social care reforms. But one part of the role of this extended team would be to be properly evaluating and ensuring that the standards that are set and that are making sure that the participation that is happening is fair, is bringing in voices we need, so that we can answer those questions much more effectively in future, and that we do the kinds of participation that really are going to have an impact and effect. So investing where it's needed and sharing learning so that we don't keep going back to the same people asking the same questions, because a lot of what you hear is that there's consultation fatigue. We need to be really careful about how we use and invite people to be part of the work of Government. Doreen Groves, Amy Watson and Minister, thank you very much for your participation and attendance this morning. We will suspend briefly while we move to the next session. Thank you all very much. Welcome back. The next item on our agenda today is an evidence session as part of our inquiry into the A9 dueling project. That relates to our consideration of petition number 1992, dual the A9 and improve road safety, lodged by Laura Hansler. We are joined as colleagues, those following our proceedings in relation to this petition, may know by our colleague Edward Mountain in his capacity as a reporter from the net zero energy and transport committee in this matter. So good morning to you again, Edward. Our consideration of this issue has seen us invite evidence from the petitioner, the transport and civil engineering industries, community councils and road safety organisations. Indeed, we had an evidence session in the region earlier in the summer. We had that evidence session to gather those views from people along the route, businesses and organisations between Perth and Inverness, and key terms emerging from this consultation are set out in the spice briefing that is included with the committee's papers. However, we have primarily been focusing on the action that needs to be taken to get this project back on track. However, we agreed in early September to explore the Scottish Government's decision in 2011 to commit to a 2025 target for dueling the A9 between Perth and Inverness, and that is the focus of today's discussion. I am absolutely delighted to welcome back a well-kept face to the Scottish Parliament's proceedings. Alec Neal, the former Cabinet Secretary for Infrastructure and Capital Investment, who is the man to enlighten us on these matters, I am sure, is certainly good to see you back with us. Never somebody who is like myself or actually other members of the committee might argue who is shy to be forthright in their views. I am sure that we will have a very enlightening evidence session. Before we move to any questions, I know that it would be helpful if you were able to make an opening statement. Thank you very much indeed, convener, and for that very warm welcome. I think that it would be useful if I just gave an overview of why we took this decision away back in 2011. As you know, there was a manifesto commitment from the SNP in 2007 and another manifesto commitment in 2011 that we would dual the A9 between Perth and Inverness and to upgrade, although it did not specifically say in the manifesto in 2011 that we would have a dual carriageway, we did promise to upgrade the A96 between Inverness and Aberdeen. After the 2011 election, I was appointed as the Cabinet Secretary for Infrastructure and Capital Investment in the Scottish Government, and that meant that I had responsibility for the national infrastructure investment plan, which was due for update later in 2011. The investment infrastructure investment plan covers every aspect of capital investment right across Government. It includes housing, climate change, schools, money for universities, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. Of course, it includes roads, rail and other aspects of transport, as well as broadband. The document is a wide-ranging document, but I specifically, when it came to the roads budget, looked at ways on how we could implement the manifesto commitment. I set a strategic objective for Transport Scotland and for the Government that, at the earliest possible opportunity, we should link the seven cities in Scotland, Glasgow, Edinburgh, Perth, Stirlingdon, D, Aberdeen and Inverness—we have now got eight because it is in Firmins now, but at that time, the seven cities should be linked, either by dual carriageway or by motorway. The reason for that was five-fold. Number one, to stimulate economic growth. Number two, to improve the overall productivity of the Scottish economy. Number three, to reduce emissions. Number four, social cohesion and inclusion. Number five, and last but not least, was road safety considerations. I asked officials to come up with a plan to achieve that objective. I asked them for the realistic date, but the earliest date we could do it. There are two major considerations. First of all, there is just the physicality of being able to plan the road, because when you plan such an ambitious project as during the A9 between Perth and Inverness, you are talking about the acquisition of land, you are talking about bits of the road that are ready to be dwelled quite easily from previous works and other bits of the road that are very challenging indeed. Overall, the physical ability to do that was a major consideration obviously, and I asked them to be realistic but ambitious. When it came to the funding, we had to look at the long-term capital programme of the Scottish Government. In particular, we looked at the period because by the time the preparation was done, we knew we weren't going to get most of the capital works done before 2015. If you looked at the procedures that had to be gone through in terms of the acquisition of land and all the ground assessment, all the rest of it. We looked at the period from 2015 to 2030 and looked at the likely amount of capital that would be available for investment, how much was committed and how much was left that was uncommitted. That is the key figure financially. Between 2015, when this exercise was done in 2011, we estimated that there was £14.7 billion of capital not allocated to any particular project that is designated for any particular purpose available between 2015 and 2030. I can explain some of that in more detail later. The estimate of during the A9 between Perth and Inverness was a working assumption because this was normal in a project that had not been costed in detail. The working assumption, which was at the high end of the estimates, was that it would be roughly £30 million a mile and the same for Aberdein to Inverness dualling. Between them, the estimated maximum figure would be between the £2.6 billion. That would have been 40 per cent, only 40 per cent, of the available capital at that time. There was still 60 per cent to do all the things that we wanted to do and were also priorities in other areas. We then built that in to the national infrastructure investment plan. I announced that that was published on 6 December 2011. The dates that were set and the clear advice—I want to emphasise this point because I have been reading through previous evidence sessions of the committee. I asked them to be realistic, Transport Scotland, and they assured me that both physically and financially it was perfectly feasible to achieve the dualling of the A9 between Inverness and Perth by 2025 and Inverness in Aberdein by 2030. We published that proposal, as I said, in December. Road safety was a major consideration, although some officials tried to claim that the A9 was not the most dangerous road in Scotland, but it was certainly one of the most dangerous roads in Scotland. I noticed that there were 335 fatalities on that stretch of the A9, because it goes north of Inverness, too, since 1979 and another 13 last year, a record for 20 years. Those who say that the A9 is a safe road are not looking at the evidence and the facts. I am very disappointed at that delay, because we had a detailed schedule in preparation for today. The permanent secretary, which he can under the ministerial code, gave me access to all the papers that I had in relation to the A9 and the A96 during my period as the Cabinet Secretary for Infrastructure. I am not allowed to print those, I am not allowed to forward them to other people, but I have made a note that on 28 May 2012, at my request, I received a detailed memorandum from David Anderson, a senior official in Transport Scotland, addressed to me and to Keith Brown, who was my deputy and the Minister for Housing and Transport. If you get that paperwork, which I strongly suggest to committee demands, Annex D gives the outline programme bit by bit for the completion of the A9. I am going to quickly read that out, because I think that it should be put in the record, and then I am happy, obviously, to answer questions. So, Lincartie to Burnham, due to be finished in 2018-19, Burnham to Ballan Louis, 2024, Pertlockry to Killey Cranky, 2022, Killey Cranky to Glen Garry, 2024, Glen Garry to Croubenmore, 2024, Croubenmore to Concraig, 2025, that would have been one of the last bits, Concraig to Dalradi, 2017, Dalradi to Sloch 2025 and to Matten to Moi, 2021. Actually, on that last bit, it was completed in 2021, but I actually signed off for approval on 30 May 2012, so why took nine years, I do not know, but obviously, nevertheless, it was completed in 2021. The other parts, apart from Lincartie to Burnham, of course, have not been started, let alone one of them has, but have certainly not been completed. I think that it is extremely disappointing and very damaging to the Scottish economy and even proportionally far more damaging to the Highlands and Islands that this well-thought-out project has not been completed, let alone completed, on time. I am happy to answer any question. Thank you very much, Mr Neil. There is some fascinating new information, I think, for the committee in the detail to which you have alluded. I know that colleagues are very keen to come in with questions. I just would like to offer you the opportunity to make one observation to speculate, which is always a dangerous thing to do, but to speculate. Clearly, you were satisfied at the time that the decision was announced that there was a detailed programme in place that would allow for the project to be completed by the date that was specified and that, within the funding allocations that were anticipated to be available, a reasonable expectation that this project could be funded without compromising the ability of the Government to proceed on other projects that were of an important nature as well. Something happened. At the time that you made the decision, even though there was a manifesto commitment, was there resistance at all to the principle underpinning the decision, perhaps from Transport Scotland or elsewhere, who maybe did not feel the same obligation to respect manifesto commitments that you, as a minister, might have felt was important? In the case of your successors, did you feel that, potentially, they were going to be influenced by other considerations at that point that perhaps you had been determined to overrule and insist that you were adhered to? The first thing is just to emphasise that I did not set a date and then asked officials to give me a programme to meet that date. I asked them for the date and I asked them that they had to be absolutely sure that, physically, all the work could be done as they had recommended by 2025 and the money would be there in the long-term capital programme, which the finance department confirmed at the time under John Swinney that it would be. There is no question in my mind whatsoever that everybody agreed and it was the official advice that it could be done and each stretch could be done by the time that I laid out a minute ago. Now, obviously, when it came to the pandemic, it would be fair to accept a delay, maybe of a year, maybe 18 months because of the impact of the pandemic. But until the pandemic came in 2020, there was, in my view, no excuse for having missed these deadlines. That is the first point. The second point is that I was reshuffled from the position in September 2012. I became the cabinet secretary for health and wellbeing, and Nicola Sturgeon took my job as the cabinet secretary for infrastructure and capital investment. One of the reasons I asked for a specific programme of when each section should be completed was because I knew how bureaucracy works. I have run businesses. I know what it is like to have to sometimes nail down your advisers in the private sector and in the public sector to make sure that there is no regular room for excuses and delay. Bear in mind, convener. Although it is a huge project, it was not the only huge project that we were doing. Since 2007, we had completed the M74 because we had to get the Commonwealth Games to Glasgow. We had started the Aberdeen western periphery, although it was delayed for matters out with our control. We did the Queensbury crossing, which was not in the initial manifesto as a result of developments on the old bridge. One of the things projects that I signed off in 2012 was the upgrade of the M78 and M74 around the Wraith interchange, which has brought enormous economic benefits to central Scotland. However, I think that there was a mentality. It might still be there that the Highlands and Islands was seen by some people maybe as peripheral. I think that the same is true of the south-west of Scotland. The A77 between Ayr and Cairnryan in Stryndraer should have been dualled years ago for exactly the five reasons that I outlined during the A82 should have been done years ago. One of the complicating factors in recent years, although it is only in recent years, is the influence of the Greens, because it is a legitimate point of view that they have. I do not agree with it, but it is a legitimate point of view that you do not build roads. We could go back to the horse and kept and see how we got on with that. My own view is that emissions come from the combustion engine, not from the road. The way to solve the emissions in road transport is to replace the combustion engine with hydrogen buses or electric cars, which we are in the process of doing. Even with electric cars and hydrogen buses, you still need decent roads on which they have to travel. I have never seen the argument that the road itself is a problem. It is the combustion engine that is a problem, not the road. Therefore, we should halt the road programme or de-prioritise the road programme because of the climate change. I do not believe that the climate change argument holds up in that argument other than terminating the life of the combustion engine. In terms of my immediate successor, Nicola Sturgeon, who held that position until she became First Minister in November 2014, there have been successive transport ministers. I remember Keith Brown, who remained the transport minister for a while. Michael Matheson was the transport minister for a while. Humza Yousaf was the transport minister. Jenny Gilruth was the transport minister and all the rest of it. Unfortunately, I can only access the cabinet papers for my period as the cabinet secretary. That is why I think that the committee must use its powers to the maximum and demand to see all the paperwork from 2011 till today on the A9. The fact that it has been refused is that I heard George Adam talking about open government. The best way to demonstrate it is to provide all the relevant paperwork to this committee in relation to the dualling of the A9 and the A96, and then we will believe that there is open government. I know that there are lots of colleagues who want to go in. I think that Mr Golden has a specific supplementary to just a point that you made in the latter half of that response. Thank you, convener. I come back to other points that you might want to make afterwards, but if you want to do the supplementary. Okay, thank you. Mr Neil mentioned compatibility with climate change. Of course, there is a requirement on ministers in section 94A of the Climate Change Act of 2009 where they publish an infrastructure investment plan to also publish an assessment of the extent to which investment is in accordance with the plan is expected to contribute to the meeting of emissions reductions targets. The Scottish Government has recently admitted to me in a written question that the material published fall short, but I wonder at the time was the assessment that the dualling of the A9 was compatible with climate change targets? If you look at all the documentation, that is why you need to see the documentation. I referred to a paper in which I received on 28 May, and I referred to A9XD, but when I went through all the papers, it took me some time to go through all the paperwork, but there were detailed assessments on the impact on emissions. There were detailed assessments on the impact economically on a whole range of measures. You were asking Mr Adam earlier about metrics. Believe you me, when it comes to road projects, we ain't short of metrics, and the climate change metrics were in there. I do think that the quality of the metrics being measured on climate change today are far superior to what they would have been in 2009. The paperwork that I've seen is only related to my period, which was from May 2011 until September 2012. However, every aspect of that, and the estimates that have been made of the impact over time of this project—and the same with the A96, would happen—on emissions, on the economy, on social inclusion, on the impact on the rural communities in the Highlands and Islands, because clearly a lot of them are going to benefit enormously. I actually think that one of the reasons why Inverness has become one of the fastest growing cities in Europe is because people were expecting that connectivity between Edinburgh, Perth and Inverness, which the A9 dualling would have brought. I wonder could Inverness have grown even faster if we were near completion and only two years from completion of the A9. I would bet my bottom dollar that it would be growing even faster, but not just Inverness. There is a spillover into the much wider Highland communities. It is not just the A9, by the way. If I remained as the infrastructure secretary, I saw as my next task was looking at the other aspects of the Highlands and Islands and the south-west, which were by far the poorest service in Scotland. The A77 is referred to for that to be classified in parts as an A road as a joke, quite frankly. The A82 badly needs upgrading. I am not saying that it has to be drove carriageway, but it needs badly upgraded. I think that a huge mistake has been made looking at the Argyll area only at just one particular part of it. I think that we need to have a strategic look at the connectivity between Glasgow and Oban and the road-wise and rail-wise, and to look at what we should be doing to make sure that we can open up Argyll much more. The forestry industry alone, as it feeds into the rest of Scotland, is of critical importance in the Argyll area, but it is critically important to Scotland, as is the Dumfries and Galloway forests to the rest of Scotland. The lack of ambition is mind-numbing, quite frankly. Thank you, Mr Neil. We could also do with an upgrade around Kingsway and Dundee, as well, to link those from Perth going to Aberdeen. I studied in Dundee and it's a lovely city, a lovely people. Thank you for that. I will now, Mr Ewing. Thank you very much for your evidence this morning, Mr Neil, which has been informative revelatory and I think really quite explosive, because my constituents want to know why haven't we delivered our promises and I think you're steering us towards the answers today. I just want to probe a couple of bits of that. One is that you said that it was the officials who provided with you with the timing of when each section could be done. In fact, you read out very helpfully into the record that. In other words, you didn't say, I want you to do this work by such and such. You said, when can it be done? And they provided you with the memo of 28 May 2012, which said it could be done by 2025. Is that correct? It wasn't your deadline, it was when they said the job could be completed by. You actually said that in terms of their feed into the drafting of the national infrastructure plan in 2011. What we did, and I insisted on it in 2012, was that we had a very specific plan in terms of in what stages it would be done. When you see an XDE, and so hopefully you will, when the government supply it to you, there were four different, for each section, as well as giving the estimated completion date. It was actually more detailed than that, because there are four strategic stages in completing a project of this kind, particularly since we're starting from the start, because very little work had been done, even though we had a manifesto commitment in 2007, during the whole stretch. There had been work done on two or three sections, but not a lot. Of course, there had been hardly any work done for the previous 30 years since 1979 by successive Governments of all colours, so we were starting pretty well from scratch. Let me take the Burnham to Ballon Louig target date for that, the plan date for that was 2024. Within this an XDE graph, it showed me when the design and assessment would be completed for each stage, then when the statutory process would be completed for each stage, then when the procurement would be completed for each stage, my own view was some of the procurement was being allowed to take too long, that's another issue, and then finally construction, and how long this construction phase would be. So this wasn't thumb in the air, we'll complete this by 2024. This was a result of a lot of intensive work by Transport Scotland looking at each of those four stages for each stage of the project. That's extremely helpful, and the reason I asked the question is that, in the evidence that Transport Scotland officials gave on 14 June to the committee, they implied that, back when the deadline was set, it was aspirational, but that's just not true. I read that in the Sutter rubbish, they weren't there, the people who gave evidence weren't there, and quite frankly if they had taken the time to check with myself, or indeed Ainsley McLaughlin, who was the main official on advising me at the time, I'm sure Ainsley would confirm that this was not aspirational, a lot of work was done both before it went into the plan, because before they could advise me that 2025 was the reasonable date when we could do this, financially and physically, they clearly had to do a lot of work themselves to work that out, and they did it very professionally. Then I asked them to get down in paper, let's agree the schedule for this, so that we can measure progress. I think that one of the things that may have happened is that with the change in cabinet secretary that my successors have perhaps not tracked this as well as they could. Being of the same vintage as yourself and the convener, I remember the Falklands and Jim Callaghan's always pointing out when he was Prime Minister, once a week he went to a map of the world, to the globe of the world, to see where Britain's navy was. One of the things that he was checking as an old mariner himself was to make sure that there were enough ships near enough the Falklands to prevent any invasion. Thatcher didn't do that and we know the history. Similarly, I was using that as a lesson not just in this project, but I wanted to know on a regular basis the progress reports on all the major projects, so that I, as the minister in Charsgow, was a me that would take the wrap to make sure that they were on schedule. The starting point of that was agreeing a schedule and we agreed to schedule. I signed off the schedule. It's a shame that the fleet was so prematurely deprived of Alex Neil at its admiral, but moving on. You would be a good fireman. I'll just move swiftly on to the £14.7 billion, because I think the second revelation you've made confounds again the impression that Transport Scotland was intent to give that this was all too difficult and perhaps it was the politicians that set an impossible task and they can't really be blamed for not having delivered it. However, you said that the analysis in 215 was that there was an all-allocated amount in capital of £14.7 billion and that the estimates made at the time of both dualling A9 and A96 were broadly £6 billion, based on £30 million a mile, and that therefore is a conservative estimate if you do the maths. My point is that what you're saying today, in fact, is that there was masses of cash available and that if 40 per cent of it was applied to the road's promises, then they could and should have been delivered on time. Is that correct? Is that an adequate correct summary? Secondly, could you just give us a little bit more detail of this £14.7 billion if you're able to, over what period it covered and how has it worked out? Did officials provide you with a memo with that? I think that, convener, to get to the truth of this as is our task, we will really need to see all these documents and many others, but we can discuss that no doubt in due course. However, I just wondered if you could flesh out your evidence a bit more about the £14.7 billion figure. What I did was, when I asked the officials, as we started to think about what we should put in the infrastructure investment plan due to be published by the end of 2011, I asked the officials to give me the financial forecast. The financial forecast in terms of capital programmes relates to what our commitments are and also what other aspirations are that have not had any money committed towards it and also looks at the capital available. In terms of capital available, by far the most important source of capital is the mainstream capital programme, which at that time is around £3.5 billion a year that the Government has as part of its core funding. However, as you know, we had developed other ways of funding capital programmes, the NPD, through the Scottish Future Trust being a good example. In the infrastructure plan that we published on 6 December 2011, we introduced what was called the 5 per cent rule. I think that the finance people in particular were keen and a bit of a quid pro quo for the level of commitment being made. So, the vast bulk of the capital was and I think still is funded through the mainstream programme, but there were also other programmes, as I say, the NPD. So with them, unlike with the main programme, there had to be capital repayments, interest payments and associated costs. So, we introduced a rule that the commitments that we would make in terms of capital investment would have a ceiling, which would be effectively the mainstream capital programme, but for those that were involving repayments, the total totality of the repayments for each department could not exceed 5 per cent of the capital budget of the Dell, so each department's expenditure limit. So, if the expenditure limit in rows was £1 billion, then by definition the capital repayment profile, which goes way out for years obviously, could not be more than £50 million a year, for example. I asked them to do a graph for me. I remember it very vividly because we knew the mainstream programme, although it was always subject to some volatility, particularly after the financial crash, but I also asked them to do a graph showing me at what point did we start to fall below or significantly below the 5 per cent. So, if you look at next year, the following year, 2012, 2013, clearly we were maxed out, we were very near the 5 per cent, which was the ceiling. But as the years went on, because of the lack of longer term commitments, by the time you got to about 2020 or even before that, we weren't using any more than about 2 or 3 per cent, and by the time you took to 2025 it was practically zero. So, both in terms, so we looked to all of that, right? So, in other words, what I'm saying shorthand is, I double checked that what we were planning was well within the capital programme, and the irony is if you look at the 2016 A9 investment plant published by Transport Scotland, which was circulated by SPICE to the committee, there's a figure in there of just under £1.9 billion, which I assume is the estimate for the whole thing. Either way, I think the reality is because 30 million a mile was a big number. I think ironically, had it been built on time, it probably would have cost about only two thirds of that 3 billion, and there would have been another billion available for other projects. But because we have stalled, because we've delayed, because we've put it in the back burner, because we've betrayed a promise to the people of the Highlands and Islands and Scotland, because this is important for Scotland, as well as the Highlands and Islands, because of all that, when we eventually get to do it, it's probably going to cost up to £1 billion more than it need have done because of these delays. I just want to ask a short question, convener, if I may. Can I ask Mr Eil? Why do you think that the A9 dualling project has fallen so very far behind schedule? I cannot be absolutely sure, because I no longer have responsibility for it, and I don't remember it ever coming to Cabinet requiring a further delay or anything while I was in the Cabinet, and I was in the Cabinet up until May 2016. You were a minister as well, and at no time during that period was there any indication that there was a delay. It wasn't visible because the construction works weren't going to start till later anyway, so the delay presumably wasn't the pre-construction work that had to be done, or maybe capital was reallocated to other projects. I do not know, that's why I think you need the paperwork to get to the truth. We may need to ask your successors what they did, and what Transport Scotland did, or perhaps more relevantly, did not do. It would be interesting to make sure, because I've never been one for blaming officials. I always believed that Buck stopped with the minister, and I think that it's a weak minister who relies on criticism of the bureaucracy because you're the person they report to. That's why I always insisted with any project on getting regular updates so that if something was going wrong, I didn't want to wait until it was the front page of the daily record in The Herald. I wanted to know it before anyone else, and I wanted to see it happening so that we could arrest any delay and move things on if it was obvious there was a delay. I suspect that the fruit was well and truly taken off the accelerator. I'm going to go to Faisal Choudhury, then Marie McNair and then Edward Mountain. Mr Choudhury. Thank you, convener. It looked like we had more cabinet secretary and ministers than the work has been done on that project. Of course, I don't want to repeat what my colleagues have been asking, but is there a possibility, you think, that we can get the map of all the promises that were made and the ones that are completed, the ones that are not completed, and a map of how many cabinet secretary and ministers we had during that period? Because it is kind of difficult for people like us who have been new in this committee, and I'm sure that it will be clear for us to see that when the project was promised and how much money was spent on the inquiries other than the work. I'm going to make a suggestion about what you should do to do that, but let me emphasise that we can play a blame game. I'm not interested in a blame game because that doesn't change anything. The reality is that this road should have been built. I think that the importance of this information that the committee should have is to do two things. First of all, to establish what went wrong and when it went wrong and to learn the lessons so that it doesn't go wrong again. The second reason is that the obvious solution to this is for the minister and the Government to keep its promise from the First Minister and from the previous transport minister, Jenny Gilruth, and I think also from the current transport minister and the cabinet secretary, the two of them, that there will be the announcement of a detailed schedule plan for the completion of the project. I think that that was originally promised for this month, October. I think that the onus is now on those ministers to deliver that plan. In terms of trying to identify and you'll be doing ministers a favour, the current ministers a favour, by trying to find out what went wrong so that they can learn the lessons and don't make the same mistakes again. I think that you need to do two things. Your starting point, if I may say so, the methodology that I would employ is, first of all, to demand the paperwork. It's time that the committees in this Parliament exercised and used their teeth. This is supposed to be the second chamber of the Parliament of these committees and you have the statutory right to demand this paperwork. My advice to you is to demand all of it from 2011 till today. The second thing is, and then you can go through the paperwork and that should certainly give you clues and might spell out the point at which and the reasons why we've ended up in the mess has ended up with only two sections having been completed. I think that you should talk to the ministers because it may well be that those delays were under one or two of those ministers rather than every minister or even baby one. I honestly don't know because I wasn't privy to any of it after I was reshuffled but I absolutely think that's the way to go about it. You've got to get the paperwork, see where it went wrong and when it went wrong and then ask both the officials and the ministers who were there at the time. I mean, with all due respect to today's Transport Scotland officials, they were not there at the beginning but some of them may have been there during the time things have gone wrong. I don't know. I think it will be. I'll be very much interested to know that which officials was involved as well. I mean, I think my question goes back to the convener again. I think that we need a clear map of where everything went and where it was gone wrong and how much money was spent on inquiries as well. I think that that's obviously something that we can consider in our determination of the evidence that we've heard. Marie McNair, who is joining us online this morning, substituting for David Torrance, has indicated she has a question. Marie McNair. Thank you, convener, and good morning, Mr Neil. It's really great to see you this morning. Thanks for your time. You will accept, obviously, that there's been a number of factors that have impacted the project over the last few years and obviously the current financial and economic challenges, you know, kind of challenges for the, in terms of the infrastructure projects, and across the various countries, obviously, you know, with inflation, etc. Obviously, the Scottish Government has no ability to borrow, to raise the capital. If you were still in government, how would you seek to proceed in these circumstances? Would you really appreciate your wisdom? Yeah, well, first of all, I mean, the current financial constraints weren't the reason for the failure to deliver this programme because clearly this programme was meant to be delivered by now and ironically would have helped with the financial constraints because it probably would have been a third less of the cost than originally planned. So, actually, I don't see that being the reason for the delay. There may be other financial reasons that I don't know of, but I don't think that it specifically can be that. In terms of going forward, I think ministers need to be imaginative. This is not just, you know, a Scottish problem. There's a big debate obviously going on at the Tory Party conference this morning on HS2 and capital projects of that significance and how they should be funded and what the priorities should be and all the rest of it. My view is that there has to be a definitive programme to complete the A96 dualling and the A96 dualling within a reasonable period of time. In doing that, I think that the ministers have to make an honest assessment of the financial challenges in implementing such a construction programme. In looking at how you meet the financial challenges, they need to look at other ideas and new ideas. I have to say that a huge opportunity was missed in the negotiations recently completed on the new fiscal framework, because, quite frankly, I wouldn't have signed that fiscal framework because it continues the problem that we have had in terms of an inability totally. I mean, councils are able to borrow for capital programmes and the Scottish Government cannot borrow significant amounts for capital programmes. Whoever signed that fiscal framework needs to get their act together in my view. It was a complete sell-out of fundamental principles and, after so many years of the previous fiscal framework, we should have learnt the lesson not to sign on a similar deal again. I think that the Scottish Government fell down on that one, but we are where we are and we can't just wring our hands and do nothing. Let me give you two or three examples of what I would be doing if I was the minister to fund that. First of all, I would be working with the UK Government, particularly on how the money can be raised. We have had the leader of the Scottish Tories, I think, backed by the Scottish Secretary, saying that they would like to see the A9 dual. They want the A96 dual. They are also on record saying rightly that they want the A77 from Ayrtys Trindrad dual. The Secretary of State, I think, is on record saying that he wants the A75 from Stradrad to the Borddner dual. Absolutely right. As I say, other programmes like the A82. I would be holding a discussion about that ambitious programme, which is what Scotland needs, maybe over a 25-year period, with the priority given what has happened to the A9 and the A96, because expectations have been set not realised there. Let me give you two or three examples. I know that some people in the city are advising the UK Government to use console-type funding, which is borrowing, but it is undated gilts. They have been around since 1751, in the contrary to the rumours that I was into their launch, but because they are undated, the Government repays them as and when it can afford to do so. Sometimes it can last for hundreds of years, literally. I think that looking at that is a possibility, particularly although interest rates are high at the moment. The gilts are over 5 per cent, they are cupping on them this morning. However, by the time you get to the construction stage, when you have to fund that, it is probably at least two or three years down the line at the most optimistic. By then interest rates should be back down, hopefully, to two or three per cent. I think that the console long-term bond, and I would make it a bond for a package of measures for upgrading the road transport network in Scotland. If we are going to get out of the rut of low growth and low productivity, that is a prerequisite to doing so. The other idea that I would have is that, if you look at the A9 dualling, that covers about roughly 100 miles. I know that Mr Sir Edward will disagree with me on that. However, as Churchill said over 100 years ago, the landowners who benefit enormously from a huge increase in the value of the land as a result of investment like during a road, a share of that additional value should come back, I think, to the taxpayer. I would say that 50 per cent of the increase in value should come back to the taxpayer. It is called the Think Land Value Capture, in principle. I would be looking at—I mean, there must be probably—I am just guessing at the top of my head—there might be a million acres between Perth and Inverness, whose value will go up significantly when this road is duelled. I think that—they have not put a penny into that other than the taxpayers like the rest of us. I think that it is only fair that a share of that additional value comes back to the taxpayer. There are two ideas. The consuls and some kind of land levy to get the taxpayer's share of the increase in land values resulting from public investment is two of the ideas that I would come across. It is not uncontroversial, but I think that it is reasonable. Marie McNeill, do you want to follow back up on that? No, I will then press the time off. Thank you very much. We then come to Edward Mountain, whose land you have just volunteered up to be. I do not want him to stray into matters in which he has not necessarily given any declaration of interest to the committee, but I now invite him as our reporter from the net zero committee to ask a question. I have no declaration of interest in relation to this. I do not own any of the land, but as a Highlander, I do think that we all would benefit from the A9. I say that it is really delightful to see Mr Neil back in the Parliament and speaking up so eloquently for people in the islands and islands, which sadly is often lacking in other areas of government. I also think that it is very interesting to hear him stress the importance of manifesto commitments. It is something that I believe politicians stand for and get elected on and should stand to it. My first question is in relation to Transport Scotland. I think that you used the expression that you were going to nail the advisers down in Transport Scotland, so it suggests that they might not have been very happy with being nailed down. When do you think they'd break the nails? Was it in your successor's time or beyond that? I do not know. They certainly did not do it in my time, but I can tell you that. I do remember one official. I am not going to name names. Let me say the quality of officials generally. I had four ministerial posts in my ministerial career. Generally speaking, there are exceptions in every walk of life, but I have to say generally speaking that the quality of officials was very, very good indeed. I do remember when I initially brought the officials in to tell them that I wanted to prioritise the drilling of the A9 in the forthcoming infrastructure investment plan. One of the reasons that I gave was the number of people being killed and the A9 and the number of casualties and the accidents and so on. One official said to me that Mr Neil, this is not the most dangerous road in Scotland. To which I replied, it may not be the most dangerous road in Scotland. There may be other roads that are more dangerous the way that they measure it, but it has one unique advantage that no other road has in Scotland. He just looked at me blank. He said, what is that? I said, none of the others are a manifesto commitment. That is good to hear, but you remained in Government till 2016 and in the Cabinet until 2016. That must have been discussed at Cabinet meetings. You must have wanted to follow it up on behalf of the Highlands and Islands to see where it was going. Did you raise it between the time that you left your portfolio and when you left Government until 2016? I did casually. My understanding was that I did not raise it formally because, quite frankly, I was busy with my own portfolio. I was designing the Scottish child payment, although it took five years for that to get implemented. Nevertheless, I tried to keep my ear open and I certainly did not hear anything about any delays. I think that it is fairly recent, the only fairly recently, that the delays have been admitted to. As far as I can see from the evidence that you have received so far, why was there no flag raise? Why was there no intimation? Was the Cabinet—this is a question for the committee to ask for the paperwork as well—informed when it became obvious that there was going to be a delay? Were they informed for the reasons? Were they informed about how long the delay would be? Were alternative scenarios put to them to try to avoid the delay? I am no party to any of that. Just on the land acquisition, you mentioned that you think that it could have been speeded up. I tend to agree with you that compulsory purchase orders could have been issued relatively quickly and served at minimal cost. Why did that not happen as soon as you got it into the plan in 2011? It did. It was £18 million set aside immediately for anything that needed to be done and could be done within a two-year period. That would go partly to fund probably external advice to Transport Scotland on the design and the issues on the road that they would need to investigate. I do not think that any of that would be used for advanced research, say, ground assessment, but that assessment would be made and some of the land would be already in public ownership. All that work still had to be done, but some of it had been done by the time that I had left or it certainly started. That is again why I wanted the schedule. A minister can measure things. If he knows what the schedule is, he would need to know the schedule. If he does not know the schedule, he cannot manage it. That is why I insisted on it. However, at the same time, I did not say, as the convener confirmed or repeated what I said earlier, that this is the date when we are going to complete this. You tell me because you just get guff from then. You just get something that is meaningless. That is why I deliberately framed it. Can you please advise me, as the experts, as Transport Scotland and as our civil service, can you please advise me on a realistic date when we can physically and financially dual the A9 and dual the A96? I got back the answer in 2025 and 2030 respectively. In the case of the A9, we got down to detailed work very quickly, including that schedule. Interestingly, I did a bit of research before I came to the committee. I think that there were nine cabinet secretaries after you who were responsible for this, including one member of the Parliament round this table under connectivity. Do you not have an input? No, that is not correct. I did not have responsibility for infrastructure. Nine cabinet secretaries and 11 ministers, which is quite a troll, have managed to achieve six miles of dueling. It could have achieved an awful amount. When you left office and had your foot on the accelerator in your words, would you have expected something to happen in the next two years? A lot of what was due to happen by 2016 was behind the scenes stuff. Apart from the section that was completed in 2021, which was the section on Lincarte to Burnham, you would not know because the other construction works were not due to start until much later. The completion was 2025, but if you look at the start date for construction, because that is the final phase, clearly, if the construction is not taking place. I noticed as a backbencher that I thought progress was slow. I did informally speak to a number of those nine ministers, but nobody at any stage told me that there was a strategic delay in the programme. I do not know if the ministers knew that there was a strategic delay. My final question, if I may convener, now appears that we are going to have to do this at a rush and we are going to have to get this done sooner rather than later, which I think is the right thing to do. Could you give me an assessment apart from the cost implications of doing it at a rush, where the constructors know that you are doing it at a rush and can charge whatever they think is reasonable? Apart from the cost, what are the other implications to connectivity to the highlands? It is going to slow us down, is it not? Obviously, you do not get the benefits of it if the job is not done, and I see that some people are suggesting that it could be 2050. 2050 would be totally unacceptable. Any new plan must look at what can be done within the next five or six years. If the preparatory work has been done, and that is the starting point, have they done those four phases? Have they done all the statutory processes, for example? Are they still all to get initiated? How many are initiated? When are they going to be completed? I think that there needs to be a realistic assessment and an updated schedule of the type that was in Annex D on 28 May 2012 from Mr Anderson of Transport Scotland to me, and I think that you now need from the Cabinet Secretary for Transport an updated schedule telling you for each of those four phases of each stage when are they going to get started and when are they going to get completed? What is the estimated cost? Obviously, there has to be looking at the funding and some imaginative ways of trying to fund it, but I also read the evidence from Mr Barn from the Association. He made a lot of valid points about what procurement method would be most effective. I am not an engineer, so I am not in a position to advise on that, but I think that somebody like Mr Barn should be listened to by the Government. Just a final question, Mr Neil, which draws together a couple of points that I heard. I might say that it is a pity that there was never an Annex D for the HS2 project, which I suspect did not benefit from your foresight in the capital expenditure planning. There is even an Annex Z for that. You have identified some suggestions as to how you feel funding for this project might be realised. In response to Mr Golden earlier, who was looking at the climate change impact requirements that had to be assessed at the time, he talked about the fact that it is not roads themselves but the product that drives on a road that is potentially the leading instigator of climate damage. I am interested to know if there are funding ways to do that. Is the inclusion of greens in the Government who may well just be opposed to the principle of the road irrespective of how fuel-efficient vehicles are on it? To your mind, one of the key obstacles here that is preventing the Government, which made the manifesto commitment from proceeding, or is there something else? In other words, is that one of the unspoken obstacles that, irrespective of whether or not a funding mechanism is going to be identified, is potentially halting progress on the road? It should not be because, in my reading, I think that I am correct in saying this, that I need to double check, but my understanding of the Butehouse agreement is that those road projects were excluded from the agreement. In other words, there was a recognition that the Greens opposed anything like that, but they would have no responsibility for it in the Government, thank God, and they would not be able to veto progress on those projects. If it is as a result of green influence, then, quite frankly, that makes the situation even worse, but, to be honest, I think that if they are sticking to the word and the spirit of the agreement, my understanding, Mr Ewing will know more about this than me, but my understanding is that the A9 and the A96 projects are excluded from that agreement. The A9 is entirely excluded during between Perth and Inverness. The A96 section from Inverness-Smithson to Aldern, east of Nairn, and the Nairn bypass is excluded, but the residue of the unduled A96 is not excluded and, indeed, is subject to a review, the results of which are promised to be announced by the Government apparently fairly soon, so it is nearly correct, but not absolutely accurate. In my view, I would not be allowing the Greens to veto on this. This is about Scotland's economic future. The north-east clearly is facing major challenges, although it is a much richer area than many other parts of Scotland. Clearly, it has to diversify its economy because it is already in the transition away from oil and gas. That will take a number of decades to be completed, but the north-east economy cannot do without the drilling of the A96 between Aberdein and Inverness if it is to achieve the growth rate of which it is capable. I am talking about a sustainable growth rate. I absolutely agree that the impact on climate change policies has to be part of the assessment, but it should be part of the assessment of how you implement the project, not whether or not you do the project. That has all been characteristically candid. I am reminded of my old friend and colleague, Sir Albert Macquarie, who, at the age of 96, contemplated a return to public life in elected office. I think that there is a lot more that you could offer the country yet, Mr Neil, with at least three decades' advantage on him. I think that that has been very helpful. Not only have you pointed the committee in ways that we might wish to explore further, but you have identified ways in which, as we look forward—I think that you made the point that looking forward is the objective of the committee in realising the aims of the petition—that there might be ways in which we can look to try and take that forward. Thank you very much indeed for your time this morning. I follow the advice of my old school, Air Academy, whose motto was, unfortunately, Air Academy was all respect and nae prospect, so I would emphasise to the committee that prospect is the nae of the game. On which note, I will suspend briefly, thank you very much. Welcome back. I should have concluded the last evidence session by asking members to agree that we will reflect on that evidence and come to determination on how we might want to proceed at a subsequent meeting. Are we agreed with that? We are. That brings us to item 4 on the agenda this morning, which is the consideration of the continuation of existing petitions. The first of these is petition number 19.02, to allow an appeal process for community participation requests. Our parliamentary colleague Edward Mountain has stayed with us to assist in the consideration of this particular petition, to which he will make a representation. We have also received one from Rhoda Grant, to which I will refer in a moment. The petition is to allow an appeal process for community participation requests. Launched by Maria Aitken on behalf of the Kithnes health action team, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to allow an appeal process for community participation requests under the Community Empowerment Act of 2015. We last considered the petition on 18 January. The committee agreed to write to the Scottish Government and we have since received response from the Minister for Community Wealth and Public Finance. The minister stated that the Scottish Community Development Centre is giving careful consideration to when an appeal could be made, how the process would be fair, open and transparent and who would be best placed to manage the process. We have received, as I said a moment ago, a written submission from Rhoda Grant, who is unable to attend the meeting this morning. She has made the case for ChatCHAT to be accepted by NHS Highland as a community organisation under the participation request process and has asked that the committee put this matter to NHS Highland. Rhoda has also requested that the committee keep the petition open until the Scottish Community Development Centre, to whom I referred a second ago, has published its proposals on an appeals process. Before I ask members how they would like to proceed, can I ask Edward Mountain if he has any suggestions? Thank you very much. The Cathness health action team has been around for a long time and has been instrumental in helping to resolve issues of inclusion for people as far as health concerns are in the Highlands. They are strong advocates. I have supported Rhoda and the Cathness health action team in delivering their request to NHS Highland. There is a very simple answer, as Rhoda has suggested. Is it NHS Highland to accept them? I would urge you to keep the petition open and perhaps push further at NHS Highland's door to see whether they will include Chat by excluding them. They are doing them and Cathness is now good at all. I am tempted to suggest that we keep the petition open and we write to NHS Highland, as Rhoda Grant has suggested, seeking the inclusion of Chat in their community participation representation. There is a material basis for us to wait for the Scottish community development centre to publish its proposals so that we can be satisfied that there is progress going to be made in those two fronts. Are there any other suggestions, committee, or are we content? I am absolutely content with that. I will just add really that we did, in the 18th of January, all agree—I think that I spoke, Alexander Stewart spoke, the south convener spoke, as well as Rhoda Grant, asking for the minister to be specific and say when we were going to get the decision. That is the 18th of January. Here we are. Almost another year has passed and we now know that nothing is going to happen until the early part of next year when this report from the SCDC will be available. I have to say that I will not be holding my breath about the content of this report without being too critical. I do not really expect a great deal from it. I am not sure that it is really even necessary. Be that as it may, the minister then fails to say when the decision will be taken after the SCDC report has been issued. We are really none the wiser about when the minister is actually going to get around to doing something. The reason I am putting it like this on the record is so that, in the vain hope that when we ask the Scottish Government minister to give us the courtesy of a reply on something so basic as timing, that we do not just see things kicked into the long grass for in perpetuity, particularly in the days of rewilding when the grass is very long. Julie Notey. We agree that we will keep the petition open on the basis suggested. The next petition is petition number 1975, reform the law relating strategic lawsuits against public participation with the unfortunate acronym of SLAPS. Our next petition, which is this petition, was lodged by Roger Mullen, and it calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to review and amend the law to prevent the use of strategic lawsuits against public participation. We last considered this as well on 18 January, when the committee agreed to write the Scottish Law Commission, the Law Society of Scotland, the National Union of Journalists, the Scottish Newspaper Society and the Scottish Government. The Scottish Law Commission has confirmed that it does not have any current work on going that is relevant to the petition in its programme of law reform. The Minister for Community Safety's written submission notes that, while not the only type of proceeding used for this purpose, defamation is the most common route to silence or intimidate. The submission details enhanced legal protections brought about by the Defamation and Malicious Publications Scotland Act 2021, in particular the ability for unfounded proceedings to be dismissed at an early procedural hearing in relevant circumstances. The Law Society of Scotland points out that between 2013 and 2021, when the threshold to bring defamation action was lower than Scotland in England and Wales, there was not as a consequence a significant increase in the number of cases brought to Scotland in highlights work being undertaken by the Council of Europe to develop a draft recommendation on SLAPPSs with the working group concluding by December 2023. The National Union of Journalists states that often threats of legal action act as an effective deterrent and will go unreported, meaning that the true scale of the issue cannot be easily captured. The NUJ argues that the statutory definition of SLAPPSs must be broad in order to cover the wide range of tactics deployed. The anti-SLAPP HUB's written submission points to the UK Government's consultation, which observed that protection through a serious harm test or public interest defence in defamation cases comes too late in the proceedings to deter abusive litigation. The petitioner's written submissions describe the Scottish Government's response as complacent and states that SLAPPSs cannot be judged solely on the basis of those cases that come to court. His most recent submission highlights some of the on-going work being done to increase engagement on the call for the Scottish anti-SLAPP legislation. On that rather extended summary, do members of any comments or suggestions for action? Yes, I think that we should take evidence from the petitioner, the anti-SLAPP HUB, the Law Society and the Minister for Community Safety. I also think that Mr Graham Johnson, who submitted a fairly detailed and forensic closely argued submission, should be heard in addition. The reason I would suggest that, convener, is that I think from the National Union of Journalists, as you've said from Mr Johnson, from the anti-SLAPP HUB and from others, it appears that Scotland is at risk of becoming a jurisdiction of choice for people at Oligarchs to abuse the court system, throw their weight around and by taking action, slap actions, prevent freedom of speech, and that's something, surely, that we are here to preserve and fight for. In particular, I was struck by the point that the high-profile cases, slap cases, are simply the tip of the iceberg and I'm reading here from the NUJ submission. They don't reflect the volume of threatening letters and interference that takes place pre-publication. In other words, we've got no idea of knowing how many threats of legal action are made that we never hear about because the person, who could be a small publisher, a small newspaper thinks, I haven't got the money to take on this guy. So that's the end of it. David Noe Sling, No Action, Goliath and other victory chopped up to Goliath. I've got absolutely no doubt, I think, we need to get the evidence here to learn more from the various points that have been challenged by the Government's response, which I did find a bit on the complacent side, I'm sorry to say. Are there any other comments? We agreed. The petitioner, Roger Mullen, is with us in the gallery today, so I think that we would seek to take evidence from the petitioner, from the anti-slap research hub, the Law Society of Scotland and the Minister for Community Safety at Future Meetings. Are there any other organisations that you would like to include? Mr Graham Johnson has suggested by Fergus Ewing, and are we content to proceed on that basis? We are. We'll complete the petition open and seek to hold an evidence session at a subsequent committee meeting, as agreed. Petition number 1979 to establish an independent inquiry and an independent national whistleblowing officer to investigate concerns about the alleged mishandling of child safeguarding inquiries by public bodies. This petition has been lodged by Neil McClellan, Christine Scott, Alison Dickey, who, at least, I think, is with us in the gallery today, and Bill Cook. I'm not sure if any of the other petitioners are Mr Cook. Well, yes, they are. I can see they're indicating they're with us. I understand that many of, as I say, the petitioners have joined them. Warm welcome to you. You've had quite an extended morning before we've got to your petition. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to launch an independent inquiry to examine concerns that allegations about child protection, child abuse, safeguarding and children's rights have been mishandled by public bodies, including local authorities and the General Teachings Council of Scotland, the GTCS, gaps in the Scottish child abuse inquiry and establish an independent national whistleblowing officer for education and children's services in Scotland to handle these inquiries in the future. We previously considered this petition at our meeting on 8 February at which point we agreed to seek further information from a number of relevant organisations. We have subsequently received responses from the General Teachings Council Scotland, the Children and Young People's Commissioner Scotland, the Scottish Social Services Council, the EIS Teaching Union and COSLA and copies of the response are included in the meeting papers for today. The GTCS have provided an overview of their fitness to teach process and identified national education reform and the Scottish child abuse inquiry as opportunities for driving improvement on the roles and responsibilities and child protection. The responses from the Scottish Social Services Council, the EIS and COSLA suggest that the existing guidance and processes for child protection are sufficient with both the EIS and the SSC hesitant about the need for an independent national whistleblowing officer for education and children's services. In contrast, the Children and Young People's Commissioner Scotland response notes that they have identified a number of gaps in the national guidance, as well as a need for stronger accountability mechanisms. The response also suggests that there would be merit in exploring the creation of a national whistleblowing officer, perhaps in similar format to the independent national whistleblowing officer for NHS services. The committee has also received three submissions from the petitioners, which reflect in our previous consideration of the petition, as well as commenting on the content of responses that we have otherwise received. Finally, I and other members of the committee have received email correspondence from a number of individuals seeking to make submissions to the committee or to give evidence in support of the petition, but only if they can do so under conditions of confidentiality, which the committee can obviously agree to. I therefore ask members of any comments or suggestions for action. Reading back the petitioner's response of 3 March, the petitioner said, we thought that it might be useful to take you through several actual case studies highlighted by whistleblowers and victims and that some whistleblowers will be prepared to speak directly to the committee. Those are very sensitive matters, as we know, convener. I would suggest that it would be appropriate to invite the petitioners and whistleblowers to a round-table discussion on the issues raised by this petition. If that option is favoured, the committee might want to delegate authority to the convener to work with the clerks on the most appropriate format for this discussion to take place. We are here to make sure that people have a right to be heard. They have not been heard yet, so that would be a way in which we could give them that right to be heard. Colleagues, that might mean that you would be devolving to me the ability to potentially agree that this session might be a private session in order to protect and respect the anonymity of those individuals who might feel that they wanted to contribute and to work with the clerks to ensure that we can identify a format that would be one that the individuals who might want to contribute would feel they could support and feel confident in. Are you content to do that? We are going to keep the petition open and our next consideration of this will be with a round-table where we hear direct evidence in a format that is to be agreed from those people affected. Are we agreed? We are agreed. Thank you very much. I hope that that meets the immediate hopes and expectations of the petitioners. We moved to petition number 1984, which is to introduce the C100 form for child arrangement orders in Scotland. Our next petition, and this has been lodged by Amy Stevenson, the petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to reduce the financial barriers that prevent parents from having contact with their children by introducing a Scottish equivalent to the C100 form with a fixed fee for making applications for child residents or child contact orders. We previously considered this petition on 22 February. When we agreed to write to the Scottish Government, the Law Society of Scotland, the Family Law Association, Relationship Scotland, the Scottish Legal Aid Board, the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service and the Family Law Committee of the Scottish Civil Justice Council, the Scottish Government response sets out its view that it is better if separating parents can agree about what is best for their child and includes information on existing resources and services intended to assist separating parents' resolved disputes and make arrangements outside of court. The Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service response highlights the potential impacts the introduction of a form-based approach might have on the court service, and a number of the responses that were received also noted that the introduction of a C100 type form may encourage people to go straight to court without first considering alternative options, and while fixed fees might reduce some costs, it could result in increased costs on if the individual requires legal representation throughout the process. The Scottish Legal Aid Board suggested that a change in the way cases are initiated would require wider overhaul of court rules. The Scottish Civil Justice Council and Relationships Scotland said that a starting point might be a review of the current processes for making applications for child contact or residence orders. Do members have any comments or suggestions for action? I think that we should write to the Scottish Government to seek an update on the pilot scheme for mandatory alternative dispute resolution meetings and also ask whether there is any plans to review the present system for initiating court action in relation to child contact and residence orders. Colleagues minded to accept that suggestion. We are and we will move forward. Thank you very much. Petition number 1986 to provide testing kits for drugs in public spaces lodged by Andy Patterson on behalf of the help not harm campaign calling on the Scottish Parliament urging the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to provide free testing kits for drugs in public spaces such as local pharmacies, libraries and university buildings. Last considered by us on 22 February when we agreed to write to the Scottish Government who in their response highlighted three forthcoming reports on the drug checking research project, which all focus on the use of self testing kits. It also notes that an implementation group has been established and that implementing drug checking will be a priority for the group. No specific timeline is available as this is dependent on the home office and its licensing application process. Two of the applications were due to be submitted by the end of April and a third before the summer. Do members have any comments or suggestions? Might I suggest then that we write to the Scottish Government to request a summary of the key findings and recommendations of the drug checking research project's three reports, which we have been advised about on the use of self testing kits and to indicate whether the findings have altered the Scottish Government's position on the free provision of such kits in public spaces? I support that recommendation, convener, and I wonder if I could add to that that we might specifically wish to seek from the Scottish Government an update as to what testing and training is provided in respect of the use of naloxone. When I was many moons ago to 7-11 to the Drugs Minister, we promoted the use of naloxone by, for example, police officers. Naloxone can reverse the effects of opioids and, in certain circumstances, it can save lives if applied. It is not without its controversies, but that was introduced back those years ago. I just raise it because, plainly, with the potential to save lives, that is a very important part of the drug testing value. It would be helpful to get a fairly comprehensive account from the Scottish Government about how that is rolled out, whether the police are now using it, as was wished to be the case, whether there are any barriers, and, in general, what they are doing with that, specifically, because we all are alarmed and concerned at the drug deaths in Scotland, and naloxone can, in some circumstances, save lives. We move to agenda item 5, the consideration of new petitions. As I always do, just in case people are joining us to follow our proceedings this morning, who may have a petition that we are considering to let them know that we invite the Scottish Government to comment and also seek comment from the Scottish Parliament's independent research unit, SPICE, ahead of this first consideration. The first of these petitions, 2013, is the implementation of a national dashcam safety portal. This has been lodged by Neil MacNamara, and it calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to introduce, without delay, a national dashcam safety portal, as already agreed by Police Scotland. The SPICE briefing explains that a national dashcam safety portal would provide an online channel for members of the public to submit evidence of potential road traffic offences recorded on dashcams, helmet cameras and mobile phones directly to Police Scotland. The Scottish Government's response to the petition highlights its recent programme for government commitment on this issue. The programme states that Police Scotland will seek to build on the Scottish Government's investment to make it easier to submit digital evidence to report poor road user behaviour. Dundee has piloted the use of the digital evidence sharing capability programme, or the DESC, which allows a request for digital evidence to be sent to a member of the public. Do members have any comments or suggestions for action? Mr Ewing? Can we write to Police Scotland to ask how it intends to fund improvements to the ways in which digital evidence is submitted, in particular where funding will come from to implement the digital evidence sharing capability programme? I wonder if I might make an additional suggestion, which is that my understanding is that, in Wales and in police forces in England, the dashcam technology is available, I think, throughout. Therefore, Scotland appears to be the laggard. References have been made to Welsh experience and to the technology company Nick's base, which apparently provides some services free of charge. Whereas the Scottish Government and Police Scotland tend to labour the cost of that, so plainly there is a slight contradiction between the evidence before us. I wonder, then, if we could write to either the UK Government or Police Forces in England or a representative of the Police Forces in England and Wales in order to try to elicit convener their experience, because they have done it already. How much did it cost to them? What has the benefits and their experience and their evaluation of that been? It seems to me that, since they have done it, we should learn from them. Could we invite the clerks to give some consideration as to who it might be that we could write to in that regard to fulfil that objective? I am quite content, Mr Chowdry. I just want to say that the date protection act and the privacy, I mean, do you think that that could be affected as well on this? A lot of the time, you see quite a lot of stuff online. People are posting cyclists and other people as well, going into private cars and putting stuff in there. What measures are the police or the law that we will be taking? Possibly, we could add that to our inquiry of those who have been implementing this elsewhere to see how they have overcome those particular considerations, and that might help inform anything that might happen in Scotland as well, so we will do it that way. Any other suggestions? No, we are content to proceed on that basis. I should say that I have just been advised that Marie McNair was not able to join us after Alec Neill's evidence, so she has not been with us for the consideration of the other petitions. PE2032 improved the support available to injured soldiers and veterans in Scotland. This has been lodged by James Brebner and it calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to improve the support provided by public bodies to injured soldiers and veterans in Scotland by ensuring that there are clear pathways for their injuries to be treated by appropriate consultants, to establishing a veterans trauma network similar to that that operates in England and Wales, ensuring that all correspondence-raising concerns are making complaints about their treatment from veterans to the Scottish Government is acknowledged and responded to, and reviewing and seeking an up-to-up date the way in which the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman handles complaints from veterans about health service. Mr Brebner tells us that he was injured in the Falklands while serving with the parachute regiment, which has left him with severe leg pain. In responding to action called for on the petition, the Scottish Government states that it is working with colleagues across the NHS and the veterans community to develop a Scottish veterans treatment pathway and has also been working with the veterans trauma network in England to understand how a similar service might be applied in Scotland. The response also notes that all correspondence received by the Scottish Government is lodged centrally with the aim of providing a reply within 20 days of receipt, as well as highlighting that it would be a matter for the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman to comment on its own process and any potential review of how it handles complaints from veterans about the health service. We have also received a submission from the petitioner commenting on the Scottish Government's response, highlighting the continued concerns about the delay in establishing a trauma network and sharing his own experience of trying to navigate those processes. I think that it is a very interesting petition before us. Do members have any comments or suggestions for action? I think that we should write to Veterans Scotland, to SAFA, the Armed Forces Charity and the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman to seek their views on the action called on the petition. I think that it might be useful, but I am relaxed on which point to write to the convener or the cross-party group on veterans to seek their network's views on support for injured soldiers and veterans in Scotland, in addition to that. I am quite happy to write to the cross-party group, but we might also write to the Armed Forces personnel and veterans joint group, which is a separate body as well, seeking similar information. I should mention that I am the convener of the cross-party group on veterans. Well, you can write to yourself on that basis. Save the clerks the trouble, but, nonetheless, we will probably put something more formal down in a way of a communication. I wonder whether the Government has made an ambition in respect of the time that it takes to reply to letters of 20 days. There must, to borrow Mr Neil's expression, be a metric that we will be able to call on to see whether it is happening. I wonder if we might ask the Scottish Government if they are able to confirm what percentage of letters were replied to within the 20 days as well. Are we agreed on that basket of actions? We are. Well, thank you very much, Mr Brevner. We will take forward the objectives of the petition and, hopefully, consider it again in early course when we have responses from those to whom we are now writing. Petition number 2033, which is to introduce a full ban on disposable vapes, is lodged by Jordan Anderson, a name with which some of you may be familiar from other petitions that we have considered. It calls on the Scottish Government to legislate for a full or partial ban on disposable vapes in Scotland and recognise the dangers that these devices pose to both the environment and the health of young people. Jordan highlights research from the number of single-use vapes that are discarded each year and the damage that this could cause to the environment. He is also concerned that there is not enough research available on the health aspects of using these devices, particularly for young people, although not exclusively. The Scottish Government provided a response to the petition in July, which notes a range of steps related to the marketing, promotion and sale of vaping products that will be considered as part of the process to refresh the tobacco action plan that is due to be published later this year. The response also refers to the recent Zero Waste Scotland report, which proposes a range of policy options intended to address concerns about the environmental impact of single-use vapes. We can see them lying around our communities. We have received two submissions from the petition, further detailing his concerns about the increasing number of young people regularly using vapes and urging the Scottish Government to take action on the policy options put forward by Zero Waste Scotland. The petitioner highlighted work that was carried out by the Scottish Youth Parliament to gather views from young people across Scotland on the impacts of vaping, and since receiving the Scottish Government's initial response, members will be aware that the new programme for government includes a commitment to consult on a proposal to ban the sale of single-use vapes. Do members have any comments or suggestions for action? I think that this is an interesting petition. In terms of full ban on disposable vapes, the committee might be really focused on the environmental impacts. I think that the health angle presumably would include all vapes, if that is the reason to ban them. Nonetheless, I think that we probably need a bit more evidence on this, so I think that we should write to action on smoking and health Scotland, to forest, to the UK vaping industry, and also to—perhaps the clerks might be able to identify other major producers of vapes, because I believe that the UK vaping industry does not also represent those vape manufacturers in the tobacco industry, so there might be a slightly wider stakeholder response there. It is also worthwhile to ask the Scottish Government when it expects to launch its consultation on the proposal to ban the sale of single-use vapes, and what consideration has been given to the suggestion by Ash Scotland that e-cigarette should only be made available on prescription for people who wish to use them as an aid to smoking secession? We noted in my introduction that the Scottish Youth Parliament had undertaken some work in this regard. Is that the outcome of that now in the public domain, or— The links are in the papers. The links are in the papers, right, fine, so we've got access to that information. Is there any way—because I think that it's alluded to in terms of the petitioner health on young people—is there any way that we could establish if we have any data on the prevalence of young people using vapes and where we might find that information? We can see whether Spice can maybe undertake that. I also would like some—if there's anywhere we can think to establish whether there is any clinical evidence about the consequences of vaping. Clearly, Ash is wholly funded by the Scottish Government to start with, so it's not going to disagree with the Scottish Government's own proposals. It's not that I wish to—well, I suppose possibly I do—I would just like something that's a little bit independent of Ash in relation to us trying to identify something factual in those matters, rather than just from wholly funded lobby organisations. Mr Chowdry. Also, I was wanting to ask that if the Scottish Government is doing anything to protect under 18s, because all this vaping industry is targeting youngsters as well with all this flavoured non-smokers, so I don't know if the Government is doing anything. You're right, we need to find somebody else or any other organisations, because Ash will agree with the Scottish Government that there are any other organisations or maybe a round-table discussion with—Is it worth the while? If we can find out perhaps from COSLA how trading standards are enforcing the ban on under 18s accessing vapes and if that has been successful at all and indeed the legal sales of vapes. You see, there's a slight contradiction, it seems to me, in the Ash issue, because Ash are suggesting that e-cigarette should only be made available on prescription for people who wish to use them as a need to smoking cessation, which indirectly could encourage young people to start smoking in the first instance in order to get access to vaping if it was to come about, rather than vaping in the first instance as an alternative to ever smoking in the first place. So it could almost be counterproductive as a proposal, because obviously I'm familiar with the whole introduction of vaping at an earlier stage in public life and the feeling that it was very much one of the tools that might be available to try and help with smoking cessation. Clearly it has grown exponentially in the period since, but I don't know if we should be judgmental about that in itself. We should really want to understand what evidence there is or emerging of material harm, but I just wonder if maybe SPICE might be able to identify where research might be being carried out and all of that. I think that that would be helpful. Petition number 2034, which is to stop the current proposals for highly protected marine areas in Scotland to which we now come, lodged by Stuart Churnside calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to halt their current proposals for highly protected marine areas and bring forward new proposals that take account of sustainable fishing methods. Events have slightly overtaken this petition as we know it was lodged on the 20th of June, and members will be aware that the Cabinet Secretary for Transport, Net Zero and Just Transition provided a statement to Parliament on the 29th of June, confirming that the Scottish Government would not be progressing with the proposals. As noted in both the SPICE briefing and the Scottish Government response, the Cabinet Secretary has committed to providing the Parliament with an update on the Government's next steps on this issue, and in the light of that, I wonder if members would agree that it would be Mr Ewing. I note the response of the Cabinet Secretary, which is very brief. What it does not say is that, although the statement was made on the 29th of June to the Scottish Parliament, the proposals would not be going ahead. Very shortly after that, one of the green MSPs said that the Scottish Government were quotes committed to bringing forward these proposals, so immediately it was contradicted in the press. Since then, the Cabinet Secretary has also said that she is going to bring forward other measures. The industry itself is highly sceptical. The Scottish Fishmen's Federation has talked about the measures being brought back by the back door. I have spoken to fishing representatives in Clyde, in Shetland, in the Western Isles and elsewhere, as well as the SFF. There is grave concern. In particular, I wonder if we could therefore write to the Scottish Government, rather than close the petition now, because these issues have not really gone away, I think that that is the point that they are making, to seek an update on what alternative plans it has to enhance the protection of the marine environment, and whether that will include HPMAs, which appears to be the case, although it appears to have been ruled out. In addition to that, I wonder if we could maybe add a specific request that the Scottish Government say about the engagement that they are having with the Western Isles Fishmen's Federation and Duncan McKinnis there, with Elaine White and her colleagues in Clyde, and with all the bodies that they represent in shore, because they have tremendous knowledge and they are doing tremendous things, which has just been completely skated over. Finally, we already have 37 per cent of our seas designated as marine protected areas. There has not been any mention, even if the Scottish Government, of whether or not there should be a review of the existing designations of MPAs. It did always seem to me, I hope as a logician, that, before you embark on a series of brand new measures, you work out how effective or otherwise the existing measures have been, and the economic impacts, which is, as a former fishers minister, highly controversial, because the fishermen feel that the economic impacts have never been properly assessed and are repeatedly underestimated. With a number of vessels closing, losing vessels all over Scotland, it's a dire, dire situation. Sorry, I'm going on perhaps a bit too long here, but I do think that we should keep it open and we should write to ask for really quite a lot of detail, because I'm pretty sure that's what the petitioner and many, many others would want us to do. Mr Shoudrie. I think that we should ask for a breakdown of what other actions the plan instead. Thank you. I think that it might even be that we commend the evidence or the discussion that was held at the SPICE briefing this morning when we heard from Dr Andy Williamson, who said that this was actually one of the policy area that might very well have benefited from an informed citizens panel of people who would be affected, who would have been able to underpin any ministerial consideration of how they might proceed on an issue for which there is generally a public understanding, but not for the approach that was being previously advocated and that, therefore, they might get a much more informed community buy-in to any proposals that they might seek to bring forward in the future. Are we content to proceed on that basis? We are. Excellent. Our final new petition this morning is petition number 2038, which is commission suitable NHS services for people with hypermobile elder Danlos syndrome, Ehlers-Danrum syndrome and hypermobility spectrum disorders. I was looking for an individual, but it has been lodged by Ehlers-Danlos support UK. Apologies. The SPICE briefing explains that Ehlers-Danlos syndroms are a group of rare inherited conditions that affect connective issues in the body and that there are different types of EDS, including hypermobile EDS. The briefing also outlines other hypermobility spectrum disorders. It also notices that guidance and guidelines from managing EDS have not been straightforward due to some views that the evidence base is insufficient and varied opinions on the best way to manage the conditions. The Scottish Government has outlined that diagnosis and patient care is provided by local and regional rheumatology services with the input of other specialities. The submission highlights that the Scottish rare disease action plan stating that the actions within the plan will address issues around the lack of signposting, referral pathways and overall care coordination, including for those living with HEDS and hypermobility spectrum disorders. The petitioner's written submission disputes the categorisation of HEDS and HSD as rare, stating that the low diagnosis of the issue and that four out of five people they speak to actually have not been diagnosed. The submission refers to a bid made in 2018 by Professor Stuart Ralston for a specialist centre that was supported by consultants, therapists and patients but was not supported by the Scottish Society for Rheumatology. The petitioner highlights concerns about access to services through rheumatology, stating that understanding that rheumatologists have been directed not to see people with non-inflammatory conditions. In light of the submissions that we have received in addition to that from the petitioning organisation, do colleagues have any suggestions for action, please? In which case can I suggest that we write to the National Services Division to ask whether it remains committed to producing a paper highlighting the issues and service gaps to people with HEDS and HDS encounter? I think also why the 2018 proposal by Professor Stuart Ralston for a specialist HEDS centre was rejected. I think that we would like to know that. Whether it has monitored the delivery of its commitment to encourage regional expertise and services in place of a specialist centre, we might also write to the Scottish Government asking how it intends to engage with people with HEDS and HSD in taking forward actions under the rare action disease plan, either individually or through Ehlers-Danlos support UK. Are members content that we proceed on that basis? We are, on which note we move into private session. That concludes our consideration of the petition today. We will next meet on to consider fresh petitions on Wednesday 25 October.