Chamber and committees

I am absolutely content with that. However, I want to add that, on 18 January, there was agreement. I spoke—as did Alexander Stewart, the convener and Rhoda Grant—and asked for the minister to be specific and say when we would get a decision. That was 18 January, but here we are—almost another year has passed—and we now know that nothing will happen until the early part of next year, when the report from the SCDC will be available. I will not be holding my breath about the content of that report. Without being too critical, I do not expect a great deal from it. I am not sure that it is even necessary.

Be that as it may, however, the minister fails to say when a decision will be taken after the SCDC report has been issued. Therefore, we are none the wiser about when the minister will get around to doing something. I put that on the record in the vain hope that, when we ask a Scottish Government minister to give us the courtesy of a reply on something so basic as timing, we do not just see things kicked into the long grass in perpetuity, particularly in these days of rewilding when the grass is very long.

I support that recommendation. We might also wish to seek from the Scottish Government an update on what testing and training are provided on the use of naloxone. Many moons ago, between 2007 and 2011, when I was the drugs minister, we promoted the use of naloxone by, for example, police officers. If applied, naloxone can reverse the effects of opioids, and, in certain circumstances, it can save lives. It is not without its controversies, but that measure was introduced years ago. I raise it because, in relation to drug testing, it has the potential to save lives and is very valuable.

It would be helpful to get a fairly comprehensive account from the Scottish Government about how naloxone has been rolled out, whether the police are now using it, as was wished to be the case, whether there are any barriers, and what is being doing with it specifically. We are all alarmed and concerned at the number of drug deaths in Scotland, and, in some circumstances, naloxone can save lives.

I will read back from the petitioners’ response of 3 March:

“We thought it might be useful … to take you through several actual case studies highlighted by whistleblowers and victims.”

They also said that it was their hope that

“some whistleblowers will be prepared to speak directly to the committee”.

These are very sensitive matters, as we know, so I suggest that it would be appropriate to invite the petitioners and whistleblowers to a round-table discussion on the issues raised by the 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 that 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.

—and what Transport Scotland did or, perhaps more relevantly, did not do.

That is extremely helpful. The reason I asked the question is that, in the evidence that Transport Scotland officials gave to the committee on 14 June, they implied that, back when the deadline was set, it was aspirational. That is just not true.

Well, yes. I will move swiftly on to the £14.7 billion. The second revelation that you have made again confounds the impression that Transport Scotland was intent to give, which was that this was all too difficult; that it was, perhaps, the politicians who had set an impossible task; and that Transport Scotland could not really be blamed for not having delivered it. You have said that the analysis in 2015 was that there was an unallocated amount in capital of £14.7 billion and that the estimates that were made at the time for dualling both the A9 and the A96 were broadly £6 billion, based on a figure of £30 million a mile. If you do the maths, you find that that was a conservative estimate. My point is that you are saying today that, in fact, there was masses of cash available and that, if 40 per cent of it was applied to the roads promises, they could and should have been delivered on time. Is that an adequate and correct summary?

Can you also give us a little more detail on that £14.7 billion if you are able to? What period did it cover and how was it worked out? Did officials provide you with that in a memo? To get to the truth of this, as is our task, we will need to see all those documents and many others. We can discuss that in due course, no doubt, but could you flesh out your evidence on the £14.7 billion a bit more?

Can we write to Police Scotland to ask how it intends to fund improvements to the ways in which digital evidence is submitted and, in particular, where the funding will come from to implement the digital evidence-sharing capability programme?

I wonder whether I might make an additional suggestion. My understanding is that dashcam technology is available throughout police forces in Wales and England. Scotland therefore appears to be the laggard. Reference has been made to the Welsh experience and the technology company Nextbase, which apparently provides some services free of charge, whereas the Scottish Government and Police Scotland tend to labour the costs of this. Plainly, there is a slight contradiction in the evidence that is before us.

Can we write to the UK Government or to police forces in England and Wales or their representatives to try to elicit information on their experience? They have implemented the technology already. How much did it cost them, what have the benefits been and what has been their experience and evaluation of it? It seems to me that, since they have done it, we should learn from them.

The A9 dualling between Perth and Inverness is entirely excluded. The A96 section from Inverness and Smithton to Auldearn, east of Nairn, and the Nairn bypass are excluded, but the residue of the undualled A96 is not excluded and, indeed, that is subject to a review, the results of which are promised to be announced by the Government apparently fairly soon. What you say is nearly correct, but not absolutely accurate.

Thank you very much for your evidence this morning. It has been informative, revelatory and quite explosive. My constituents want to know why we have not delivered our promises, and you are steering us towards the answers today. I just want to probe a couple of bits of that.

You said that the officials had provided you with the timing of when each section could be done. You read that out helpfully for the record. In other words, you did not 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 that it could be done by 2025. Is that correct? It was not your deadline; it was when they said that the job could be completed by.

I have a short final question. Mr Neil, why do you think that the A9 dualling project has fallen so very far behind schedule?