Chamber and committees

I am grateful for the minister’s reply. It is not ungenerous, and it is appreciated. I will just comment that we spend a lot of time in the Parliament deciding how to spend ever more quantities of taxpayers’ money, but we spend very little time reviewing how much value for money we get from the billions that we spend every year. With the pressures that face us now, perhaps that argument’s time has come. I am not necessarily in favour of a mass purge and assassination, but a sunset clause, for example, was another idea that was put forward. That would be a gradual turning off of the lights.

We should take evidence from the petitioner, the anti-SLAPP research hub, the Law Society of Scotland and the Minister for Victims and Community Safety. In addition, we should hear from Mr Graeme Johnston, who has provided a detailed, forensic and closely argued submission. I make that suggestion because, from what the National Union of Journalists, Mr Johnston, the anti-SLAPP research hub and others have said, it appears that Scotland is at risk of becoming the jurisdiction of choice for people such as oligarchs to abuse the court system, throw their weight around and, by taking SLAPP actions, prevent freedom of speech. Surely, freedom of speech is something that we are here to preserve and fight for.

In particular, I was struck by the point that high-profile SLAPP cases are simply the tip of the iceberg. The NUJ submission states that they

“do not reflect the volume of threatening letters and interference that takes place pre-publication.”

In other words, we have no idea how many threats of legal action are made that we never hear about because the person from, for example, a small publisher or small newspaper thinks, “I havenae got the money to take on this guy,” so that is the end of it—David, no sling, no action; another victory chalked up to Goliath.

I have absolutely no doubt that we need to get the evidence and to learn more from the various points that have been challenged in relation to the Government’s response, which—I am sorry to say—I found a bit on the complacent side.

Thank you very much.

No—that is not correct. I did not have responsibility for infrastructure.

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 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.