Seòmar agus comataidhean

I do not think that they are extremely profitable businesses.

Some years ago, from 2007 to 2011, I was community safety minister and, along with the Cabinet Secretary for Justice at that time, Kenny MacAskill, we worked very closely with John Carnochan and Karyn McCluskey. I was struck by their passion but also by their practical approach.

In talking about preventing youth violence, we have heard from Inspector Watters about diversionary activity. It seems that one of the key ways—Inspector Watters has confirmed it this morning—to take young people on to a different path of life and thinking and away from mindless violence is to provide diversionary activity. At that time, we introduced the idea of cashback, investing money that was taken from criminals—drugs money, for example, or other property seized—in diversionary activity. Is that still one of the main corrective approaches? If so, is it being supported sufficiently?

I am not just talking about taxpayers’ money or resources, as people tend to call it, as if it were a type of mineral. It is not; it is money, but it is not just money. It is also a will and a purpose among Government agencies to get things done and not pass them to somebody else’s desk. I do not know the answer to this question, but I want to hear from each of the witnesses. Are we doing enough? Should we do more and, if so, how do we go about that? What do we need to do more of or do better that could help to divert some of these young people away from some of the acts of mindless violence that we have heard about in what were extremely harrowing cases, as the convener has pointed out?

I am sure that you do a lot of good work. As you say, sadly, much of it is invisible, which is a shame.

In the distant days when I had an executive function, we sometimes used the Army and Army facilities such as barracks as well as outdoor activity establishments to take youngsters from Glasgow who, as I think John Carnochan said, had been identified as about to go into serious crime. They had started on criminal activity and John’s view was that, if things took their course, it was just a matter of time until they got involved in more criminality, went to Glenochil, ended up in Barlinnie and so on.

John’s idea was to get them in a room and give them one of his typical talks, which I imagine would make most people’s hair curl. However, he also wanted to take them out of their habitat and the place that they were happy with, which was maybe out in the schemes somewhere, and go somewhere entirely different such as the Cairngorms. The Army was very good at that, because that is what it does. It takes young men—they are mostly men, although there are women as well nowadays—and turns them into stronger and better team-playing people. That is what Army training is all about, and it is very good at that.

Maybe that sounds old-fashioned to some people, but I think that that strand—although it is not the sole answer—would help young people, particularly boys in their teens, from becoming hardened criminals. The minute investment that is involved would repay itself in spades, by avoiding all the misery that such criminality would cause throughout their lifetimes, for other people and themselves.

Is that happening now, or has it been dropped?

I support Mr Golden’s suggestions, but will add one inquiry that should be made, although I am not quite sure of whom. Obviously, we have legislation on sprinklers in domestic flats—I think that that was introduced pre-Covid, around 2018. It has been drawn to my attention by a constituent of mine who is a builder or renovator of flats that, at that time, the estimated costs that were given for installing sprinklers were very modest. He told me that, for various practical reasons, those costs have risen astronomically such that, in his instance, they might even make the construction of flats unviable.

I thought that I would mention that because, if costs have risen several times—not just by £1,000 or £2,000, but by huge amounts—and we are to pursue the proposal, at an early stage we would need somewhere to get advice from about the costs to kennels and other establishments that Mr Golden mentioned. I thought that I should throw that in out of fairness and balance.

Just last week, I got a quite alarming letter from a constituent. We all want safety, but would a £100 smoke detector be as effective? That was his argument, rightly or wrongly. I voted to pass the sprinkler legislation, but it has turned out to be grossly more expensive than was estimated at the time.

I was interested in the emphasis that you have given to the ONS decision. I do not recall there being any ministerial statement about that at the time. Why not?

Was SFT given a deadline when it was commissioned, and did it adhere to that deadline? When did it put forward the recommendations?

I will come on to that in a moment, convener.

The first area that I want to ask about is the outline plan for completion of the A9 dualling project by the envisaged date of 2035. That is subject to one important caveat, which raises serious questions in my mind about whether the plan will be delivered. That is that the use of mutual investment model contracts is

“subject to ... further decision making in late 2025”,

based on

“an updated assessment of market conditions.”

That means that a decision could be taken not to use MIM.

What criteria will be applied in 2025 as to whether MIM will be used? If MIM is not used, what is the contingency plan?

I have one final question. Inverness is 168 miles from Glasgow, where Transport Scotland’s big office is located. There is no Transport Scotland office in Inverness or the Highlands. Almost all the capital money will be spent on the A9 or the A96 over the next 10 years. Why is there not a Transport Scotland office based in Inverness, and will there be one? Will staff be relocated there? Is the absence of such a presence not a bit of a sign that there is still not an absolute commitment to delivery of the project? Staff have to travel up the road and stay in a hotel or drive up the road and back. I have met some of the staff—

I am very concerned about the general issue of public bodies marking their own homework. When any complaint is dealt with, whether it is a complaint about staff or management, there is a tendency to circle the wagons, and nothing very much ever happens. That concern is real, and the answers from our witnesses have been very helpful.

I postulate that one solution to resolve the question of what happens if the whistleblower’s recommendation is ignored could be, if it is a criminal matter, to refer the case to, for example, a children’s panel. If it were not a criminal matter and therefore outwith the remit of the children’s panel, could there be a procedure to refer a matter to the Scottish Government’s children’s minister? That, albeit not a perfect remedy or disposal, would at least provide a route to take. I am just thinking out loud here; I have no expertise in this area at all. Would either of those possibilities, or other possibilities, be something that you might want to consider and come back to us on, given the current time constraints?

Good morning, cabinet secretary and witnesses. In his evidence, Alex Neil said that he believed that there was more than sufficient capital to deliver the project. He also set out a detailed statement about when each of the sections of the A9 was to be dualled. Why was that not adhered to? It was breached right from the start.