³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

Are you? You can write to yourself on that basis and save the clerks the trouble. [Laughter.] Nonetheless, we will probably put down something more formal by way of communication. The Government has set an ambition of 20 days for the time that it takes to reply to letters. To borrow Mr Neil’s expression, there must be a metric that we can call on to see whether that is happening. We might ask the Scottish Government whether it is able to confirm the percentage of letters that were replied to within 20 days. Are we agreed on that basket of actions?

Members indicated agreement.

There is, it seems to me, a slight contradiction in ASH’s position. ASH is suggesting that e-cigarettes be made available on prescription only to people who wish to use them as an aid to smoking cessation, but if that were to come about, it could, indirectly, encourage young people to start smoking in the first instance in order to get access to vaping, instead of vaping being an alternative to smoking in the first place. The proposal could almost be counterproductive.

I am familiar with the 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 help with smoking cessation. Clearly, though, vaping has grown exponentially since then, but I do not think that we should be judgmental about that in itself. We should want to understand what evidence, including any emerging evidence, there might be of material harm, and SPICe might be able to identify where such research is being carried out. I think that that would be helpful.

Do members agree with that approach?

Members indicated agreement.

We might even commend to the Government the evidence—or, I should say, the discussion—at this morning’s SPICe briefing, where we heard from Dr Andy Williamson, who said that this policy area might very well benefit from the input of an informed citizens panel made up of those who would be affected. The work of such a panel would underpin any ministerial consideration of how to proceed with an issue on which there is generally public understanding—though not for the approach that had been previously advocated—and as a result, there might be much more informed community buy-in to any proposals that might be brought forward.

Are we content to proceed on that basis?

Members indicated agreement.

In fact, the whole nomenclature of this stuff is difficult to be certain about, but, for citizens assemblies, let us talk about the idea of a unit of about 100 people convening to undertake a proper exercise.

That is very helpful. Some of that will be the subject of the debate that we will see in the chamber. I share your analysis of the nature of subjects that can be best deliberated through this process.

Given that there is other engagement going on, as you say, how is that quantified as a cost that the Government is undertaking across the different portfolios? Are you able to quantify the cost of the engagement that the Scottish Government is currently offering?

Colleagues, that might mean that you would be devolving to me the ability to agree that that session might be private in order to protect and respect the anonymity of those individuals who might feel that they want to contribute, and to work with the clerks to ensure that we can identify a format that the individuals who might want to contribute feel that they could support and feel confident in. Do members agree to keep the petition open and to next consider it at a round-table discussion where we will hear direct evidence, in a format that is to be agreed, from the people affected.

Members indicated agreement.

Thank you very much. Doreen, good morning. [Interruption.] I am sorry, we cannot hear you.

The next item on our agenda is an evidence session as part of our inquiry into the A9 dualling project. It relates to our consideration of petition PE1992 on dualling the A9 and improving road safety, as lodged by Laura Hansler. As colleagues and those following our proceedings in relation to that petition might know, we are joined by Edward Mountain in his capacity as a reporter from the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee on this matter. Good morning to you, Edward.

Our consideration of the 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 to gather views from people, businesses and organisations along the route between Perth and Inverness. Key themes that have emerged from that consultation are set out in the SPICe briefing that is included in the committee’s papers.

We have primarily been focusing on the action that needs to be taken to get the project back on track. In early September, however, we agreed to explore the Scottish Government’s decision in 2011 to commit to a 2025 target for dualling the A9 between Perth and Inverness. That is the focus of today’s discussion.

I am absolutely delighted to welcome back a well-kent face to the Scottish Parliament’s proceedings: Alex Neil, the former Cabinet Secretary for Infrastructure and Capital Investment, who is—I am sure—the man to enlighten us on those matters. It is certainly good to see you back with us. You are somebody who, like me or, one might argue, other members of the committee, never shies away from being forthright in your views, so I am sure that we will have an enlightening evidence session. Before we move to questions, it would be helpful if you made an opening statement.

In my introduction, I noted that the Scottish Youth Parliament had undertaken some work on that. Links to information on the outcome of that work are in the papers, so we have access to that.

On that note, we move into private session. That concludes our consideration of petitions today, and we will meet again to consider fresh petitions on Wednesday 25 October.