Seòmar agus comataidhean

I understand the substance of the question, but I am not sure that it is consistent with the petition that we have before us, which is quite specifically a petition in relation to the Scottish Government. I am not sure that that action would be competent in the sense of being within the reach of the petition itself or whether it would have to be the subject of a fresh petition. However, I am willing to take a view from colleagues on that.

Could we take forward Mr Ewing’s proposal but combine it with your suggestion? We could perhaps express the view on behalf of the committee that we felt that that was the wrong action for the Government to take, and that, in closing the petition, we would welcome a final report from it in relation to the questions that you have posed? Would that satisfy you?

Yes, it is a comprehensive series of asks.

In your previous answer, you drew an analogy with mountains—I am not sure whether that was simply because you knew that we would now be turning to Edward Mountain.

That draws our questions to an end. Would you like to add anything that we have not touched on?

I thank you very much for joining us and for the candour with which you have addressed the committee’s questions. I am grateful for your time.

I suspend the meeting briefly for us to rearrange the table.

We have that—thank you.

Our next petition is PE2031, which has been lodged by Maria Aitken on behalf of the Caithness Health Action Team. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to ensure that children and young people in Scotland who have type 1 diabetes and would benefit from a life-saving insulin pump are provided with one, no matter where they live.

I am reminded that that was a key issue in the very first session of Parliament in which I was elected, from 2007 to 2011; it is always intriguing to see how things develop. At that point, insulin pumps had just come on the scene, and we were very keen to have them made available through the NHS.

I welcome again Edward Mountain, who has remained with us since our earlier discussion on the A9 inquiry as he has an interest in this petition. I will invite him to say a few words in a moment.

The committee last considered the petition on 20 September 2023. At that time, we agreed to write to Diabetes Scotland, the Insulin Pump Awareness Group and the NHS regional health boards. The committee has received responses from eight of the 14 health boards, copies of which are included in our meeting papers.

A number of the responses refer to utilising additional Scottish Government funding to increase the number of children and young people who are accessing insulin pump therapy and the need for further Scottish Government funding to support on-going staffing and resource requirements that are now necessary to meet the demand for insulin pump therapy. It is also the case that, since the third session of Parliament, from 2007 to 2011, the incidence of diabetes has continued to increase dramatically within the population.

We have received a response from Diabetes Scotland that highlights the benefits of diabetes technology for people with type 1 diabetes, which include the improvement of blood sugar management and a reduced risk of complications such as stroke, eye damage and kidney disease. The response draws our attention to the “Diabetes Tech Can’t Wait” report, which Diabetes Scotland published in November last year. The report includes a number of recommendations to the Scottish Government and to health boards to support the faster roll-out of diabetes tech, with the aim of ensuring that 100 per cent of children and 70 per cent of adults living with type 1 diabetes are able to use hybrid closed-loop tech by 2030.

Before I invite the committee to share thoughts on how we might proceed, I invite Edward Mountain to comment.

Good morning, and welcome to the 10th meeting in 2024 of the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee. We have received apologies from the deputy convener, David Torrance.

Our first item is a decision on whether to take in private items 5 and 6. Under item 5, we will consider the evidence that we hear this morning. Are colleagues content to take those items in private?

Members indicated agreement.

That brings us directly to item 2, which is an evidence session as part of our inquiry into the A9 dualling project. This morning’s evidence session follows on from the committee’s previous evidence session, when we heard from former First Minister Alex Salmond.

We are joined again by Edward Mountain MSP in his capacity as a reporter on the inquiry from the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee. I also see that the petitioner, Laura Hansler, is in the gallery. She has been a faithful attendee of the committee when we have been taking evidence on the petition and considering the issues that it raises.

Those who have been following our inquiry will know that our primary objective is to ensure that the A9 project is now on track and will be delivered. That is what the petitioner is keen to see.

The petition also calls for a national memorial to all those whose lives have been lost on the A9 over the years. At the very end of our previous evidence session, we asked Mr Salmond for his views on that, and we will perhaps come on to it with this morning’s witness later.

I am absolutely delighted that we have with us Nicola Sturgeon MSP, the former First Minister. We will move straight to questions.

We have had a lot of evidence from technical people, from different trades, people affected by issues with the route and ministers. You contributed evidence, along with others. Alex Neil suggested that we should go looking for various bits of paperwork—I did not realise that that paperwork would be a foot thick when we got it. We have been through it all.

I do not want to pre-empt the committee, but I do not think that, at this stage, colleagues think there is any smoking gun in relation to the non-completion of the road. However, it seems that, at some point, something happened—I do not know whether we will ever be entirely clear what it was—that led to a dilution of the focus and the drive to take forward the project.

When we heard evidence from Mr Salmond, he said—perhaps not unexpectedly—that all was hale and hearty when he left office. The Scottish National Party’s manifesto commitment underpinned the priority of the project, perhaps over other national infrastructure projects that might have been regarded as equally viable. A lot of the work during Mr Salmond’s time involved preparatory investigation of what would be required, but there was no suggestion—in the public mind or in the mind of the Parliament—that the road would not be delivered on budget and on time in the years immediately after that.

I am interested in your perspective on what happened. I realise that, as Cabinet Secretary for Infrastructure, Capital Investment and Cities, and subsequently as First Minister, you had different views on what was going on, but we know that the road did not get built, so something did not happen. The committee is interested in trying to understand what happened so that we can see whether there are lessons to be learned.