Seòmar agus comataidhean

The other ask of the petition that we are considering is whether a memorial to those whose lives have been lost would be appropriate. Transport Scotland was slightly concerned about that proposal and looked at it rather literally as a memorial more or less in the central reservation with people driving past, which I do not think was the suggestion. Your predecessor pointed to the memorial that was built at Queensferry for the people who died during the construction of the Forth rail bridge many years before.

Given the loss of life, is such a memorial appropriate? I do not remember anything similar in Mr Salmond’s time. Both of us have been involved in politics long enough to remember national tragedies such as the Lockerbie bombing or the Piper Alpha disaster in which there was a considerable loss of life and for which there is a memorial that people can go to. What would your thoughts have been if, as the First Minister, you had received such a suggestion? If there is merit in it, what process would evaluate that best and potentially take it to a conclusion?

Would colleagues be content with that?

Members indicated agreement.

The petition has been a very important one. We have discussed it on a number of occasions, although, sadly, without achieving the progress that we would wish for. However, we will set out the committee’s view, which has very much been in support of the petitioner, to the Scottish Government and seek additional information in relation to the comparative work in England and Wales.

Thank you, Mr Ewing. Are colleagues content to proceed on that basis?

Members indicated agreement.

That was the last of our new petitions for consideration this morning. We will now move into private session to consider items 5 and 6. Our next meeting will take place on 12 June.

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.

Let me explore that, and then I will move on to colleagues. In your written submission, you drew a distinction between the period when you had a direct responsibility for infrastructure and your wider responsibilities as First Minister, when you had more of an overview of those matters. I am interested in understanding the extent to which you, as First Minister—not now, from reading the papers, but at the time—understood that this was percolating into something that might involve a delay, and whether any discussion took place about the need for perhaps more public candour about what the impact would be.

I shall not wander round the room asking for party contributions, but I thank Clare Haughey for advising the committee of that. We will seek confirmation from the Government, as that points seems directly to add to our consideration of the issues that are raised in the petition. I suppose that we could prompt that by writing to the Scottish Government in response to Diabetes Scotland’s “Diabetes Tech Can’t Wait” report, asking what specific funding would support the statement that the minister has made. Are colleagues content to do that? I again thank Clare Haughey for drawing that ministerial answer to our attention.

We will keep open the petition and act on that basis. I thank members and the petitioners for the work that has been done.