Chamber and committees

My apologies. We are crossing wires.

That was interesting. In that case, I will turn to Michelle Quinn.

Good morning. A number of projects were operating concurrently. Do you have a view as to where the A9 sat in that complexity?

Thank you. I have a number of other questions, but I am keen to bring in colleagues. David Torrance has a question.

It sounds as though some of the initiation for that came from within Transport Scotland.

When you say that you “updated our ministers”, I assume that you do not mean that you got rid of the ones that you did not like and got new ones. I assume that you mean that you briefed them accordingly.

I note that, at that point, Mr Neil and Mr Brown—Keith Brown—who had to manage a number of projects simultaneously, stopped being involved and Michael Matheson came in. There is a suggestion that that is when a degree of drift and delay crept into the whole project, which affected its momentum. I know that other events unfolded two years later, when we had the pandemic and everything else, but it is not clear to me whether, from the point of view of ministerial direction and oversight, there was the same degree of focus on the project as there had been up until that point.

I am happy to include them in the list.

Are we content with those suggestions? If Mr Torrance can just nod his head, I will know that he is content, too.

Members indicated agreement.

Thank you, Mr Choudhury. There seemed to be a gap between warm words and operational practice in Police Scotland’s approach, so those questions need to be put to it directly.

It seems that no other member wishes to comment further. Is the committee content to keep the petition open and to progress the issues with Police Scotland directly, along the lines that Mr Choudhury suggested?

Members indicated agreement.

The next petition is PE1896, which seeks to provide every primary school child in Scotland with a reusable water bottle. Members might recall that the petition was lodged by Callum Isted, who, at the age of just seven and still in primary school, was the Parliament’s youngest ever petitioner. I have to say that the petition has been open for so long that he is now almost heading off to secondary school. The petition itself calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to replace the disposable water bottle that is provided with primary school lunches with a sustainable reusable metal bottle.

We last considered the petition at our meeting on 19 April 2023, when we agreed to write both to the Minister for Green Skills, Circular Economy and Biodiversity and to the then First Minister. We requested information on the methods of water provision in each local authority-run school and on how authorities are meeting their sustainability requirements. We were particularly keen to hear whether local authorities would be interested in participating in a national procurement exercise for the supply of reusable metal water bottles.

The Scottish Government received responses from 26 local authorities, and a summary of those findings has been provided as a written submission. It reveals that the automatic provision of reusable water bottles to pupils, or the use of single-use bottles, is not an authority-wide policy in any Scottish local authority area. Of the responses, 15 noted that single-use bottles are available in schools; of those, 13 also offered reusable plastic cups and the remaining two provided reusable water bottles. We heard that 13 councils indicated that they would be interested in taking part in a national procurement exercise, while 12 clearly stated that they would not. Of those that marked no, six already provided reusable water bottles.

Sue Webber, who was previously present with Callum Isted and his family, is unable to attend our meeting this morning as she is convening the Education, Children and Young People Committee’s stage 2 proceedings elsewhere in the Parliament. However, she has asked that her support for Callum’s petition and on-going campaign work be noted on the record.

I come back to what, for me, is still quite a vivid memory of Callum Isted presenting his petition. Against a background of so much emphasis being placed on education and change of practice in the next generation, he came forward with a petition designed to achieve a material and practical change. There does seem to be interest in his proposal—at least from the 13 heroic councils that said that they might consider a national procurement exercise.

Do members have any suggestions for action that we might take?

We could certainly ask whether anybody has given any thought to whether that might be an option.

Are we content to proceed on that basis?

Members indicated agreement.

PE2004, which seeks to abolish the use of public-private partnerships in Scotland, was lodged by Line Kikkenborg Christensen on behalf of Jubilee Scotland. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to abolish the use of PPPs and to commit to a new model for financing and managing public infrastructure in Scotland that has safety, quality, value for money and accountability to the taxpayer at its heart. We last considered the petition on 3 May 2023, when we agreed to write to the Scottish Government and the Scottish Futures Trust.

The response from the Scottish Futures Trust states that the model proposed by the petition would require a renegotiation of the fiscal framework to enable the Scottish ministers to borrow finance capital expenditure. The response also offers information on the mutual investment model, which cropped up in our earlier evidence session. We know from our work in relation to the A9 that the mutual investment model is an option that is being actively pursued by the Scottish Government.

In its submission, the Scottish Government offers a response to the petitioner’s recommendations, stating that the use of private finance has allowed for the delivery of much-needed schools, hospitals and other key infrastructure. The Government also states that it is working with Audit Scotland to develop clear governance and decision-making processes on the use of the mutual investment model.

We have received a submission from the petitioner, which highlights cross-party support for seeking alternatives to public-private partnerships and expresses concern that the Scottish Government is not fully aware of the financial, social and environmental costs of PPPs.

Members will have noted from our papers that, in addition to the working group that the petitioner mentioned, the Public Audit Committee is due to take evidence from the director general of the Scottish exchequer on matters related to infrastructure investment.

Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?

I think that that is a very clear direction from the Scottish Government with regard to the aims of the petition. Given that, are colleagues minded to agree and to close the petition on that basis?

Members indicated agreement.