Chamber and committees

We might also ask specifically the Scottish Government where the pilots have managed to get to and what the outcome was.

Are they any other organisations that we could write to in relation to all of this, or do we we want to hear from the Government in the first instance? I think that there is merit in hearing from the Scottish Refugee Council and the Refugee Survival Trust.

I am minded that the Scottish Parliament’s Conveners Group will be putting questions to the First Minister directly next week, and I wonder whether this might not be an issue on which I, on behalf of the petitioner, could put questions directly to the First Minister. That is something that we might consider, because the question session with the First Minister next week is on the programme for government. From everything that I have heard, I think that this fits in quite nicely with that, and it might be an opportunity to highlight the work of Mr Sweeney and Mr Ruskell as well.

The nice thing about the Conveners Group when you are convener of the petitions committee is that you are not raising something on behalf of any political party but are raising it on behalf of the petitioner. It would be an opportunity for the petition concerned to be put directly to the First Minister. It seems like something that might give the petition a little bit of impetus.

We will keep the petition open. We may take evidence subsequently, but let us see what progress we can make in the first instance. There seems to have been a measure of good will towards the proposal, but it seems from what Mr Ruskell said that, having got so far, it has then got into a basket of things where nothing then makes further progress.

Thank you very much. I think that we are content.

Members indicated agreement.

Our final petition this morning is PE2031. I have a feeling of déjà vu. When I first joined the Public Petitions Committee, some 12 years ago, one of the first petitions that we considered was on the availability at all of insulin pumps at that time. Here we are again, with a petition, lodged by Maria Aitken on behalf of the Caithness Health Action Team, which 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 lifesaving insulin pump, are provided with one, no matter where they live.

The petitioner highlights what she views as a postcode lottery relating to the provision of continuous glucose monitoring and insulin pumps for children with diabetes, with a particular concern about the waiting lists for those devices across NHS Highland.

Responding to the petition, the Scottish Government refers to the diabetes improvement plan, which aims to increase access to existing and emerging diabetes technologies that can significantly benefit people with type 1 diabetes. The Scottish Government response highlights that, between 2016 and 2021, it invested an additional £15 million to support the increased provision of insulin pumps and continuous glucose monitoring. The Government also points to current work to roll out diabetes technology with a particular focus on reducing regional variation.

Do members have any comments or suggestions?

We will keep the petition open, and we will make those inquiries and consider it afresh when we get responses.

That concludes the consideration of our petitions today. We are next due to meet on 4 October. On that note, I formally close the meeting. Thank you all very much.

Okay. We will write to all those organisations, if members agree.

Members indicated agreement.

Yes, we could do three things: ask how many people applied, ask how many were offered places and ask how many took them up, aggregated in five-year increments. We might highlight that we were a bit disappointed with the response, that we take the petition very seriously and that it might well be that we will consider taking evidence on PE1982, before we make recommendations to the Government in relation to funding matters. Are we agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

That brings us on to the petition that we very nearly started earlier but stopped midstride. PE2030, lodged by Denise Hooper, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to review the funding it provides to the Scotland + Venice project and ensure that Scottish artists can contribute to the Venice biennale in 2024.

The petitioner notes that Scotland has participated as its own entity in the Venice biennale since 2003, with people attending the festival specifically to see the Scottish contributions.

The Minister for Culture, Europe and International Development has responded to the petition, saying that the decision to pause involvement in the biennale in 2024 is to allow for an important period of reflection and review. The review was expected to begin during the summer just past and was to include a process of sectoral engagement to explore new approaches to the project for the longer term.

The petitioner has also provided a submission highlighting recent comments by the First Minister about the value of culture, and is urging a greater focus on the benefits of Scottish culture and arts being promoted on such a prestigious international stage.

I am tempted to ask what the important period of reflection and review was about. I presume that it was on wider considerations than just this one contributory event. Do colleagues have any suggestions? We could certainly write to the Scottish Government asking for an update on its work to its international culture strategy.

The Government submission refers to the decision

“to pause ... involvement”

to allow

“for an important period of reflection and review.”

I would be interested to know what that means. What was important about it and how long is it reflecting, and what is it reflecting on that is important?

We might also write to Creative Scotland to seek information on the review of the Scotland + Venice project. I would also be interested to know what the outcomes of our past participation have been. I do not think that that is terribly clear. What have we seen? Maybe Creative Scotland can tell us how that compares with our participation in other events. It may well be that that is what the Scottish Government is reflecting on. If we heard from all of them, that would be helpful.

Does anybody else want to comment?

I thought that you were going to suggest that we go on a fact-finding visit to Venice, Mr Choudhury.

Those were some of the suggestions, along with others, that Mr Sweeney made.

Yes, I do think that the petition opens up issues about which I knew very little, I have to say. Despite being born, raised and someone who has lived in and around the city of Glasgow—through which the Clyde is the dominant feature—all my life, I have not really given any recent thought to the issues that are raised in the petition or, indeed, to the issues that Paul Sweeney has discussed in some detail.

From time to time over the decades, I have wondered about the lack of any transformation. I used to come home from school when there were still wharf buildings all the way into the city centre along the Clyde and things were happening in them. They were all done away with, and then we had river taxis for all of five minutes, which did not amount to very much. After that, I seem to remember a seaplane would fly to Oban from somewhere along the river.

Compared to other major cities that you visit where the river is still a teeming lifeline through the city, the Clyde sits rather dormant and apart from city life. Some of the issues that the petitioner and Mr Sweeney raise might underpin some of the lethargy that is associated with all that.

I am very happy to take forward all those issues at this stage. Obviously, we will consider the petition further and decide what we might want to do when we get the various responses.

Are members content with that approach?

Members indicated agreement.

I thank Denise Hooper for the petition. We will be investigating the issue further.