Chamber and committees

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.

We thank the petitioner very much for raising the issue with us. In the light of the minister’s response, the committee feels that there is no immediate further course of action for us to take, as Mr Golden has summarised. However, I emphasise the point that it is perfectly possible, if the Government’s commitment has not been realised, for the petition to be brought back to us in 12 months’ time.

I hesitated slightly during my earlier comments, because I was struck by the fact that the Government’s submission states—I will repeat this—that recipients of the vaccines are given

“as much information on the potential side effects as possible”

and

“must give informed consent before receiving a vaccination.”

I recall that exactly those phrases were used in relation to the use of mesh in surgical procedures. I vividly remember being told that recipients were given as much information as possible and had given informed consent, but the evidence of many of the women in that circumstance was that that was simply not the case.

I would therefore like to ask the Government how it can assert with confidence that such practice is in place—it might be that it can do so, but I would like to understand how. The committee knows of previous examples in which a similar assurance was initially made but then was not seen to be properly validated by subsequent evidence.

The petition is important, given everything that we are now looking at. Admittedly, it is with the benefit of hindsight, but these issues are on-going in some instances. We will therefore keep the petition open and proceed with inquiries based on the suggestions that members have made. Are we content?

Members indicated agreement.

PE2087 is on passing a law making exercising a dog in a cemetery an offence—those in the public gallery will see that we move across a broad range of public interest. The petition, which has been lodged by Paul Irvine, calls on the Scottish Government to pass a law to make exercising a dog in a cemetery an offence punishable by an on-the-spot fine for infringement.

Mr Irvine tells us that he lives opposite—[Interruption.] I am terribly sorry, but I forgot that Clare Haughey had joined us for the previous petition. However, I think that she is content with the action that we have taken. Apologies—that just occurred to me suddenly.

I go back to Mr Irvine, who tells us that he lives opposite the cemetery where his son is buried and has been upset by the number of people who exercise their dogs in the cemetery and allow them to urinate and defecate on graves, including his son’s. Mr Irvine has raised the issue with his local authority, which has introduced a rule that dogs must be kept on leads in cemeteries but has stopped short of its pre-pandemic rule of permitting only assistance dogs in cemeteries.

In responding to the petition, the Scottish Government states that it fully recognises the distress—as I am sure the committee will, too—caused by irresponsible dog owners who damage headstones and mementos left at gravesides. However, responsibility for the management, security and upkeep of local authority burial grounds lies with the local authority for the area in which the cemetery is located. Existing legislation gives local authorities the power to make, consult on, publish and display management rules that regulate the use and conduct of people while on land or premises that are owned or managed by the local authority.

Additionally, under the Dog Fouling (Scotland) Act 2003, which covers all public open spaces, anyone who does not immediately clean up fouling by a dog is committing an offence and could be issued with a fixed-penalty notice of £80. The SPICe briefing also highlights the Control of Dogs (Scotland) Act 2010, which allows the police to issue a dog control notice if a dog is not being kept under control effectively and consistently.

In light of that, do colleagues have any suggestions as to how we might proceed?