Seòmar agus comataidhean

With respect, cabinet secretary, we know all that and you have said all that. We are not on “Just a Minute” but with repetition, deviation and hesitation allowed. We are in Parliament, and we want an answer. The question was, will the statement be issued before the end of this session of Parliament? Yes or no?

We can agree to disagree about that, but I will try to be helpful and make a suggestion. Ms Baillie might have an interest in this as well. I am thinking ahead to the work that we might do together in the next session of Parliament. We might want to take a leaf out of the book of the approach in Germany. In 2003, the German Government published a plan of all roads infrastructure projects that were to be undertaken by 2030. Laying out that plan had the benefit of giving certainty to the public and assurance to the contractors that the work would be available in a continuous stream over that period of nearly three decades. It also served to take the heat out of the political debate. Therefore, the nation came together to produce one plan.

We all support projects in our own part of Scotland. Whether it is you, cabinet secretary—or whoever happens to be the cabinet secretary; I no longer harbour such ambitions—or Ms Baillie, surely it would be sensible to do this better in Scotland, because the way that we are doing it means that every part of Scotland is disappointed to some degree. However, we all reckon that we cannot do everything at once, and a long-term plan would surely be a far better approach for the next few generations ahead.

Okay. The answer is no, then—you are not giving that assurance, cabinet secretary, I am afraid.

Surely, if we assume a capital budget of £4 billion to £6 billion for the years ahead—that is what it has been historically—there is more than enough money to fund the project from existing capital. Cabinet secretary, are you not able to say that, if the consultation concludes that public finance is not the right option, you will nonetheless be able to provide the assurance that the funding can come from the existing capital budget, which is plainly more than sufficient to do the work, provided that the Highlands are treated as a priority?

The figure of £100 million comes from adding the compulsory purchase costs, which you have estimated and mentioned, to Transport Scotland’s figure of £90 million that applies to the whole A96 project and was valid last summer. However, that is a detail.

Has there not been, sadly, a delay in the processing of the various milestones of that project? I refer you to the Transport Scotland document of February 2016, which I have here. It states that the draft road orders and compulsory purchase orders were to have been issued in 2016. However, those were not finalised until 2024. The process took eight years, which in itself must be a record.

Has not the Scottish Government deliberately delayed the completion of the necessary statutory processes? It seems, even now, to be unwilling to give a categorical, unambiguous assurance that the promises that we have made collectively, as individuals and politicians, for the past 14 years will in fact be funded by the Scottish Government. Meanwhile, projects in other parts of Scotland are going ahead. Has that delay not been quite deliberate, cabinet secretary?

Can I just address that?

I was struck that the ministerial response was quite detailed and specifically pointed to the national planning framework, which requires such environmental matters to be considered at a general level.

I am not sure that the law can be quite as specific as the petitioner is asking for it to be, and I am not quite certain as to whether the word “suitable” has been incorporated in the petition—the call is only for the use of such bricks to be “mandatory” in suitable premises. As I understand it, the petitioner argues that not all house construction is suitable, because if houses are not more than 1 or 2m apart, it is simply not practical for birds to fly in and out as the buildings are too close. From what I can gather from the papers, on the one hand, the word “suitable” has been inserted, but even if that is the case, the current planning framework allows for such things to be considered, and no doubt they would be raised locally, in areas that have a strong swift population.

I am open to hearing what other colleagues say, but I am not really sure that we can do much more with the petition. I suspect that, if we write to pressure groups, they will just ask us to support it, and if we write to builders, they will say not to support it. We could write, but I am not sure that doing so will take us any further, particularly since we have already responses with copious detail from SPICe and the minister.

Yes, briefly. I agree entirely with Mr Golden. The law exists, but, if it is not enforced, it is just words on a page and the worry is that that might be applicable in this instance. In particularly tragic circumstances, the petitioner buried his three-year-old son in a cemetery just opposite his home and visits the cemetery every day, and he says that hundreds of people visit with dogs and that it is more or less a dog’s toilet. That is not appropriate for cemeteries—it is just not. We cannot allow that to happen.

I think that Mr Golden’s suggestion that we should not just let this go is correct, and we should ask for information about whether the law is being enforced. Otherwise, I suspect that the issue will come back again, and people will ask why we did not at least try to find out what local authorities were doing about it.

As I am sure we all know, some cemeteries are particularly large, and I can well imagine that they might be used for dog walking. However, it is not really appropriate to use cemeteries for dog walking, any more than it is appropriate to have dogs in fields with livestock. That is another serious problem that is not properly addressed by the law, even after the passing of the relevant members’ bill, because it does not require dogs to be kept on a leash.

I am sorry to be a bit long winded, but I think that we should pursue the issue.

A great deal of material has been provided since we last met, and it is only fair to allude to some of it. I was astonished to see that NatureScot is arguing that it does not have enough information about the extent to which there is predation of hares. Of course we have that information. It actually has the temerity to say that

“several more years’ worth of data are needed before this survey can provide a clearer picture of the distribution and numbers of mountain hares. ”

Unfortunately, that seems to be an argument for doing little. However, we have had two submissions from Barry Blyther very recently—on 4 and 14 March—and I gather that he might have further information for the committee that he has not yet had the opportunity to convey to us. Therefore, I suggest that we give him the opportunity to provide that additional information, which I believe might be quite positive, indicating some supportive action from the minister and, to be fair, from NatureScot.

A copious submission from Barry and Roxanne Blyther, explains the pretty sad situation that, because of the inability to allow their male eagle, Stanley, to practise its natural activities in flying, it has been unable to mate with the female. That is pretty sad and “heart wrenching”, as Barry puts it. In the interests of encouraging avian amour but also to make a serious point, I say that it is pretty sad when NatureScot prevents nature from taking its natural course. It is a bit perverse, if you come to think of it, because that should be exactly what it encourages.

Having said all that, we should debate the matter in the chamber on the basis of the principle that Barry Blyther and his colleagues were not provided with the opportunity to be heard when the mountain hare ban was introduced. The current minister has gone further than previous ministers in admitting that that was entirely wrong and indefensible. It has taken far too long to get to that stage, and we should have a debate, but we do not need to do that if the minister will take sufficient action. I do not think that sufficient action can be taken through guidance—primary legislation is almost certainly required—and I do not see why that action cannot be taken through one of the bills that is progressing through Parliament, such as the Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill. If there is a will, there is a way. It is a very simple thing to do, so why does the Government not just do it?

We should write to the Acting Cabinet Secretary for Net Zero and Energy to seek an update on the Scottish Government’s work on the guidance and to clarify how we can rectify the mischief that plainly occurred.

Excuse me if I am repeating a matter that is on the record, but I believe that the committee also agreed to write to the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee to raise the point of principle, to indicate that we are minded to have a debate and to ask for its views on the matter, because I think that it arose in connection with another amendment that was sought to be lodged at stage 3 without the opportunity for proper consideration.

We should say that we are minded to have a debate, unless, of course, action can be taken to sort out the issue without one, thereby avoiding the embarrassment that that would cause to the Government for not admitting that it got this wrong. Why can the Government not just admit that it got it wrong? There is no defence whatsoever—it is a slam dunk, politically speaking.

I hope that my candour will be noted by my friend Jim Fairlie, the minister, and that he will resort to the Churchillian “Action this day”.

It seems reasonable. If I have interpreted the hand signals correctly, Mr Blyther has indicated that he will provide the information quickly.