Seòmar agus comataidhean

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?

We now travel from Loch Lomond up to the inner Moray Firth as I speak to PE2132.

In her introductory remarks, the cabinet secretary said that orders have been issued, that the compulsory purchase process will be completed and that, thereafter, the procurement will be determined and a timetable will be set. The petitioner asked for a timeline and a completion date for the dualling of the Inverness to Auldearn section of the A96, including the Nairn bypass, to be published by this Easter. Although I do not want to dwell on what is now classified as ancient history, the pledge to deliver a Nairn bypass was first made—by our party, cabinet secretary—in 2009 and became a Government pledge in 2011. As far as I know, it has been repeated at seven elections, which must make it the daddy or the granddaddy of all pledges and the longest extant undelivered promise by the Scottish Government.

I have one very simple question for the cabinet secretary. Will she today provide a clear and unambiguous assurance that a ministerial statement will be made before the end of this session of Parliament to set out a detailed timetable for the delivery of the dualling of the road between Inverness and Auldearn, including the Nairn bypass, and will that statement include a firm date when the work will be completed?

You have not given it. I have asked you for it and you have not given it, so I will move on to the next question.

At the moment, the Scottish Government’s capital budget for 2024-25 is £6.2 billion, of which £4.7 billion comes from His Majesty’s Treasury. That is just one year’s budget. The cost of the work that I am talking about is considerably less than that.

There has not really been a substantial investment in major road improvements in the Highlands. We have seen welcome improvements in the rest of Scotland. I welcome that, as a Scot, and that is great, but we have not seen those improvements in the Highlands. Our argument—the excellent campaigning efforts of the Inverness Courier are exactly aligned with mine—is that it is the Highlands’ turn.

The Government has repeatedly promised that these roads will be delivered, including the A96, by 2030. So far, we have spent £100 million on the dualling of the A96 project but not one centimetre of tarmac has been laid. That is quite an extraordinary feat of profligacy—

I have studied the petitioner’s response to the Scottish Government’s written submission of 31 January. The petitioner’s written response, published on 13 March, raises a whole series of issues, some of which are somewhat technical and legal.

The thrust of it is that the petitioner adduces various examples of statements, notably by the First Minister in 2023, who stated that there should be

“the right to public participation in public affairs as expressed in Article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.”

The petitioner has highlighted that MSPs continue to ignore the Parliament’s motion of 2 September 2012, which acknowledges the sovereign right of the Scottish people to determine the form of Government that is best suited to their needs.

The petitioner also challenges the view that the matter is not within the devolved competence of the Scottish Parliament and he refers to the Scottish Human Rights Commission as endorsing that view. Without rehearsing all that the petitioner said on 13 March, the letter raises further issues of substance that the cabinet secretary, Angus Robertson, should be asked to comment on further in order to do the petitioner justice. This is the first time that we have considered the matter, and the petitioner is perhaps right when he states that it is disappointing that the Scottish Government’s reply was not issued by Angus Robertson but by an official.

Perhaps Mr Robertson could be asked to give detailed comment on all the arguments that the petitioner set out in response to the initial Government position. I appreciate that that will take more time, but this is the first calling of the petition. The issues that have been raised are substantial and a mixture of political, legal and technical. I will not add to that, as I could quote extensively from the petitioner’s detailed and helpful submission, but I feel that the petition requires a further response from the Scottish Government.

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.

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.

To be fair to the cabinet secretary, she has said:

“I remain open minded towards the proposal”,

so this is not a case of the Government saying, “No, we’re not doing that.” If it had said that, our response at this stage of a parliamentary session might be to leave the matter to the next election, when people can vote for parties that will do what they feel is correct in a democracy. We are not at that stage. If the cabinet secretary thinks that what the petition proposes can be done, why can it not be done soon, before the next election? Why can we not just do things in this Parliament, with this Government?

I agree with that. We should write to the cabinet secretary to seek further data on the extent to which sexual assaults involving strangulation have been treated differently. We should find out in how many cases that was found to have been the case and what analysis has been done of those statistics. Do such statistics exist? Is that information retained properly?

As Mr Golden said, the sheriff court has limited sentencing powers. It has been a long time since I was in the sheriff court—three decades—but I think that it is possible for a sheriff to remit sentencing to the High Court if he feels that the maximum sentence that he has the power to give is inadequate.

Be that as it may, I would have thought that every such case should be dealt with under solemn proceedings, not least because, as the petitioner points out, non-fatal strangulation often signals a heightened risk of homicide. It is quite staggering that a BBC survey showed that 40 per cent of women aged 18 to 39 in the UK reported experiencing choking, strangulation or gagging during sex. That is a hugely worrying percentage. We should therefore seek further data from the cabinet secretary.

We should also seek details of when officials will meet partners, because, in our view, the matter should be approached with great urgency and not be left to drift for months, as so many things do. We should ask whether officials and the cabinet secretary will engage directly with the petitioner and get a timeline for the work.

When asking for all that, we could indicate that we might well be minded to hear evidence from the cabinet secretary, given the interest in the issue. All the other countries in the UK seem to have taken action to deal with it, so why are we at the coo’s tail? Although the current system can work in theory, I feel instinctively that, in practice, it is probably not working as it should.

I am grateful to Tess White for setting out these extremely serious matters with such lucidity. I wanted to supplement Mr Golden’s suggestions with those remarks.