Chamber and committees

I wish to raise concerns about the SSI. The legislation has unintended consequences, so it is right to delay, but the delay means that unscrupulous people can still hide their interests in Scotland’s land in companies that are registered in tax havens. We have already waited a long time for transparency over who those people are, so I hope that the Government will act urgently to deal with that unintended consequence.

It is absurd that legislation that was designed to close tax loopholes and to create transparency about who the beneficial owners of land are—especially when that land is held in companies that are registered in tax havens—will put an unacceptable burden on Scottish churches. By their very nature, religious groups own multiple buildings, including churches and mosques, to allow their members to meet and worship. Each of those buildings is clearly marked outside with contact details; they are not hidden. It is less easy to identify other buildings, such as manses and church halls, but they can be identified through the property registers in Scotland, and a quick Google search will identify where to contact the church.

However, under the instrument, the Scottish Government is asking religious groups to register each property. The Church of Scotland alone has close to 6,000 buildings, each of which will need three associates, and around 20 notices, to be registered. The estimated cost of that is £100,000 for the Church of Scotland. Such organisations have never been hidden, have never used their assets as tax dodges and are wholly owned by their congregations, so the associates who require to be registered are not beneficial owners but are simply office bearers who represent their congregations.

Scottish charitable incorporated organisations are governed under different legislation, so I ask that churches and other similar religious buildings be treated along similar lines.

Sadly, due to the Scottish Government’s incompetence, today we are letting companies that are registered in Liechtenstein off the hook, by allowing them to remain hidden and misuse the privilege of owning Scotland’s land. Surely that is not right. The Scottish Government must bring forward secondary legislation that catches the people that the legislation was designed to capture, while removing the burden from well-known associations, such as Scottish charities and religious organisations.

I, too, welcome the consultation. When the Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Bill went through Parliament, we were promised urgent action, but two years later and a year after Helena Kennedy’s report, the Government is only now going out to consultation on the proposed changes to the law. I hope that the cabinet secretary will commit to legislating to introduce those changes during the current session of Parliament, because women should not have to wait any longer.

Helena Kennedy KC proposed an act to create a statutory misogyny aggravation; an offence of stirring up hatred against women and girls; an offence of public misogynistic harassment; and an offence of issuing threats of, or invoking, rape or sexual assault or disfigurement of women and girls, online and offline. Those principles must be adhered to. We must remember that the law is the servant of the people, and we must find ways of enshrining those principles in legislation.

I was heartened to see that the Scottish Government is building its approach on the stalking section of the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2010. When I lodged my amendment on that issue, I was told that it was not competent because the definition of stalking could not be enshrined in law, and I remember having to answer very tough questions. Had it not been for Ann Moulds’s dogged persistence in insisting that stalking should be an offence, I think that we would have failed.

This is my case: the law is our servant and it must enshrine the protection that we require, and those who implement it must be trained to do so. However, as others have said, simply changing the law is only part of the solution. Education is central to this. We must, of course, educate children. That education needs to provide them with the information that they need and the capacity to think critically about what they see, hear and experience. It is sad that children are viewing extreme porn in an attempt to inform themselves on relationships and sex. It is little wonder that their views are skewed and unhealthy, especially regarding respect for women and girls.

However, we must go further and educate all our citizens on what is acceptable and what is reasonable behaviour. As Pauline McNeill said, too often, those who are charged with upholding the law demonstrate views that are absolutely unacceptable. Too often, those who give effect to the law do not hold with it and obviously have no understanding of it. How do we change the way in which women are viewed by them and those like them?

The Scottish Government has also pledged to legislate to change the way in which the law views prostitution. Why is it looking at the issues of misogyny and prostitution separately? They are fundamentally linked. How can we deal with misogyny in Scotland if women are still looked on as commodities and our law endorses the buying of consent? How can we deal with misogyny when the poverty of women and the inequality that they face lead to their exploitation, and we allow that to happen?

We need to ensure that women are not poorer than men and that caring responsibilities do not leave women prey to exploitative men. To tackle misogyny, we need to look at the whole role of women in society. Women must be respected as equals in our society.

Alongside legislation, support needs to be provided for women. Like Liam McArthur, Rona Mackay and other members, I was really heartened to hear of the opening of the Emma Ritch law clinic in Glasgow, which will provide support to women who have been raped and need support while the trial of the perpetrator goes through court. It is a fitting tribute to Emma and something that I know that she would have approved of.

The Scottish Labour Party has been asking for such clinics for many years; support needs to be made available to all women in that situation. To achieve that, we must ensure that solicitors are available to carry out that work and that legal aid is available at an adequate level for everyone in that situation.

I agree with the cabinet secretary: the misogyny problem will not be eradicated solely by bringing in punishment for those who commit it or by the threat of a criminal offence; it needs education, opportunity and equality. We have to create a society in which there are opportunities for jobs, equal pay and true social justice for women. We have to ensure that our educators and education system support our children as they grow up, giving them access to services when and where they are needed. Finally, we must ensure that those who are exposed to disgusting, sexist and hate-fuelled materials online and in real life are equipped with the capacity to question those behaviours and to stand up to them.

I, too, wish Sir Iain Livingstone well in his retirement.

The cabinet secretary is aware that Dame Elish Angiolini’s report highlighted on-going issues of discrimination within Police Scotland. His previous answer to Katy Clark suggested that the recruitment of ethnic minorities was still a problem. That causes concern for us all, because culture change comes before recruitment. What specific steps has the cabinet secretary taken since the publication of Elish Angiolini’s report and what outcomes have been achieved?

Schools do not take responsibility for what happens to young people on their journeys to and from school, so what steps will the First Minister take to make sure that children are protected at that time, and what steps are the police taking to track down the videos of incidents—they are videoed from before the start of the attack, so they are obviously pre-planned—and hold everyone who is responsible to account?

I, too, thank the committee for allowing me to speak to this petition. I agree with what colleagues have already said.

The A9 is a road that impacts not only on constituents in Inverness, but on the whole of the Highlands and Islands. I pay tribute to Laura Hansler for lodging the petition and all those who are campaigning to improve the road.

A lot of people say that there is no such thing as a dangerous road, and there are only dangerous drivers, but the road plays a huge part in mitigating driver error. I think that everybody can admit to driver error at one point or another, but the design of the road can keep people safe. I drive the A9 weekly and I see very strange driver behaviour, most of which would not happen if it was a dual carriageway.

Last year, there were eight deaths on the 25-mile stretch near the Slochd in just three months, and that was tragic. The total amount of deaths last year was 13. The deaths of those people are losses to not only their families but their communities. We all lose out, as we lose their contribution to society, so the issue impacts on everybody.

The Scottish National Party made dualling the A9 a manifesto commitment back in 2007. In December 2011, ministers confirmed the commitment and they put the timeframe of 2025 on it at that point. Sadly, progress has been slow, and I do not believe that the war in Ukraine, Brexit, Covid or inflation is the underlying reason for that. Had that target of 2025 been a goal, the contracts would have already been issued, the land would have been purchased, and we would probably be on the last stretch rather than looking towards the third stretch.

Eleven sections of the road still have to be dualled and we have no timeframe for them. The closest timeframe that we have had is the one that Fergus Ewing alluded to—an industry representative said 2050. I would say that it might even be longer than that, because the stretches that have been dualled have not been done back to back. There have been gaps between that work, so we need an investigation into the matter.

If we look at the cost to the public purse, we see that every fatality costs about £2 million to investigate, so last year the total for that was £26 million, and the loss of life is a loss to the public purse as well.

I am keen to see an inquiry. Like Fergus Ewing, I think that it would be worth while for the committee to see whether the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee had space to do that. I also wonder whether this committee would want to get its teeth into the matter and carry out an inquiry. You might have the scope for it. I know that, from time to time, the committee likes to look into an issue that a petitioner has raised. Will you consider that? Certainly, a committee of this Parliament should carry out an inquiry that would tell us what has gone wrong and what progress has been made, and give us realistic timescales.

—and to shine a light on what progress can be made. We need the Scottish Government to adhere to a realistic timeframe, and we need a commitment from the Government that this work will be a priority.

Yet again, we have ferry chaos in the Western Isles. The relief ferry that is serving South Uist and Barra has technical issues, so it can sail only in daylight. Even with stretching daylight hours, that places a huge restriction on its operation. As I mentioned, we are talking about a relief ferry, but Uist is already facing disruption due to the Uig pier closures. What is the cabinet secretary doing to mitigate the impacts of the ferry chaos on islanders who cannot plan, work and socialise without—

The stretch of the A9 that we are debating is important not only to the communities from Perth to Inverness but to those beyond, as far as our islands and communities in Orkney, Lewis and Harris, who have been betrayed by the Government and yet are still waiting for an apology.

Last year, eight deaths occurred on a 25-mile stretch near the Slochd in just three months. It must add to the grief of the families involved that, had the Government’s promise been fulfilled, many of those people would be alive today. The total number of deaths on the road between Inverness and Perth in 2022 was 13.

Many more people have lost their lives on the A9 north of Inverness. I concur with Beatrice Wishart, who highlighted the issues with that section of the road, and I agree that it needs attention, too, especially with the centralisation of maternity services.

The dualling of the A9 was an SNP manifesto commitment in 2007. In December 2011, after the crash, the Scottish ministers confirmed the commitment to upgrade the A9 between Perth and Inverness to full dual carriageway by 2025.

Neil Bibby has mentioned that the Greens do not appear to share that priority. Ariane Burgess has stated publicly that the safety improvements that the minister has outlined should be the top priority, and Mark Ruskell doubled down on that idea today. That totally overlooks the fact that dualling would provide maximum safety. Signs and paints are poor substitutes for a dual carriageway. I ask the minister whether she will assure us that the Green partners of the Scottish Government’s coalition have not hampered progress. Mark Ruskell referred to the Bute house agreement but did not say that he would support the project as a priority, and other SNP speakers seemed to echo those sentiments.

Jamie Halcro Johnston and Edward Mountain asked where the other Highlands and Islands SNP MSPs are—they appear to have abandoned the minister. Instead, we have in the debate Stuart Macmillan, representing Greenock and Inverclyde; Paul McLennan representing East Lothian; and Collette Stevenson, representing East Kilbride. Again, that shows little appetite to make this road a priority.

Yes. Our constituents are very angry about this broken promise and they will not forget it easily.

The Minister for Transport blamed the war in Ukraine, Brexit, Covid and inflation. However, the truth is that, had the Government’s intention ever been to have this work carried out by the 2025 goal, it would already have issued contracts, land would already have been purchased and designs would already have been signed off. Instead, we are hearing today that the minister is still waiting for options from Transport Scotland for the nine remaining stretches to be worked on.

Neil Bibby talked about the construction industry source who said that, going at this speed—indeed, the Scottish Government is going slower than the speed to which the expert referred—it will be 2050 before the completion of dualling. Sadly, I do not believe that it will be that soon, because no work has been carried out. If inflation is as the minister has said, the work will go way beyond 2050—in fact, I will be lucky if it happens within my lifetime.

We have talked about the lives that have been lost, and you cannot put a value on a life, but every fatal accident inquiry costs £2 million, so £26 million was spent on that last year, and there is also the £5 million cost of signage and paint to improve road safety. All that is a cost to the public purse, and all that money could have been invested in the A9.

Graham Simpson talked about the risk to the contractor and the fact that the contracting process is working in a way that prohibits people coming forward. The minister says that she is modifying it, but all that should have been done long before now. Waiting for regulations to be modified builds in a delay.

This is indeed a betrayal of the Highlands and Islands and their communities. We need an inquiry to see what has gone wrong in the recent and distant past—

Will the member take an intervention?