Amendment 50 is consequential to an earlier failed amendment, so I will not move it.

Amendment 50 not moved.

Amendment 51 moved—[Edward Mountain].

I will start by speaking to amendment 70. There was I, hopeful that, because Colin Smyth had not mentioned amendment 70, he would support it. He has not said that he will not support it, so I am still hopeful, but I am disappointed that the minister will not.

When I raised this issue at stage 2, the minister said that the amendment was wrong for the simple reason that it would force sheriffs to consider awarding costs. He did not say that it was not necessary, so I went to a great deal of time and trouble to amend the amendment, having listened to what I had been told at stage 2, to say that the sheriff must consider awarding costs. That does not mean that they have to award costs—it means that they must consider doing so. The minister now says that that is not needed—I disagree with him. If it is not there in black and white, the sheriff does not necessarily have to consider awarding costs. If it is there in black and white, he or she has to consider doing so, and therefore it is right and proper that it is in there.

I have been through the licensing process with NatureScot, and I found it particularly difficult and torturous, because NatureScot often takes the opinion, “If in doubt, do nowt.” That is why I support Rachael Hamilton’s amendments to make sure that it makes a decision within the timescale or gives its reasons for not doing so.

I have also fallen foul of the fact that NatureScot is judge, jury and executioner when it comes to making decisions and the only way to appeal is to take out an expensive legal challenge. Although it may be open to many people to make legal challenges, many people will not be able to do so. Therefore, I like the idea of it not just being NatureScot that holds all the powers in its hands.

Colin Smyth’s amendments are quite cynical, if I may be so bold. I do not believe that anyone will deliberately say, “Stuff it—I haven’t got the grouse shooting licence, so I am just going to go on and do another type.” I think that people will review their position on whether they will continue shooting if they have been found guilty of an offence, and if they do not, my message to them is that they should. I commend Colin Smyth for trying, but I think that his amendments are unnecessary.

As far as amendment 70 is concerned, I hope that the minister will think about what I have said, because it is not good enough to say one thing at stage 2 and then say something completely different at stage 3—I think that it is disrespectful to members and to Parliament.

I absolutely do. With the minister making the very point that we need to protect people who do things legally, I cannot understand why he would not go with the “beyond reasonable doubt” approach. The two seem to be linked, as far as I can see.

I turn to amendment 53 in Colin Smyth’s name. I can understand why Colin Smyth might feel that it is necessary. However, traps such as the mark 6 Fenn trap and the DOC 150 trap——I am sure that he knows them all—have been designed for a specific purpose, which is to kill the animal that they capture as quickly as possible. No one goes out and designs traps to cause unnecessary suffering. Designing a trap, getting it to market and getting people to use it and to have confidence in it would suggest that the trap does exactly what it says on the tin.

I agree with amendment 13, in the name of the minister.

I did not mention my amendment 54 at the outset because it seems reasonable that one would include land managers in consulting on and drawing up the plans. However, it appears that the minister thinks that land managers should not be included, which is why he wants me to drop the amendment.

I press amendment 46.

Will the minister take an intervention?

I thank the Labour Party for holding this debate on health issues. We seem to discuss such matters only during Opposition time, which is a disgrace. It is also a disgrace that the cabinet secretary wants to amend the motion to put a lot of the blame on Covid.

Let me give some of the facts. Prior to Covid, the orthopaedic waiting list in NHS Highland had well in excess of 2,000 people on it, the ophthalmic list was so long that we were flying people up from south of the border to do operations at weekends, and treatment times were appalling. On top of that, we had an unappreciated staff workforce and bullying was rampant. We ended up having to pay £2.8 million in compensation to the people who were bullied. There were high sickness rates and a huge number of vacancies—especially in the radiology department. Those are the facts, and those things happened before Covid.

Now, post-Covid, we have orthopaedic waiting lists that—as judged by a university the other day—could extend waits to seven years. The people on those lists cannot be treated in the national treatment centre because they are too sick; their orthopaedic operations require too much care for them to go into the national treatment centre.

Let us look at audiology. In Inverness, the news about waiting lists is not so bad. There is a 28-week wait to get an appointment, and, when a person gets their appointment, they then have to wait for 49 weeks to get a hearing aid. However, the situation is substantially worse if the person is in Wick, as they have to wait 31 weeks for an appointment and 64 weeks for a hearing aid. From start to finish, that is nearly two years to get a hearing aid—but people can pop down to Boots and get one in three weeks. That is a disgrace, and it is not acceptable.

I applaud the Government for saying what it has said about the national treatment centre. It was late and over budget, and, although it is working for our orthopaedic patients, it is doing so only for a certain number of them—those who are less ill and can be treated overnight. We have ophthalmic theatres in the national treatment centre that are not being used. Why are they not being used? It is because it has not managed to recruit the surgeons who are needed to do the surgery. We can build as many centres as we like, but, if we cannot get the staff to work there, the centres are no help.

I will now talk about neurological development assessment waiting lists, which I find deeply disturbing. I have tried to find out how many people are on the waiting list for neurological development assessments in the NHS Highland area. Doing so is not easy, because the information is held partly by the Highland Council and partly by NHS Highland. The latest figures that I got showed that there were 800 children waiting for neurological development assessments on the NHS Highland waiting list and a further 600 children waiting on the Highland Council waiting list to get on to the NHS Highland waiting list. That means that there are approximately 1,400 children waiting to get a neurological development assessment. That is unacceptable, especially as I was told that the person at the bottom of the list will have to wait 15 years to get a neurological development assessment. That means that they will finish school before they get the help that they need.

I also point out briefly—as I know that my time is running out—

It appears that, in NHS Highland, a waiting list is not a waiting list; it is a waiting list to get on a waiting list.

Our next item of business is consideration of a draft statutory instrument. I am pleased to welcome Fiona Hyslop, the Cabinet Secretary for Transport. Cabinet secretary, this is the first time that you have appeared in front of the committee in your new role—congratulations on your appointment.

The cabinet secretary is joined by George Beale-Pratt, smart policy manager, Transport Scotland; and Natalie Milligan, solicitor, Scottish Government. Thank you for joining us.

The instrument is laid under the affirmative procedure, which means that it cannot come into force unless the Parliament approves it. Following the evidence session, the committee will be invited at the next agenda item to consider a motion for the committee to recommend that the instrument be approved. As always, I remind everyone that the officials can speak under this item but not in the debate that follows.

Cabinet secretary, I think that you would like to make a brief opening statement, so the floor is yours.

Can they be reappointed after four years?

I have one further question, if no one has any others. Oh, I see that Monica Lennon wants to ask a question. I will go to her first and then come back to mine.

I think that Monica is waiting to go live.

Now, I will really look round the room to make sure that no one else wants to speak before I make another attempt to get my question in. Right—there is no one else, so I am going.

Kevin Stewart wrote to the committee on 15 May last year to confirm the pay rates for the people on the board. I think that they were £194 per day for board members and £238 a day for the chairperson. Are those the current rates? Have they been reviewed? You might not know the answer, cabinet secretary, and I am happy to take a letter if—oh, I see that George knows the answer.