Perfect. That is understood.

Sarah Boyack, you can have a very brief question at the end, unless you think that it has already been answered.

Welcome back to the meeting. The third item on our agenda is the consideration of two draft statutory instruments.

The instruments confer responsibilities on Zero Waste Scotland in relation to the public sector equality duty in the Equality Act 2010. Following Zero Waste Scotland’s reclassification as a non-departmental public body in October 2024, the instruments aim to align its legal responsibilities with that status. The Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee has raised no points in relation to either instrument.?

I welcome Gillian Martin, Cabinet Secretary for Climate Action and Energy, who is joined by supporting Scottish Government officials Andrew Mackie, who is head of environment and forestry sponsorship hub; Carolyn Boyd, who is a lawyer; and Russell Bain, the deputy director for international futures and brand Scotland policy.

The instruments are laid under the affirmative procedure, which means that they cannot come into force unless the Parliament approves them. ??Following the evidence session, the committee will be invited to consider two motions recommending that the instruments be approved. I remind everyone that Scottish Government officials can speak under this item but not in the debates that follow.

I invite the cabinet secretary to make a short opening statement.

The committee will report on the outcome of the instrument in due course. I invite the committee to delegate authority to me as convener to approve the draft of the report for publication. Are you happy to do so?

Members indicated agreement.

Thank you, convener. I realise the pressure that is on the committee as we come to the end of the parliamentary session. I would like to go back to a couple of comments that were made when the petition last came before the committee on 5 February. At that time, Ash Regan said that she believes that public bodies are “defensive” and Fergus Ewing said that he profoundly believed that the current system is “inherently flawed”. That remains my position, and I think that that is the position of the petitioners.

Since I came to the committee on 5 February, more cases have come to light in the Highlands, some of which are deeply concerning. Pupils are being dragged out of classrooms by their feet and teachers are being suspended but no evidence has been given as to why they have been suspended. As far as their colleagues are concerned, it remains the case that they have done nothing wrong when the parents and the pupils know that they have done something wrong. That is why we need, more than anything else, a whistleblowing officer to look at issues and to address them.

If we are going to get it right for every child—which we must do—we need to ensure that children are heard and that, when evidence is provided on mistreatment, especially in schools, it is made available when the person is suspended. At the moment, too many teachers across Scotland are getting away with things because the authorities are hiding behind GDPR regulations that say that they cannot disclose whether a person has been suspended.

I think that that situation will go on for ever, until we get a whistleblowing officer, which is why I am keen to ensure that the petition continues. As I said, I know that time is an issue for the committee, but I think that your committee is the only one in Parliament that can keep open petitions into the next session. Considering that the children of Scotland are affected, I urge the committee to consider keeping it open, because we have not got things right at the moment. I will leave it at that, because I could get emotional over this, as I think that we are letting our children down.

There are a few supplementary questions on the back of what we have just discussed.

I am sorry, cabinet secretary, but I am now more confused than I was at the beginning.

I do not remember the exact figure that we were given for the cost of dualling the A9, but it was something like £3.7 billion at 2023 prices, so we will be somewhere north of that. If MIM—I do not like using that term. If the mutual investment model does not work, what happens then? Where will the money come from? Do you have a plan for that?

I see that, and I see that the Spey bridge is being resurfaced again, although it is less than a year since that was previously done. That adds to the confusion about road works.

I will link the issue to our previous topic of active travel. For active travel, the missing bit on the A9 is between Aviemore and Carrbridge, which is one of the areas that are to be dualled. If we are underspending on the active travel budget, should we sort that bicycle lane and the pedestrian walkway before the road works start? Otherwise, things will be even worse. Surely that would be a good investment.

Michael Matheson has some further questions.

Sure.