Chamber and committees

There is quite a lot in this that would be helpful to follow up with the Scottish Government. It is important that the committee notes that there is no such breed as an XL bully. It is the characteristics and type that have been subject to restrictions. We could follow up on the verification of those characteristics and the capacity of vets and other professionals to do that. It is important to ask the Scottish Government, for example, what training it is providing for owners to progress their dog to wearing a muzzle, which is one of the restrictions.

In addition to that, we should seek further details on the planned summit on responsible dog ownership and control, and ask specifically whether that will include owners of XL bully type dogs and provide the opportunity to consider the impact of the regulations on those owners, and what other measures might be put in place by the Scottish Government to ensure more responsible ownership and, ultimately, the welfare of dogs.

That is helpful. I have a final question. How were you advised about the project running behind time? Was it regularly discussed at Cabinet, for example, or was it broadly left to the relevant minister and officials?

The petition refers to “the current proposals”. On the face of it, notionally, those proposals have been shelved. If, at the time, the Scottish Government was saying that it would not progress the current proposals, the petition would clearly have to be closed. However, if, at that time, the Scottish Government instructed NatureScot to progress some form of the current proposals, I think that that would fall within the scope of the petition. It might be worth clarifying that aspect with NatureScot. Clearly, if NatureScot is doing that off its own bat—if it is doing it at all—that is a different matter. However, if the Scottish Government has instructed it, we should see the details, because that might fall within the scope of the petition.

I am a bit cautious about closing the petition, although I think that we are reaching the end of the road. I wonder whether there might be one final opportunity for the committee to write to the Deputy First Minister and ask for detailed information about the work that is being undertaken to consider the findings and recommendations of the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse for England and Wales, and to ask for an update on the publication of the implementation progress report and its findings. I feel that there was an error in limiting the scope of the inquiry.

Ms Sturgeon, in answer to Fergus Ewing, you have been clear about the Greens’ influence on the dualling of the A9. Obviously, the backdrop to your tenure in government was some ambitious climate change targets, including the setting of an extremely ambitious interim target in 2019. I wonder whether looking to tackle climate change in the context of failing to meet a number of emissions targets had any influence on the prioritisation of dualling the A9.

We should close the petition under rule 5.7 of standing orders, on the basis that section 24 of the Children (Scotland) Act 2020 requires the Scottish ministers to arrange a pilot scheme for mandatory alternative dispute resolution meetings and work is under way for the pilot to commence this year. Secondly, the Scottish Government has no plans to review the current system for initiating actions for child contact and residence orders. In closing the petition, it might be helpful for us to flag to the petitioner that they have the option to resubmit the petition in 12 months’ time, should no progress have been made on the pilot.

Thank you.

Yes.

Thanks; that is very helpful. I am just trying to square the timeline in my mind. On the basis of the evidence that we have heard, around 2014 seems to be the point at which a red flag was raised over the plausibility of completing the project. I think that you pointed to 2014 in terms of the financing aspect and there was probably a significant change in that in 2018. However, the Scottish Government did not find out until 2022 that it would not be possible to complete by 2025. I struggle to find that explanation to be realistic and plausible, given the track record and what had gone before. Perhaps you could comment on that.

From your assessment as the then First Minister, did the impact of Covid have a multiplier effect so that the impact was not just during the period when Covid was occurring? How quickly did Government and all the operations get back on track?