Seòmar agus comataidhean

The Conservative and Labour amendments allude to or promulgate the proposition that a written constitution is an abstract that displaces the real and current issues for the people of Scotland such as the economy, the cost of living crisis, free access to healthcare at the point of need, a warm affordable home, a decent living wage, the right to withdraw labour, the right to be free of weapons of mass destruction and the ability to provide a sanctuary to those who are fleeing from persecution. A written constitution is the framework and foundation of a just society in which human rights, the rights of our children, the rights of the vulnerable, the rights that I have just referred to and—I say to Willie Rennie, who is not here—the rights of my constituents are fundamental and protected. It is a contract with the people, who are sovereign and have remained so despite the union in 1707. In 1953, MacCormick v Lord Advocate, session case 396, on appeal to the Inner House, Lord President Cooper, obiter dictum, said that

“The principle of the unlimited sovereignty of Parliament is a distinctively English principle”,

and this was restated in the claim of right, which was signed on 30 March 1989 and said:

“We, gathered as the Scottish Constitutional Convention, do hereby acknowledge the sovereign right of the Scottish people to determine the form of Government best suited to their needs, and do hereby declare and pledge that in all our actions and deliberations their interests shall be paramount.”

Yet the UK Parliament has placed what is, to all intents and purposes, a permanent veto on the Scots exercising their sovereign right through a referendum.

I remind the unionists in here that, in 2014, the Scottish people were told that, if they voted yes to independence, they would be thrown out of the EU. We voted 62 per cent to remain and we were dragged out against our will.

Given that there is no written UK constitution, Westminster has free rein to undermine and even erode basic human rights, especially those of the vulnerable: the rape clause; the bedroom tax; providing a haven in Scotland for nuclear weapons; and, for those seeking sanctuary, the irony, given its imperial past, of a reverse slave trade, involving paying for the shipping of desperate migrants to Rwanda, whose own breach of human rights the UK has questioned. We, in this Parliament, find that our protection of those rights is restricted and is being eroded in the context not only of a majority of members whose parties’ manifestos are committed to an independent Scotland but of a majority of Scottish MPs: 45 SNP to six Tory, one Labour and four Liberal Democrat.

Independence with a written constitution would mean that no Scottish Parliament could unilaterally remove or amend the rights of the Scottish people that were embedded in that constitution. To do so would require the consent of the people, who are sovereign. That is not what the Westminster Parliament does, day in and day out. Such a constitution would be pragmatic in its implementation, giving rights and remedies to the people of Scotland should any Scottish Government default. Those rights are the stuff of fact, not fiction.

I thank the minister for her answer and I share her views on the valuable contribution of childminders.

I refer to written answer S6W-19156, dated 21 June this year, which advises that the Scottish Borders have a childminding development officer contracted through the Scottish Childminding Association to Scottish Borders Council. Unfortunately, local childminders have advised me that the position is not to be renewed and that causes them and me concern. Does the minister agree?

To ask the Scottish Government what its position is on whether childminding development officers have a significant role to play in supporting and assisting childminders in their professional development. (S6O-02420)

We can find out. It is always available to us to find something more specific for stage 2.

The licensing provisions in the bill say that a licence will be granted when Scottish ministers

“are satisfied that ... muirburn is necessary ... and ... no other method of vegetation control is available.”

I would have preferred the word “appropriate” to “available”.

“Appropriate” is a better word.

I am completely muddled about the levels of proof. We are using the term “criminal” when we are referring to licensing, which is a civil matter with civil remedies and breaches.

Let me put to you a proposition, so that I can understand what will happen. The licensing scheme is in place, and the police receive a report of an incident and check it out. Let us assume that there is absolutely sufficient evidence that a crime has been committed that meets the standard of proof in the criminal courts, with the onus on the prosecution. Would the police simply bypass NatureScot and go to criminal prosecution? Please do not answer now, Mr Lynn—that is just my first proposition.

In my second proposition, the police get a phone call and carry out an investigation, but do not think that there is sufficient evidence to take it to the procurator fiscal. Do you then take the matter to NatureScot, which will look at what you have and decide whether, on the civil balance of probability, the licence should be suspended?

That is what I am trying to get into my head. The word “crime” is being used in the context of both NatureScot and Police Scotland, and what I need to know and what landowners would also need to know is: how does that work?

There you go—that was quite short.

I understand the difference. However, would Police Scotland bypass NatureScot if it thought, “Well—it’s right in front of us here”?

So, you would go to NatureScot, but I take it that the prosecution would take priority over anything else.

Obviously you do not want to compromise the evidence that might be available for a prosecution. Do you therefore accept that those might be the very circumstances in which it would be useful to extend the powers, with limitations? The Government will probably not forgive me for saying this, but the fact is that there are not enough wildlife crime police officers, and the SSPCA will be able to do the early bit and secure the scene until you can take over—in certain circumstances.