Seòmar agus comataidhean

I apologise.

We all know that Mr Ross is very pernickety, and that is a good thing in a legislator. However, as the member is pernickety, he should have been able to come up with approximate figures. I also add that this will be a recurring cost, and not a one-off fund.

The member is coming to the chamber with this at stage 3. I know that he is a clever man and that he would have anticipated this question, and he has had time since stage 2 to come up with estimates of the cost in the financial memorandum, as he would have been required to do had he brought this as a member’s bill.

I begin by sending my heartfelt condolences to the families affected, especially those with children. As a parent and grandparent, I cannot imagine their pain and loss, which I know will have no end.

I thank those who fought for a full determination of what happened at the Queen Elizabeth university hospital. I have challenged Anas Sarwar on rerunning a live inquiry that is structured strictly in terms of the Inquiries Act 2005 and the Inquiries (Scotland) Rules 2007. It has taken five years, and that period was no doubt extended by the Covid pandemic. Evidence to the inquiry has just concluded with parties’ closing statements. I submit that the inquiry’s approach has been thorough. Its report is to be issued later this year.

Commentary on the evidence is unavoidable, but commentary on the outcome is not helpful; for me, it undermines confidence in the independent inquiry process. I despair at anyone politicising this extremely distressful and serious issue, so I repeat that the cabinet secretary decides the remit and the terms of reference, consulting the appointed inquiry chair on those terms of reference before they are finalised and published. That is the end of the Government’s involvement in the running of the inquiry. From then on, the chair is wholly responsible for conducting the investigation within that agreed remit and those references.

There is a robust legal statutory framework to guarantee, in the interests of everyone, the independence of a public inquiry. This inquiry is chaired by Lord Brodie, who is a judge of the inner house, operating independently, but with the authority to call witnesses and review evidence, including from Government ministers, and to compel attendance of witnesses. I therefore take issue with the part of the Labour motion that says:

“recognises that … many serious questions remain regarding the decision-making process and the role of the Scottish Government”

and

“considers that political decision making should be considered by the inquiry”.

In fact, Anas Sarwar recently called for John Swinney and Nicola Sturgeon to give evidence to the inquiry. That is political interference. Is Anas Sarwar suggesting that Lord Brodie has failed to call witnesses, and that his chairmanship is questionable or inadequate and not independent of politics?

Lord Brodie can call whom he wants and decide what documents and exchanges he sees, and he can compel any witness that he wants to come to the inquiry. The question in the chamber is, therefore: does the Parliament have confidence in Lord Brodie? That is a very serious question. Current political commentary on whom to ultimately blame is unavoidable, and I accept that—[Interruption.]

I hope that I did not overhear some—

Will the member give way?

I do not demur from anything that I said in the members’ business debate; I meant what I said and I said what I meant. Anyone can have a look at it, since it is a wonderful contribution. However, I do not think that it is appropriate to include the proposal in an amendment to legislation. There are many ways to deal with the issue—I have said that before about other amendments. For example, committees could undertake to ensure that there is an inquiry, and there are parliamentary questions and debates. To me, those are the ways in which members should deal with ensuring that the scheme does what it says on the tin.

There may be innocent reasons as to why something went wrong. I agree that 47 per cent is high—how on earth did that happen? It may be simply be that, in the rush to get ahead of the queue, applicants completed the forms quickly—and incorrectly. Douglas Ross will know that, during the members’ business debate, I queried the guidance that was on the website and which applications had been rejected. In that regard, the minister gave a helpful answer to a written question from Liam McArthur on 4 December that listed some of the reasons. However, no farmer or tenant will be looking at answers to parliamentary questions.

I understand that the minister is busy, but I think that it would be relatively simple for him find a cure for when the fund comes around next time. Douglas Ross would agree that it is a good fund; it almost doubled in size because of demand, which is good. However, if there is concern that the assessments were not handled properly or that there was inequality in the process, let us look into that—that is all. All that I am saying to Douglas Ross is that I do not think that his proposals should be included in primary legislation.

Of course, I do not speak for the minister; I will leave him to deal with that. I will not be here in the next parliamentary session as I am retiring, and neither will Douglas Ross. If the proposal is not progressed, committee members in the next parliamentary session can ensure that it is followed up.

If I were a member in the next session, I would pursue the issue if the minister does not follow through on it, because it is not a big deal. It is a simple thing to explain to people who are upset and disappointed so that they know why, where they went wrong, and whether there is something in the guidance that they could have done better, so that they do not rush to put in their application only for it to be rejected on eligibility grounds or as a result of the checking that goes on afterwards. I seem to recall—the minister will undoubtedly correct me—that some people were claiming twice for certain items. That has to be cleared up.

I will leave it at that. I supported what was said in the debate that I referred to earlier, but I do not believe that it is appropriate to put the measures in primary legislation.

I was not invited to the convention. If I had been invited and had been unable to attend—remember, I was not invited—I would certainly have sent my apologies.

I will certainly endeavour to be brief—I am weary.

In the section that amendment 172 would insert, on the national energy convention, subsection (2)(b) says:

“hear from the local community in the area affected by the proposed structure.”

Subsection (3) says:

“The Convention”—

this is the key here—

“must include members who are representative of all areas of Scotland.”

I do not know who those people are. We have community councillors, local authority councillors and MSPs, but who are the people envisaged in the amendment? Are they elected? Are they self-selected? This is legislation—we cannot just slap in something so unspecific, which then becomes law.

The section that amendment 175 would insert says:

“Before the expiry of the period of one month beginning with the day after Royal Assent, the Scottish Ministers must meet with all regional energy convention groups”.

Who are these groups? Are they elected? Are they self-selected? I have no problem with increasing consultation with communities, because there is an issue, which I have raised at First Minister’s question time, with proliferation, and especially the cumulative impact of projects. However, we cannot put in legislation such general words—there is no specificity.

Perhaps Rachael Hamilton will tell me who those regional energy convention groups are. What size are they? How many are there? Who are the people mentioned? Are they elected? I would like to know.

That was a valiant attempt at deflecting the question that I raised, but it was not clever enough. I know that you are very pernickety, Mr Ross, and that is a good thing—

Deputy Presiding Officer, “gull management fund”—I have waited years for those three words to cross my lips.

I want to speak about amendment 148. I know that my colleague Douglas Ross is keen on accuracy in the chamber, so I will ask some simple questions. Perhaps he could respond to them during his summing up.

Subsection (1) of the section that amendment 148 would insert would require

“an analysis of the total annual spend”

to be undertaken. What would be the cost of doing that?

Subsection (3) of that section would require

“a fund (to be known as ‘the Gull Management Fund’)”

to be established. That would need to be sufficient for local authorities to mitigate

“the impact of gulls in the local ... area”

and to respond to

“the consequences of gulls in the local ... area”.

How much would that cost?

Subsection (5) would require

“an annual review of the operation and use of the Gull Management Fund”

to be undertaken, and, under subsection (6), there might require to be

“an increase in funding for the Gull Management Fund.”

I know that a fund of £100,000 would not be enough, because the member has already said so. I will be happy to take an intervention on my comments after I make my point. It is important that the financial memorandum that accompanies the bill suits what would be done under it. That is critical, because we are talking about public money. However, I do not know what impact amendment 148 would have on the financial memorandum.

I will take it a step further. It is too late for him now, but had Mr Ross brought this as a member’s bill—it would have been quite a good idea for such a bill—he would have been required to have a financial memorandum to accompany it.

My problem comes when things are being asked for at stage 3 and there are costings involved. I require the member—not on the face of his amendments, but in his submissions to the chamber—to present the costings that will be required to be provided by the Government.