Seòmar agus comataidhean

I declare that I live in the Cairngorms national park and I used to live in the Loch Lomond and the Trossachs national park. Back in 2006, I supported a petition relating to the creation of a marine national park when it came before the Public Petitions Committee. I have also been working with the petitioners on this issue generally. I just wanted to put that on the record.

The key ask is that before you create new bodies, you should, logically, have an independent review of how the existing bodies are performing. That is a fairly strong argument. That review should be independent and should be conducted after careful thought has been given to the remit. A number of people should be consulted about that. I make no bones about it. That is logical and desirable, and it should take place.

As far as I can see from my reading of the Scottish Government’s response, which is two pages long, there is no response whatever to that argument. I find that quite shocking. I am bound to reflect that this is not the first time that that has happened. The permanent secretary should be asked to have a look at Scottish Government responses before they come to the committee, because they are surely quite insulting. The main thesis that I have outlined is simply not addressed at all.

The only bit that I could find that remotely approached the issue was the last paragraph, which says:

“An overview of the performance of the ... National Park Authorities ... is provided annually through their published Annual Report”.

That is their own document. Yes, the annual report is a statement about what has been done during the year, but it is by no means independent, and nor can it ever be professed as such. Therefore, the reply is utterly irrelevant. Irrespective of the fact that I have a clear position on the matter, I think that, as a committee, we should be concerned about receiving irrelevant documents from the Scottish Government instead of reasoned arguments about why it thinks that something is not appropriate.

There are lots of other points that I could make, but I will make just one substantial point. Paragraph 9 of the petitioners’ response of 4 June points to a recent online opinion poll that was conducted in Aviemore by the community forum. I think that 444 votes were cast on the basis that the park was not working well, and 10 local residents—a paltry 3 per cent—felt that the park was performing well. I am quite fond of referenda, and I would quite like to get 96 per cent in a referendum. That result shows that the Scottish Government’s presentation that all is well in the garden, and that all the good things result from the national park and not from people’s hard-working efforts, is just not the case at all. I thought that I would mention that for the sake of balance, because there is none in the Scottish Government’s response.

The options for action that I would advocate to committee members are threefold. First, I would like to write to the Scottish Government to draw attention to the remarks that have been made.

I have strong views, but I accept that this is a committee and that other members may have different views.

If that is the case, then I think that my point has been answered, because if he is dissatisfied, he has had the opportunity to speak.

I apologise.

You pointed to the different skill sets that there are on the panel. Do you decide collectively? Is there a small quorum of people who are available in respect of particular cases, or is there a round-table discussion among the panel? How many people are on the panel?

Yes.

How many cases have been turned down by Redress Scotland, and why?

If the clerks are saying that he has seen the submission from the Scottish Ambulance Service, he will have had the opportunity to respond.

We want to try to find out the facts, so it would be helpful—if you are not prevented from telling us—if you could write to us, without naming names, to explain for what reason the 4 per cent were turned down. I am pleased to hear that it is a small number.

I want to focus on material that we have received from the Law Society of Scotland and from Thompsons Solicitors. The problems arise from the guidance—perhaps from the act itself—and the exceptions from eligibility. The Law Society has put it quite clearly that

“It is unfortunate”

—that is a sort of lawyerly euphemism; in my opinion, it is a bloody disgrace—

“for this particular group that access to the Scheme is based on who decided to place the child into care, in the short or longer term, and does not take into account whether the abuse took place at an emanation of the state”.

That question of whether the placement was voluntary or involuntary seems to me to be completely irrelevant. Would you not agree? If a child was placed in the care of the state, in loco parentis, and that child was abused, the intention of the person who put the child there does not really matter, surely. I do not want to put you on the spot, but, as a human being, would you not agree with the proposition that that criterion is just insupportable?

I will add that it has been brought to my attention by fishing representatives that, whereas HPMAs policy, as such, was dropped—after various representations of various types were made to urge the Government so to do—I understand that it is a widely held belief in fishing circles that NatureScot is busily working on that topic to pursue what some feel might be HPMAs by another name. I have not seen the factual basis for that, but I wonder whether we might, to take a belt-and-braces approach, write to NatureScot to ask whether it is doing work in that area, and, if so, what that work is, who has asked it to do it and what role in and input to its deliberations, if any, fishing representatives, such as those representing fishermen in the Clyde and the vicinity, might be having.