Seòmar agus comataidhean

My apologies, convener.

I thought that it would be useful, in seriousness, to refer to the Government’s response to the petition because of what it said, and now we are 19 months on. Would it not be a completely impossible task for an ordinary individual who is threatened with such a legal action to defend it? As Mr Borg-Barthet quite rightly said, most individuals would just fold, even if they think that they are absolutely innocent of any charge and have a perfect defence against it.

I have one final question. Let us assume that the Scottish Government—which, to be fair, said in its first submission that it was not ruling this out—were to say, “Right, we’re going to solve this problem.” Would it be able to do so through a legislative consent memorandum, or something close to it? In other words, could it rely on, borrow, plagiarise or copy the approach being taken down south, bearing in mind, of course, that it would have to be adapted to Scottish circumstances? In other words, is it a fairly simple task—well, perhaps not simple, but reasonably straightforward—because the work has already been done by others and can largely be translated into Scots law? Is that fair?

I should probably declare an interest, in that I am the convener of the cross-party group on the wood panel industry, which tends to consider the interests of the 25,000 people who are employed in sawmills and the panel products sector and related sectors and who are a key part of the economy. They rely on the continued supply over decades of species such as Sitka spruce, which are essential for what they do and without which they would not be in Scotland.

I have just been checking the long history of the petition, and I could not see any contribution from anyone on—I do not want to say “the other side”, because it is not a case of sides; everybody wants to see a combination of productive and native species, and everybody values both. There must be a balance. However, we have not heard from the commercial side or from the panel products or sawmill sectors. Confor should be given a chance to be heard. Before we consider whether it is appropriate to have a debate, I would prefer to hear what Confor has to say. It has the right to be heard that belongs to everybody.

The other point that I would make—and I do not say this every day—is that I have some sympathy with the Scottish Government in this instance. I do not expect the Government to come along and repair my gas boiler or a broken roof on my house, and most of the ancient woodlands do not belong to the Government but to private landowners. Therefore, from a legal point of view at any rate, the obligation is not on the Scottish Government. Yes, there is a societal interest, as Ms Baillie has rightly highlighted. However, we do not want taxpayers to pay for things that owners should be doing as part of the silvicultural handling of their property.

I thought that I should mention that, just for the sake of balance. I am not against a debate or, in any way, against the eloquent arguments that have been made, but we need to hear from both sides.

But we seem to have strayed into an argument of them against us, and of ancient woodlands versus introduced or commercial species. That is a difficult and sensitive argument that needs to be handled with sensitivity. My point is that we need to hear from both sides—that is all.

I agree with all that. I also recognise the sentiments that were expressed by Mr Smyth and Mr Cole-Hamilton, and I entirely agree with everything that they said.

At the meeting where we heard from the current Deputy First Minister, I felt that the arguments that were presented were insupportable, unjustifiable, inexcusable and quite impossible to defend on any basis, frankly. I have seen the petitioner’s written submission of 10 April, some of which has been alluded to, and I want to make two additional suggestions, which at this point are contingent. In other words, we might not require to resort to them, but we should, if necessary.

First, I think that your suggestion, convener, that we raise with John Swinney the apparent contradiction between the positions adopted by the current and the previous Deputy First Ministers is excellent. However, at the end of the day, where those who are second-in-command adopt two apparently different positions, what do you do? You go to the boss and say, “Look, your two deputies cannae agree with each other.” Okay, one was the previous deputy and not the current one, but he was still the Deputy First Minister of Scotland. We should indicate that we might be minded to seek evidence from the First Minister, if we cannot get justice for the people who are here today and those who cannot be with us.

In addition, it would be helpful to signal that, if all of those things prove to be ineffective, we would not be doing our job if we did not go back to the floor of our Parliament and debate the issue there.

We are indebted to Professor Diane McAdie for her submission of 11 March 2024. She stated in that submission:

“The purpose of redress for historic institutional child abuse should be to benefit survivors. Currently, the eligibility guidelines specifically exclude survivors of short-term residential school abuse. This is unjust”.

Surely that is correct, and surely your statement today perpetrates a manifest injustice, Deputy First Minister.

I hear what you say, Deputy First Minister, but, with respect, it does not really answer the question that I asked. Surely it is unjust to deny people who have been subject to abuse, albeit for a shorter period, redress and compensation. I am just asking you to give a direct answer on a matter of principle, please. Surely denying that is unjust. It is a manifest and patent injustice. Surely that is indisputable.

I do not think that I was a member of that committee at that time.

No.