Seòmar agus comataidhean

I suggest that we write to the SPSO to ask for further information that it holds on requests for extensions to the 12-month time limit. If that information is unavailable, we should ask for an explanation of how the SPSO can be confident that its policies and processes are working for neurodiverse people, given the issues raised in the petition.

I was made aware by Mr Bisset, whom I commend for lodging the petition, that the process has been difficult for him and has resulted in some pressure and anxiety. That is most unfortunate and would not have arisen had the SPSO exercised the flexibility that it would surely be reasonable to expect it to exercise. I feel very strongly that that is a fault on the SPSO’s part, and it must be called to book. That is what we are here for.

Moreover, the fact that a rejection can be taken to judicial review is phooey. It costs hundreds of thousands of pounds to raise a judicial review. A huge amount of money is involved—massively more than would result from the additional workload for the SPSO if it just exercised flexibility in the first place. I thought that we in Scotland were supposed to be sympathetic to people such as Mr Bisset who have needs related to their neurodiversity. I commend my colleague Mr Mountain for taking the case on, and I hope that we can get some answers from the SPSO to prove that it is not just another unaccountable quango.

We could perhaps just add it to the letter to the minister.

I support Mr Torrance’s recommendation, and I add that guidelines to assist local authorities would be of clear benefit, because they presently do not have them. There is a degree of concern about the fire risks, but in the absence of the Government providing any guidelines or analysis of the work that is being done, which is to be completed in the autumn, local authorities have one hand tied behind their back and are in a very unenviable position.

I hope that the Scottish Government acts more swiftly than it normally does. You said that the work that Ironside Farrar is doing is to be completed this autumn, which is around about now, given that the leaves are falling from the trees. Let us see the guidelines and get on with it, because they are required for many reasons that the petitioners have identified.

I agree, convener. Both are very serious petitions indeed, and both raise points that are, I am sure, of huge concern to a broader number of people in Scotland. The basic principle is that, if someone commits rape, they are committing an adult offence and should be dealt with in the adult courts, rather than the children’s system, which is seen as the soft option. I am absolutely certain that the petitioners speak for a lot of people.

I just want to make the point that the impression that I gained from the Lord Advocate’s evidence—we pressed the Lord Advocate and her colleagues very strongly on this—was that a new approach is being taken to both involve the victim more in decisions that are taken, and to make more referrals to the adult system, rather than the children’s system. The Lord Advocate did not specifically say that, though—she did not quite, as I would say, spit it oot. However, I very much hope that the Lord Advocate, who, to be fair to her, obviously treats these matters extremely seriously, will get the message that the public expect that a stronger approach should be taken. That was my takeaway, which I wanted to put on the record.

Mr Russell makes a fair point—these things are certainly not new. What is perhaps a bit different about the situation facing those with an interest in Loch Ness is the cumulative impact of several proposals. If we were talking about just one or two, that would be one thing, but there are several. The companies that have replied have defended their own proposals, but that is not really what the main concern is—it is the cumulative impact of numerous proposals.

I support Mr Torrance’s recommendation, but I make the additional request that, as well as the impact on wild salmon, the minister also considers the other potential impacts, including on water levels and on users of the loch and the Caledonian canal.

At the weekend, I heard concerns in the constituency that I represent that water levels could be seriously depleted during certain periods of the operation of the intended pumped storage scheme. I do not know whether that is the case, but if that happens, an awful lot of the existing businesses that survive by providing boat trips in Loch Ness, or fishing and leisure craft, will be affected, as will those who use the Caledonian canal. They were there first, so they are entitled to have their interests considered.

I added that because the petitioners have raised a particular concern, but there are other issues, too. I should declare that I know Mr Shaw. I have engaged with him, and I know that he adopts a very forensic approach.

Also, I do not think that they provide many jobs. I could be wrong, but that is what I have heard anecdotally. Therefore, the benefits are unclear—apart, possibly, from those with regard to storage capacity.

I do not think that there is any alternative, given the time that we have remaining in the parliamentary session. I just point out that the petitioner’s daughter was scalded, badly injured and scarred for life as a result of eating soup in a nursery. I would think that children in kindergartens and nurseries are particularly vulnerable, because they are not able to assess risks in the way that older children can. Therefore, in supporting Mr Torrance, I wonder whether we might also write to the minister to ask that reminders be issued, through the appropriate authorities, to those in charge of nurseries and kindergartens in particular with regard to this risk.

That particular family was denied any redress because there was a lack of guidelines. I think that the Care Inspectorate, rather disingenuously, pointed to the lack of guidance as indicating that it could not do anything for the family. In itself, that seems pretty pathetic and absurd, but, be that as it may, you cannot help but feel sympathy for the predicament that those parents found themselves in. As Mr Torrance says, the recommendation is that food be left to cool, but, plainly, that recommendation was not followed in that case, and maybe there are other cases, too. Therefore, reminders to those who run these establishments would not go amiss, if the minister wants to be proactive about it.

The judicial review point was raised by the Scottish Government on page 8 of the annex to the submissions—that is what I was referring to. You are quite correct that there is a process, but it is the Scottish Government that is pointing to an absurd course of action that nobody in their right mind would dream of taking.

Cabinet secretary, you mentioned the cashback for communities scheme. I was involved in that some years ago—so long ago that it is probably only of archaeological interest now. When Kenny MacAskill and I set up the cashback scheme, the idea was to take money that was confiscated from drug dealers and other criminals and to put the fruits of their crime into helping to turn around youngsters, particularly those who were not criminals but were on the cusp—or were feared to be on the cusp—of moving into criminal behaviour. They were perhaps involved in antisocial behaviour or minor crime, although every crime has a victim. A lot of work was done on that.

You said in your written submission that £20 million is being provided to the cashback scheme. I saw in a recent announcement that that is being supplemented by £6 million. Does that constitute all the money that has been confiscated from criminals, or is some of that siphoned off for other purposes?

That is helpful. It looks as though the lion’s share, if not all the money, is going towards trying to divert youngsters from criminal behaviour. I get the impression that many of the schemes were effective, although it is very hard to measure the outcome of those things.