Seòmar agus comataidhean

I was impressed by Mr Bibby and Mr MacGregor’s arguments, and by the range of support across political parties for ensuring that, in Scotland, we go back to the golden age that we enjoyed in our boyhood, convener—I thought that I had pulled rank in you in terms of age, but hey ho. As one moves gently towards the other end of life, nearer the crematorium stage, and as one suffers more from things such as arthritis and so on, and cannot do load-bearing exercise, an awful lot of people whose exercise consists of swimming cannot do other forms. The issue is not only about children and life-saving; it is beneficial in other ways.

I was also struck by Mr MacGregor’s point that all sports are beneficial if we take part in them. They are good for mental health, physical health, wellbeing, endorphins and all the rest of it. Believe it or not, I used to be quite active on that front myself. However, he made the salient point that swimming is different. It has far more benefits and a broader range of benefits than just life-saving and so on. Your comments are also entirely endorsed, convener, so I do not think that we should close the petition at all.

Moreover, towards the next election, I would not be surprised if the issue finds its way into the manifestos, certainly of the main parties. We have to make choices, and local authorities are the ones who have to make provision, but the passing of the buck by the Scottish Government to local authorities is not acceptable, really. It is just not on. You cannot pass the buck if you are in charge.

If the Government wants suggestions about saving money, I would ask why we do not have full swimming pools instead of empty cycle lanes all over the place? The Government seems to have unlimited funds to construct cycle lanes, which, as far as I can see, remain empty from dawn to dusk, not least because they are on steep hills, which nobody except Olympian cyclists can actually navigate. That is just one suggestion. I could come up with five or six others quite easily, but I will spare the committee that.

Holding a round-table discussion is the very least that we can do. I wonder whether we could pause and think about what else we might do, because, unlike so many other topics that are plainly the responsibility of local authorities, such as refuse collection, which are vital functions in themselves, swimming has a far broader range of benefits. We cannot just say that it is a matter for local authorities.

I know that other members have taken an acute interest in this and we could ask for their views about who to invite to a round-table discussion so that we do not exclude anyone. Liz Smith would be one example.

I do not think that there is any real alternative other than to close the petition, for the reasons that Mr Torrance has set out, so I would not oppose that. However, this is an area of lingering and continuous public concern, not only on salary levels but on the levels of some pay-offs that are made to very senior people, which are of telephone number amounts. It just never seems to end. I want to register the fact that the Government has completely failed to address the issue, and it just goes on and on. It is the same at Westminster, so it is not only a Scottish problem. It seems that, the more you get paid, the less accountable you are—we never see the top civil servants. Some of them get paid more than £200,000—or one of them does, anyway.

The petitioner has raised a legitimate area of public concern. A study would not necessarily advance the petition unless there was a will to do something aboot it, and I am afraid that there seems to be a lack of will to do anything about it. That is my impression. I know that petitioners get very angry when they think that their petition has been rejected out of hand, but I do not think that there is anything that we in the committee can do about it. I just thought that I would put that on the record.

It is a sort of modern version of Parkinson’s law: the more you get paid and the higher up you are in a quango, the less accountable you are.

We should write to the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs, Land Reform and Islands to highlight the issues that were raised during the committee’s consideration of the petition, including concerns about, first, the evidence base for designating a new national park, particularly regarding the impact of existing national parks; secondly, the lack of clarity and trust in the consultation process that is being conducted by NatureScot; and, thirdly, the need for an independent review of the existing national parks and their performance, which was what the petition called for inter alia.

During the committee’s evidence session with the cabinet secretary, she indicated that she had ruled out—apparently absolutely—holding a referendum of people living within whatever boundaries were proposed to be set for the national park. However, since then, Dumfries and Galloway Council has held a vote, the result of which, by a very substantial majority, was that there should be a local referendum. Therefore, in the committee’s letter to the rural secretary, can we ask whether she is aware of that vote, what her response is, and whether she will reconsider that decision in the light of the very clear expression of the opinion of local representatives.

Finally, out of respect, so that it is involved and given its knowledge of the area, could we write to the council to ask for the details of its decision and how it believes that matters might be progressed?

So, the compromise is that we make the Scottish Parliament great again, slowly. That is fine with me.

I entirely agree. It is symptomatic of a wider malaise about repeated delays and failure to meet timelines that have been promised to Parliament.

Therefore, I wonder whether we might also write to the permanent secretary and ask him what he is going to do about it. I am not defending ministers here—they are ultimately responsible—but they act on the basis of advice, and they will have had advice from senior officials that this could be done in this length of time. However, there has been repeated failure. Indeed, this is just one instance among a plethora of things.

I have never seen the permanent secretary—he is Mr Anonymous, is he not? We never see him, and I think that he is going anyway, but perhaps he could do us the service of explaining to us this endemic delay in the process of government, because it just brings us all down.

We need only contrast that with what the new President of the United States has been saying; we will see what happens, of course, but he is promising to do things straight away. I am not supporting him at all, but it is no wonder that people get fed up with Government when nothing happens for years after the date by which people were promised that things would happen. Of course people are disappointed about that. I really think that the permanent secretary has a bit of explaining to do, convener.

I agree with all of that. Having read the submission from Siobhian Brown, the community safety minister, I think that although it is one of the longest submissions that I have seen—it is more than seven or eight pages—and although, to be fair to the minister, it covers a lot of ground, it is still very general.

I remember from those distant days when I was community safety minister that specific bodies sought to play a variety of specific roles. We had Medics Against Violence; there was the use of naloxone; there were various diversionary schemes; and there was the cashback for communities funding. Although that funding is mentioned in the last paragraph of the minister’s submission, there is no specific statement about how much money is involved. The idea is to confiscate drug dealers’ takings and use that money to help to solve the problems that they have partly created in society.

I should also mention the violence reduction unit: John Carnochan and his successor played very active parts in helping to turn around the lives of youngsters who were on the verge or cusp of criminal careers.

This is a very difficult area, convener, and I know that there are no simple solutions. Like you, I have sympathy with the petitioner’s comment in his supplementary submission that for the victim, in particular, and the accused, the experience of going through the criminal justice system, where you might give a precognition, wait a year and still nothing happens, is in some ways almost as bad as the original problem, if it was a relatively minor one.

I think that we should hear from the minister, but we should also ask for more specific information on each of the policy strands that are designed to help young people who are on the cusp of becoming a serious problem to themselves and society, and how effective those strands are. After all, at the end of the day, it comes down to these programmes.

I was struck by how very general the response from the minister was. I could not go and explain it to a constituent—some of the abbreviations and acronyms passed me by, so goodness knows how the public are expected to understand any of it. There is a risk of descending into jargon.

I have spent a little while studying the quite voluminous papers in the petitioner’s case and the Scottish Forestry response. Incidentally, I notice that the petition has more than 700 supporters, so it has plainly attracted considerable interest.

Having considered the documents—carefully, I would hope—I think that we should close the petition under rule 8.15.7 of standing orders, for three reasons. First, Scottish Forestry’s very detailed response makes it clear that there is technical guidance to assist with the choice of marking material for deer fences, set out in the Forest Research publication “Fence marking to reduce grouse collisions”, which came out in 2012.

Secondly, Scottish Forestry has a statutory duty to assess afforestation, deforestation, forest road and forest quarry projects to determine whether such proposals are likely to have a significant negative effect on the environment, including on black grouse.

Finally, Scottish Forestry can enforce adherence to approved forestry grant scheme contracts, which can include inspection of the scheme’s implementation and any remedial work to address any identified issues. I know that it does that already, although there are always some issues of contention.

In suggesting that the petition be closed, I would say that, although we cannot become involved with any particular concern or complaint about specific forestry projects—and the petitioner goes into some detail about specific projects—we might wish to write to Scottish Forestry to draw attention to the petitioner’s specific concerns and the level of support that the petition has received, with more than 700 signatures, and ask that it liaise directly and perhaps meet with the petitioner to have an open dialogue and discussion on the issues that he has raised, as they are important to a large number of people.

The final thing that I would say is that, on the first of the petitioner’s asks—that new deer fencing be marked with wooden droppers—Scottish Forestry has, to be fair, pointed out that that did not happen because the fencing was located on very high ground and was exposed to wind, and the weight of the droppers might well have caused the fence to be blown over. That is an obvious practical response—and, indeed, a direct response—to that concern.

I have spoken at some length, convener, because we do not necessarily like to close new petitions straight away. However, I would suggest that, in light of the comprehensive reply that we have received and the fact that the petition seems to relate to specific instances, it would be fruitful for Scottish Forestry to have a serious open dialogue involving the relevant personnel, the petitioner and perhaps any of the petitioner’s colleagues who he feels might bring experience to the table.

We have considered the issues carefully, and I understand where the petitioner is coming from and the concerns about the issue. However, we should close the petition, on the basis that the Scottish Government is of the view and has stated that the Trespass (Scotland) Act 1865 effectively addresses the issues raised, and that it does not believe that there is a need to strengthen the act and does not intend to undertake any further work, because it has received virtually no representations on the issue.

I might add that the freedom of access regulations do not apply to the curtilage of private property. Perhaps that was not a point that the petitioner agreed with, accepted or felt was operative in practice, but that is the law under the 1865 act, and it was part 1 of the series of issues that he raised. I think that the petitioner’s issues have been considered and responded to in this instance.