Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

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.

I think that the committee has played a role in cajoling the Scottish Government and the health boards into moving forward slightly more quickly. However, it is frustrating that the petition is now three years old and that, although NHS Grampian responded over a year ago, it does not appear to have received a response to its application for a licence.

I suggest that we write to the Minister for Drugs and Alcohol Policy to ask when the annual updates from each health board are due; to request that the committee receive an updated table once the information is available and an early and detailed update on NHS Grampian’s work in the area since the so-called rapid review; and to ask whether the Scottish Government intends to undertake any proactive work with health boards to ensure compliance with that review.

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.

Good morning, cabinet secretary.

I am perhaps unique in at least one sense, in that I have been a resident in both national parks, and I have represented a large chunk of Cairngorms national park since it was established in 2003, and before that, the Cairngorm Partnership.

In their submission of 3 September, the petitioners said:

“a recent poll by a local community forum”—

the Aviemore and Spey valley community issues forum—

“asked its members if the Cairngorm National Park had performed well and 92 per cent said”

that it had not. A paltry 3 per cent said that it had. That is a North Korean-type majority.

The petitioners go on to make the point that

“surely a curious minister about to launch a third national park would want to find out why there was such overwhelming concern.”

What would the cabinet secretary say to them?

I was struck by the arguments that are contained in the petitioners’ written submission of 10 November, submitted by Mr Jim Mackie, who points out:

“Communities are not aware of any public consultations on flooding”.

Communities and community councils seem to be excluded from the process.

In its response, the Scottish Government said:

“We are committed to further strengthening these efforts, with a focus on community engagement”.

What does that mean? Does it mean consulting community councils, for example, which take an active role?

Over the years, the problems in my constituency have been serious. They have perhaps not been quite as serious as those of people in Angus but, nonetheless, they have been very serious. There seems to be complete control by SEPA. Mr Mackie points out that the

“Cost of flood damage in Potentially Vulnerable Areas … is calculated centrally using the Multicoloured Manual, a book first published in 2003”,

which

“contains flood statistics from three river basins in England. The figures produced are fictional. No research is done at a community level”—

none. What is that about? That sounds extraordinary.

Secondly, he says that, as Mr Golden pointed out,

“Councils have no legal responsibility”.

Who has responsibility? That buck is constantly being passed around.

He also says—this is the meat of it:

“Rivers and streams carry sediments, trees, and bushes downstream. More so in floods. These catch in the riverbed and/or banks. Sediments build up and raise riverbeds and banks. ... Riverbank erosion is seen as a ‘natural process’”

NatureScot and SEPA prevent practical solutions by landowners and community councils that know what the problem is. You cannot take soil or gravel from one area and put it into another area because of rules that SEPA and NatureScot apply. Therefore, obstructions build up, thus exacerbating or causing flooding problems. I have encountered that many times in my constituency. Every occasion ends up with SEPA saying no. Often, SEPA’s officials do not bother to come to visit anybody anyway. That is part of their modus operandi. It is not to get out of their office but to issue edicts from the warmth of their office, wherever it may be.

I feel strongly that Mr Mackie and Mr Christie, through their efforts and very detailed knowledge—they have really impressed me—have brought to us a set of serious issues. In due course, we might wish to obtain evidence from them so that the Parliament can hear directly from them about those concerns.

I support Mr Torrance’s suggestion. I was also struck by the petitioner’s most recent submission, of 12 November, which I hope the cabinet secretary will respond to at any such evidence session, and in particular, what might be regarded as a bull point, or the bull point, that

“We are amazed that anyone would try to build a road on the existing route under constant threat of landslides from 200,000 tonnes of unstable material. Work will constantly be stopped every time there is movement on the hillside, increasing building costs, and delay delivery of a solution.”

The submission goes on from there. Incidentally, the petitioner’s original submission, in December 2021, referred to a figure of 100,000 tonnes, which seems to have grown to 200,000.

No matter what the tonnage is, there is an awful lot of material. I am familiar with that particular area from the Munro-bagging days of my long-distant past and we all know that there is a constant threat of landslides in that area. I am mystified as to why that route could be chosen, particularly after it has gone through the process of preferred route selection. I am not as experienced, or as long in the tooth, as the convener and deputy convener when it comes to this petition—I am just a junior—but I find it baffling that we would spend £400 million or more on a solution that seems patently flawed. I wanted to make that point ad longum, as m’luds might say, because that has not been explained to me and I would like to know the answer.

My final point is that the argument will not disappear. Jackie Baillie and I have been around for quite a long time and we know that serious arguments, which can seem to the ordinary punter to be unassailable, do not go away. They just fester and that festering process results in disillusion with Governments and Parliaments. I wanted to make that point as best I could.

Mr Golden asked about how support in Galloway would be gauged. Indeed, I asked Francesca Osowska and Peter Rawcliffe that in a conference call that I had with them a few weeks back. Perhaps that is for later on, because NatureScot is going to meetings in Galloway and people are asking what the boundaries would be, what the national park authority’s powers would be, who would be on the board and what the authority would do but there are no answers to any of those questions. It is a bit of a pig in a poke at the moment.

If the idea of a new national park is taken forward, surely the only real way to measure opinion would be to ask the people who are resident within its proposed boundaries in a local referendum. I thought that our party was in favour of referenda.

The aims are very worthy and we all have great sympathy with them, because of the profound mental health problems that exist among young people in Scotland. It is a very serious point indeed.

In the light of the responses from Police Scotland and NatureScot that you have described—I will not repeat what you have said—there does not really seem to be any basis on which we can proceed further. Therefore, I suggest that we close the petition under rule 15.7 of the standing orders.