Seòmar agus comataidhean

Would the gentleman online like to comment in response to any of the questions?

I thank you all very much and I am grateful to you for your contributions this morning. We have teased out your views on a range of issues arising from the proposed national park, and that evidence will be of great interest and help to the committee as we consider what steps to take next. I suspend the meeting briefly to allow the panel to change over.

The fourth and final theme that we wish to explore with you this morning relates to the forthcoming legislation on the national parks, and the potential national park statement, including the implications of pursuing reform and designation on a twin track. I invite Mr Choudhury to ask some questions on that.

Agenda item 2 is consideration of continuing petitions, the first of which is PE2089, which was lodged by Deborah Carmichael on behalf of the Lochaber National Park—NO More group. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to suspend any action to create further national parks in Scotland, instruct an independent review of the operation of the current national parks, including assessment of the economic impacts on businesses and industries within the two parks—including but not exclusive to farming, forestry, crofting and angling—and conduct a consultation with representatives of rural businesses and community councils in order to help to frame the remit of said independent review.

I am delighted that we are joined this morning by two panels. On the first panel we have Denise Brownlee from the No Galloway National Park campaign group, Mhairi Dawson from NFU Scotland, Nick Kempe from Parkswatch Scotland, who is joining us online, and Ian McKinnon from the Lochaber National Park—NO More campaign.

I extend a very warm welcome to all of you. I do not know whether you have presented to a committee of the Scottish Parliament before, but we will try to make it as enjoyable, discursive and revealing an exercise for you as possible. We are obviously very keen to hear what you have to say in order that it can fully inform our consideration of the aims of the petition.

We previously considered the petition at our meeting on 12 June. At that time, we agreed to write to the Scottish Government. Since that meeting, the Scottish Government has responded, stating that there are no current plans for the Scottish Government to conduct an independent review of the two existing national parks in Scotland, as national parks are accountable to their boards and to the Scottish Government. It has also outlined in its national park proposal that there will be opportunities for local consultation during the next phase in the process, as NatureScot carries out its duties as the reporter.

We have quite a lot of stuff that we would like to explore with you, so if witnesses are content, we will move straight to questions. I do not know how we will decide how someone will indicate that they will take the lead on a question. Perhaps you can give me a nod to say that you would like to speak. Mr Kempe can wave a hand or something; I can see you, so we will know that you are interested in answering particular questions.

Let me start off. Looking at the various aims of the petition—that is what we come back to—what evidence do you feel is currently available on the environmental and socioeconomic impacts of our existing national parks? Do you feel that the evidence that is available is enough to adequately assess what the impact has been? Is the evidence on the impact sufficient to inform future decisions, including future designations? I imagine that the fact that we do not know enough, which is why an inquiry needs to be held, is at the heart of the consideration of the petition.

Mr McKinnon, are you happy to respond?

Mickey Mouse might facilitate all that with a smile, but he fleeces you while he is doing it.

Thank you. I will move to the next theme, which is the engagement process and local buy-in, which follows on nicely from your comments.

Thank you. Mr Choudhury has suggested something that I think will find an echo among colleagues: that we invite Police Scotland to come to the committee and give evidence on the matter at a future meeting. Are colleagues content that we do that?

Members indicated agreement.

Are colleagues content?

Members indicated agreement.

I am conscious that Mr Rowley has joined us this morning. The petition that he is here for is a little further down the agenda, but I will pull it forward to facilitate his participation in our proceedings, because he arrived early and did not quite understand that our evidence was a bit behind schedule.

PE2061, from Laura Johnston-Brand, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to help to prevent coercion of vulnerable, frail and debilitated individuals by requiring solicitors to have a medical professional co-sign legal documents confirming the capacity of the individual.

As I said a moment ago, we welcome our colleague Alex Rowley.

We last considered the petition at our meeting on 24 January, when we agreed to write to the Law Society of Scotland, the Mental Welfare Commission for Scotland, the British Medical Association and the General Medical Council. Responses have been received from all those organisations and are detailed, as colleagues will have seen, in our papers for today’s meeting.

Although expressing sympathy for the petitioner, the Law Society tells us that it does not consider it “necessary or desirable” to replicate the golden rule approach in Scotland

“in light of the other safeguards which exist.”

The society also expressed concern that any requirement for medical professionals to co-sign legal documents could add significant complexity, delays, and costs to the legal process.

The General Medical Council noted that doctors must work within the limits of their competence, and so should not be expected to make assessments about the capacity of their patients to make financial decisions if they felt unable to do so.

The British Medical Association highlighted that there is already provision for doctors to comment on capacity where appropriate, and expressed concern that the petition’s proposal risks creating an impossible increase in workload.

In its response, the Mental Welfare Commission advocates a proportionate response and an expectation that solicitors exercise their professional judgment, and has suggested additional organisations that we might wish to hear from, including the Office of the Public Guardian.

We have received two submissions from the petitioner sharing her reflections on the responses that we have received. She expresses concern about processes that are designed to protect clients, such as access to the client protection fund, and restates the view that this petition aims to build on the good practice that already exists to ensure that vulnerable people are further protected from exploitation.

Before the committee considers how it might proceed, I invite Alex Rowley to contribute to our deliberations.

Thank you, Mr Rowley. At the very least, I think that we should consider taking forward the Mental Welfare Commission’s suggestion that we write to the Office of the Public Guardian. I also suggest that we speak to the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges and Faculties in Scotland to discuss the issues, because I am slightly disappointed by the dismissive response that we have received from other organisations that seem to find the proposal inconvenient. Are there any other suggestions for action?