Seòmar agus comataidhean

I want to fully understand that point. I asked about your conclusion that national parks have failed to make a positive contribution. Does that mean that the Cairngorms national park has made a neutral contribution, or has it created a negative environment for farming and crofting?

Good morning, and welcome to the 16th meeting in 2024 of the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee. We are in a different committee room from our normal one this morning because one of our witnesses is joining us online. I am sorry—I have been nodding in the wrong direction to the sound people to tell us to go live, because they are sitting in a different part of the room this morning.

Our colleague Fergus Ewing is unfortunately not to able join the committee this morning. We have apologies from him, and we do not have a substitute from the Scottish National Party or from Fergus for this morning’s business.

Our first agenda item is to agree whether to take agenda items 4 and 5 in private. Agenda item 4 is consideration of the evidence that we will hear this morning, and agenda item 5 is consideration of the draft report on our inquiry into the A9. Are colleagues content to take those items in private?

Members indicated agreement.

Is it still morning? No, it is afternoon by six tenths of a second, as it turns out.

We last considered the petition at our meeting on 24 January 2024, when we agreed to write to Police Scotland. We have received a response from Police Scotland that states that it

“requires no evidence or certification as proof of biological sex or gender identity other than a person’s self-declaration, unless it is pertinent to any investigation with which they are linked as a victim, witness or accused and it is evidentially critical that we legally require this proof ”.

We also received a submission from the petitioners, reflecting on all the responses that we have received from Police Scotland during consideration of the petition. Their submission also highlights the media coverage generated by Police Scotland’s most recent response and the subsequent comments that have been made by the chief constable and deputy chief constable, including in correspondence with the Criminal Justice Committee.

Our colleague Michelle Thompson, who is unable to join us today, has provided a written submission in support of the petition that shares her view on the lack of clarity being offered by Police Scotland on the operational detail of its policies.

Before I invite the committee to consider how we might proceed, I wonder whether Tess White would like to contribute to our deliberations.

In an unexpected further burst of interventionist action, Mr Torrance has come forward with a proposal that we keep the petition open and try to track down a bit more detail. Are colleagues content that we do so?

Members indicated agreement.

I need to move along and bring colleagues in, but there is something that I am interested in. I will put to you a similar question to the one that I asked of the previous panel. What impact have national parks had on people living in them and on the economy on which they depend?

Mr Lucas, do you wish to add to that?

So we would be seeking some factual responses.

I see that a member of the public would like to speak. I welcome them but, unfortunately, we are not able to take contributions from the public gallery.

Mr Rowley, would you like to add anything to what we have said about actions that we will take?

Our last continued petition, PE2053, which was lodged by Peter Cawston on behalf of Scottish general practitioners at the deep end, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to take action to ensure that the number and hours of current community link workers serving the poorest communities are not cut in the next financial year and to take binding steps to secure long-term funding for community link workers in GP practices across Scotland.

The committee last considered the petition on 24 January. We have received responses from the Scottish Government, Glasgow city health and social care partnership, Health and Social Care Scotland, the Health and Social Care Alliance Scotland, GMB Scotland, GPs working with community link workers and our MSP colleague Paul Sweeney. The responses, which are detailed in today’s committee papers, highlight the valuable role that community link workers play. Many MSPs receive submissions in that regard.

However, I draw members’ attention to the submission from the Health and Social Care Alliance Scotland, which comments that the dispute that prompted the petition centres not on the value of community link workers but on who should fund them—the Scottish Government or local health and social care partnerships. A number of submissions indicated a preference for CLW funding to be included in baseline budgets from the Scottish Government, to ensure greater certainty of funding for these roles.

The Scottish Government has told us that a new national community link worker advisory group has been set up and will formulate detailed proposals for changes in relation to specific features of GP CLW services that are to be reviewed.

Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?

You say that, Mr Mayhew, but is a consultation the same thing as a review? I do not live in an area that is likely to be affected by a national park proposal—although I do live in the most beautiful constituency in Scotland.

Nonetheless, it is not part of a national park. My local council is forever holding consultations, and I am for ever being besieged with consultations for this, that and the next thing. Speaking just as a layperson, I have become a bit suspicious of public consultations, because they are 10 a penny—it is almost exhausting. Very often, when you contribute to a public consultation, you will be told that your answer can contain 85 characters—and no more. The pro forma approach in these things becomes quite restrictive. If people have an underlying suspicion that a consultation is just the supporting organisation trying to find a mandate to progress with what it wishes to do in the first place, they will think, “Well, what’s the point?” Surely it is the case that, in the public mind, an independent review provides a more objective analysis of evidence and, indeed, can be more widespread. The previous panel told us about one consultation that could have reached several hundred thousand people but which attracted something like 430 responses. Is that really a consultation?