Seòmar agus comataidhean

Education officials definitely discussed amendment 32 in the name of Liam Kerr.

Before we move on from the topic of colleges to universities—at which point, I will invite Bill Kidd to ask his questions—I will say that I visited Moray College. It is doing outstanding work, and some of its results are exceptional. However—this is my opinion; it has not been articulated to me by the team at the college—I sometimes think that the college is achieving that with one hand tied behind its back because of the decisions and directions that are coming from the upper echelons of the University of the Highlands and Islands. Minister, what are your views on the current set-up of UHI, particularly with regard to the top slice that it takes from all its other colleges to pay for its executive office function? I have mentioned that issue to your predecessor, and I have asked you and other ministers about it. When the principal of UHI attended the committee, she said something along the lines of, “This is an antiquated process, but it is still there.” Is it not time to get rid of that top-slicing process at UHI?

I think that people would appreciate that.

I thank you, your ministers and your officials, for your time today. The committee members and I wish you all a very merry Christmas and a good new year when it comes.

Do you accept that it could have been introduced before now?

That was on Sunday.

To be clear, are you saying that as recently as Sunday—just three days ago—the Government position, which it was asking ministers to articulate to the media and to the public, was that the clarification was sought of it rather than offered by it?

Mr Adam mentioned the large number of amendments to the Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill. We are told that child protection relates to the education portfolio—or, rather, that that has always been the case, but that certainly seems to have been clarified more recently.

Given that view, what discussions did you have with the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills about Liam Kerr’s amendment, and what discussions took place between officials from the justice and home affairs directorate and those from the education directorate about that amendment?

This is a group that is just about gulls. It continues a number of discussions—sometimes passionate and, in my case, animated—that I have had with the minister about the issue of gulls. It is an issue that deserves attention in the Parliament, despite what others say. The bill gives us an opportunity to address concerns that have been raised by my constituents and those of other MSPs. I would particularly like to mention the work that Fergus Ewing has done on the issue, particularly around Inverness and Nairn, and the engagement that he has had with local business improvement districts and others.

In the past, Mr Ruskell has claimed that I want to kill every gull in Scotland, so I want to make it very clear that I do not want to kill them all. Indeed, this suite of amendments would not necessarily result in any gulls being killed. The amendments concern the powers of NatureScot in particular, which I will come on to in a moment, and the information that we have, which I think is lacking.

My amendment 257 gets to the heart of something that I have repeatedly raised with the minister. I respect that he has taken a different view on this, and he might still take a different view, but I would like to get this point on the record. I think that NatureScot has a serious conflict of interest. The organisation is charged by the minister and the Government both to conserve bird numbers and to determine the licences to control bird numbers, and I do not in any way see how those two things are compatible.

They would have to consider that. I will come on to the series of amendments, because they offer the minister and the Government a number of options. The licensing functions could be transferred to Government ministers, to local authorities or to any other body that the Scottish Government deemed appropriate.

However, on those considerations, I think that the minister himself accepted in the Parliament that some of NatureScot’s determinations have been, frankly, ridiculous. I believe that that was the wording that he used, and I will repeat the example that I think that he used. We had a case in Nairn in which an application was made to remove a nest, which was very high up, and NatureScot said that a picture had to be taken of the nest with that day’s newspaper. That is ridiculous, and I think that the minister accepted that in the chamber.

He says “experimental”; I will say “weird”. They were kept private and out of the public domain, but they deserve to be in the public domain, because those ideas are coming forward from an organisation that I do not deem suitable to determine these licence applications going forward. That is why I seek support for my amendments 257, 258 and 259.

We should also support amendment 260, in my name, in order to find out how much money is being spent by local authorities. Rachael Hamilton said that she does not know about future funding. My understanding is that the £100,000 is a one-off; it is a token fund, and the money will not continue. We need to know how much local authorities are spending.

My final amendment, amendment 261—for which I think there will be some support, if not from members of the Government’s party—simply seeks to work out how many of these birds there are in different parts of the country. As I said in my opening comments in this debate, if the RSPB thinks that we can and should get these bird numbers, why does the SNP Scottish Government not?

I urge members to support the suite of amendments in my name, and amendments 262 and 263, in Rachael Hamilton’s name.

I press amendment 257.