Seòmar agus comataidhean

On the face of it, there is a case for closing the petition, but I wanted to check something that occurred to me when I was reading the papers. I hear what the Scottish Ambulance Service has said, which is that its staff are reluctant to support having body cameras, because they do not want them. I can understand that but, rather than just taking that response as a given, I wonder whether we have had a response from the petitioner on that. Recent history is littered with examples of parliamentarians and ministers accepting statements willy-nilly that have been made by leaders of public bodies, such as the Post Office, without testing those statements.

If we have not heard from Mr Wallace, I wonder whether it might be expedient to ask whether he is in agreement with the Scottish Ambulance Service. If he is, I would think that that would be the end of the issue. I do not think that finance would be such a telling issue if cameras were effective in stopping assaults. Those amounts of money would be insignificant if body cameras could stop a death or an attack, or they could minimise the consequences of an attack.

I declare that I live in the Cairngorms national park and I used to live in the Loch Lomond and the Trossachs national park. Back in 2006, I supported a petition relating to the creation of a marine national park when it came before the Public Petitions Committee. I have also been working with the petitioners on this issue generally. I just wanted to put that on the record.

The key ask is that before you create new bodies, you should, logically, have an independent review of how the existing bodies are performing. That is a fairly strong argument. That review should be independent and should be conducted after careful thought has been given to the remit. A number of people should be consulted about that. I make no bones about it. That is logical and desirable, and it should take place.

As far as I can see from my reading of the Scottish Government’s response, which is two pages long, there is no response whatever to that argument. I find that quite shocking. I am bound to reflect that this is not the first time that that has happened. The permanent secretary should be asked to have a look at Scottish Government responses before they come to the committee, because they are surely quite insulting. The main thesis that I have outlined is simply not addressed at all.

The only bit that I could find that remotely approached the issue was the last paragraph, which says:

“An overview of the performance of the ... National Park Authorities ... is provided annually through their published Annual Report”.

That is their own document. Yes, the annual report is a statement about what has been done during the year, but it is by no means independent, and nor can it ever be professed as such. Therefore, the reply is utterly irrelevant. Irrespective of the fact that I have a clear position on the matter, I think that, as a committee, we should be concerned about receiving irrelevant documents from the Scottish Government instead of reasoned arguments about why it thinks that something is not appropriate.

There are lots of other points that I could make, but I will make just one substantial point. Paragraph 9 of the petitioners’ response of 4 June points to a recent online opinion poll that was conducted in Aviemore by the community forum. I think that 444 votes were cast on the basis that the park was not working well, and 10 local residents—a paltry 3 per cent—felt that the park was performing well. I am quite fond of referenda, and I would quite like to get 96 per cent in a referendum. That result shows that the Scottish Government’s presentation that all is well in the garden, and that all the good things result from the national park and not from people’s hard-working efforts, is just not the case at all. I thought that I would mention that for the sake of balance, because there is none in the Scottish Government’s response.

The options for action that I would advocate to committee members are threefold. First, I would like to write to the Scottish Government to draw attention to the remarks that have been made.

I have strong views, but I accept that this is a committee and that other members may have different views.

If that is the case, then I think that my point has been answered, because if he is dissatisfied, he has had the opportunity to speak.

What is it?

I am pleased that you have been candid. I understand that Redress Scotland is a creature of statute, which governs how you behave, so it is not a personal criticism at all.

That really gets to the nub of it, as far as I can see, convener. Whereas we have had evidence from Professor McAdie that, in some cases, parents did not have any choice about whether their children were placed in the school, it seems to me that that should be irrelevant. If a child is abused at the hands of an institution that is effectively in loco parentis and under control of the state, the state must compensate. Since the witnesses agree with that, it seems to me that the case for recommending that the guidance be altered in accordance with advice from the Law Society and Thompsons Solicitors is a no-brainer, so I do not think that there is a need for me to ask any more questions.

Yes. I think that that would be in the Government’s interests because, if an independent review was conducted and it came back with a positive outcome, people like me would be bound to act on the basis of evidence. I do not think that that would occur but, if it did, as a result of a genuinely independent review, that would strengthen the Government’s position to argue for more national parks.

A complete absence of an independent review seems to represent a gap, and a lack of logic in creating a new body, in particular when it costs a lot of money. People in Lochaber have said that they want the new Belford hospital—they do not want a new national park.

The two suggestions that are before us should be taken up. As you suggested, convener, we should write in strong terms to the Scottish Government to ask whether, after 21 years of national parks, it will arrange for an independent review in the terms that the petitioner has set out.

The second question is one of consent, and how the Scottish Government will verify evidence that is provided to it in new national park proposals, in particular with regard to the levels of local support and community engagement. The petitioner argues that there is strong opposition in Lochaber and elsewhere. The NFU Scotland has come out against further national parks; it is somewhat unusual for the NFU to be so clear, and that is significant. Opinion polls have been taken among farmers in places that were candidates for the creation of new national parks. For example, on Skye, in a meeting of more than 100 farmers and crofters, every single one of them was against a national park.

We should also hear evidence from the petitioners so that they can describe the situation in their own words. Deborah Carmichael and Ian McKinnon are friends of mine; I think that they, along with one other, have a very strong case, and it is right that they be heard. I fear that, whatever we say, the Government seems to be hell-bent on the process, no matter what. We therefore need to give a voice to people whose voice has been ignored thus far, to the extent that, in the response that we have had from the Government, their arguments have been completely ignored.

I am sorry to go on at such length to colleagues—I seek your discretion, convener, because of the obvious interest that I have in the matter.

How many cases have been turned down by Redress Scotland, and why?

If the clerks are saying that he has seen the submission from the Scottish Ambulance Service, he will have had the opportunity to respond.

We want to try to find out the facts, so it would be helpful—if you are not prevented from telling us—if you could write to us, without naming names, to explain for what reason the 4 per cent were turned down. I am pleased to hear that it is a small number.

I want to focus on material that we have received from the Law Society of Scotland and from Thompsons Solicitors. The problems arise from the guidance—perhaps from the act itself—and the exceptions from eligibility. The Law Society has put it quite clearly that

“It is unfortunate”

—that is a sort of lawyerly euphemism; in my opinion, it is a bloody disgrace—

“for this particular group that access to the Scheme is based on who decided to place the child into care, in the short or longer term, and does not take into account whether the abuse took place at an emanation of the state”.

That question of whether the placement was voluntary or involuntary seems to me to be completely irrelevant. Would you not agree? If a child was placed in the care of the state, in loco parentis, and that child was abused, the intention of the person who put the child there does not really matter, surely. I do not want to put you on the spot, but, as a human being, would you not agree with the proposition that that criterion is just insupportable?