Seòmar agus comataidhean

I have a question on zoning. It is always good to have specific recommendations from witnesses rather than generalised commentary. I will take capercaillie as an example. There has traditionally been a capercaillie population in Strathspey. How big would the zones be? Can you expand on how the extent of the zoning would be assessed? Would it be helpful if local gamekeepers were part of the process and they helped to identify which areas should be subject to the measure and controlled? Should there be a requirement that gamekeepers are consulted so that we get the right areas zoned?

Gamekeepers could not only carry out the control but also be key advisers, given the work that they do on the ground. Am I right to say that only they have that knowledge as those who criticise predator control, unlike you, tend not to work in the countryside? Keepers would not only do the work but be instrumental in guiding the policy and shaping which areas need to be zoned in order to protect the songbirds, capercaillie and other species that are at risk, which might otherwise become extinct.

I respectfully agree that I do not think that a site visit is required or that we should take oral evidence from Transport Scotland. However, there appears to be a slight conflict in the evidence on exactly what analysis Transport Scotland has carried out on the apparent high road option. My impression on rereading the correspondence and submissions is that Transport Scotland has carried out some analytical work on the option and has concluded that it is not practical. I think that clarification of that in a letter would be very useful.

I would also like Transport Scotland to confirm how much a STAG report would cost, how long it would take and whether it thinks that it might delay the project further. Despite the objections that the petitioners have very sincerely set out, the fact is that a far greater number of people on the west coast—in Oban and Fort William—use this route as their link with the world and the Tarbet to Inverarnan stretch is arguably the worst section of an A-road in Scotland. There are routinely accidents, delays, damage to wing mirrors and so on, and I think that many people feel anxious about driving that section, as I did for many years when I represented Lochaber. A huge number of people want the A82 to become a proper road, so, while respecting the petitioner’s wishes, I think that it is useful to put that on the record out of a sense of balance.

I think that the witnesses from whom we heard—Mr Cook, Mr Barnett and Alison Dickie—indicated that one of the problems with public inquiries is that they take such a long time and that part of the rationale for having the proposed whistleblowing service that they advocate is that things can happen at the time, not after the kids concerned become adults when, frankly, the events will have long drifted out of the memory of those involved. Could we in writing to the children’s commissioner draw that specific point to the commissioner’s attention? After all, it does seem to be a gap. We could draw it to the minister’s attention, too, because if the point is not granted and dealt with, I do not think that we will have made much progress with this petition.

I just wanted to make the point, convener, because it was made in the evidence that we heard.

Precisely. That was helpful.

I support Mr Torrance’s recommendation. I will add something that is hot off the press and has arisen since the papers were provided to us for this meeting. Last Friday, in response to an inspired question, the Scottish Government noted that a new depopulation action plan has been published, which contains an apparent new approach to be taken to areas with chronic depopulation, notably parts of the remote Highlands—although one is not allowed to call remote areas remote any longer, apparently—and Islands. The plan says that the approach will be

“local by default, national by agreement”,

which suggests to me that local decisions will prevail, unless I am missing something.

I raise that because I wonder whether the clerks, in drafting our letter, could draw the attention of the minister to the plan—a different minister is responsible for the plan—and ask if the new approach will influence the response regarding community engagement. On the face of it, at least for those areas suffering depopulation, which are the areas where many of the windfarms are proposed, that seems to me to be a new factor that the Scottish Government has brought in as, apparently, a new approach and a new policy.

I am sorry to go on at some length.

Longer-term funding is needed, because year-to-year funding is the death knell of schemes given that, by definition, it takes longer than a year to do anything worth while, by and large.

I do not know whether Inspector Watters wants to answer the question about what the police role is or should be. What more could the police do, if anything, on diversionary activity?

Out of fairness, I will follow suit and play devil’s advocate. One mother provided quite harrowing evidence of an assault on her young girl. I will not mention names, but the mother said:

“Doing my homework afterwards, I learnt this girl had attacked no less than 20 children and was well known with the police and in fact I still continue to get videos or stories of attacks weekly.”

I mention that because, over the years, I have quite often heard it said that the police knew well that an individual had been involved in many other crimes and had carried out many other assaults. I appreciate that that is just a general claim with no particular evidence behind it, but I mention that case because it is probably not an isolated experience. Many people, perhaps those living in areas of extreme poverty, find that a young hoodlum is causing endless mayhem but that nobody ever seems to do anything about it.

That is extremely unfair to the police. Even if the police do their job, there is the question of what happens when the case goes to the justice system. I am aware that some argue that not much happens.

Inspector Watters, what would you say to this mother whose daughter was attacked by another female in a horrific way that left her almost unrecognisable as a result of her facial injuries? She is now scared to go out at all. Can the police or any other authorities do anything more to identify youngsters who plainly cause serious injury and harm to other young people in Scotland?

We might close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders on the basis that the Scottish Government’s position on the ask of the petition remains unchanged, that the scope of the home report survey is set out at the beginning of the report and that members of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors who carry out home reports must have a complaints handling procedure in place. They must offer independent third-party recourse to complaints, including alternative dispute resolution by the Property Ombudsman, and they must carry professional indemnity insurance. In light of all that, I wonder whether members consider that we can close the petition.

I want to make one suggestion and to put one point on the record. The suggestion is that, because drones are fairly widely used for various purposes, many of them legitimate, we could also ask NatureScot—I accept Mr Torrance’s recommendations—whether it would involve disproportionate costs to introduce such a licensing scheme. I am concerned that such a scheme may be difficult to operate in practice on grounds of cost, not least because NatureScot’s budget is, apparently, to be slashed. Therefore, will it even be able to carry out the workload that it has? Franky, I think that it might not be able to.

The point that I want to put on record, convener, is that these stories have another side. I have a constituent who was extremely concerned that drones were used, apparently at the insistence of a wealthy voluntary body—in fact, the wealthiest in Europe—with an interest in birds to carry out surveillance of locals who live near an area where that organisation felt that wildlife crime may be going on. The person felt that drones were being used to invade their privacy. I have raised the case with the Lord Advocate.

I make no judgment about the merits of that case or of any other—it is not for me to do that. However, it is for me to say that this story has two sides; it is not all one-sided. People in the countryside are quite concerned about the inappropriate use of drones by pressure groups with particular campaigning interests.