Seòmar agus comataidhean

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?

I apologise.

You pointed to the different skill sets that there are on the panel. Do you decide collectively? Is there a small quorum of people who are available in respect of particular cases, or is there a round-table discussion among the panel? How many people are on the panel?

Thank you, convener. Good morning, Nicola. Was a decision ever taken during your tenure as First Minister to deprioritise investment in dualling the A9 project?

Thank you for that answer, but I wish to press you on a couple more points, please. The preparatory work, the design work, choosing the preferred route, the progress to made orders, the compulsory purchase orders and the ancillary roads orders are all very time consuming and complex, as you alluded to earlier. However, do you not feel, as I do, that some of the 11 sections could and should have moved into procurement much earlier, and that that is a failure?