���˿���

I support Mr Torrance’s recommendation, and I add that guidelines to assist local authorities would be of clear benefit, because they presently do not have them. There is a degree of concern about the fire risks, but in the absence of the Government providing any guidelines or analysis of the work that is being done, which is to be completed in the autumn, local authorities have one hand tied behind their back and are in a very unenviable position.

I hope that the Scottish Government acts more swiftly than it normally does. You said that the work that Ironside Farrar is doing is to be completed this autumn, which is around about now, given that the leaves are falling from the trees. Let us see the guidelines and get on with it, because they are required for many reasons that the petitioners have identified.

I am completely partial, because I know and am friendly with the petitioner Deborah Carmichael, but I wish to say that she and her colleagues have been spectacularly successful in aim 1—to prevent the creation of further national parks, which, frankly, at the moment, Scotland needs like a hole in the head.

The Government’s decision to decline an independent review of national parks is ridiculous. There is no accountability; board members are not allowed to speak out, and, if they do, they are disciplined. The annual report is simply what the park says. The idea that that is in any way an independent review is completely ludicrous and preposterous. There must be an independent review of national parks, because many people in my constituency—I reside in the national park—feel that it is not doing a good job. That is why, when asked, in an opinion poll, the question, “Do you think that the national park is doing a good job?”, 3 per cent said yes and 92 per cent said no, which speaks for itself.

Congratulations to Deborah Carmichael for a very successful petition with a successful outcome of persuading the Government to drop this absurd proposal.

The evidence that we have heard from other ���˿��� but, above all, from people throughout Scotland is that communities feel swamped and overwhelmed. Community councils—although they are statutory consultees—feel that they are ignored, that their voice is not heard and that decisions will be taken by the Scottish Government regardless. That was the predominant view at a meeting in the Highlands in the summer, which was attended by 10 elected parliamentarians and 300 people representing 60 of the more than 100 community councils; many that were not represented are moribund—not functioning. I have no hesitation in saying that the minister must come to the committee to give evidence and explain herself.

I add that, until such time as there is in Scotland an energy policy—at the moment, we lack such a policy—to set out what we need when it comes to a properly balanced grid, including an analysis of the baseload and back-up that are required, it is like trying to wrap a Christmas present without having enough paper. You simply cannot function when the wind does not blow or the sun does not shine. Storage is hopelessly inadequate. The interconnector failed and there was nearly a blackout in Britain on 8 January.

The situation is parlous. There is no energy policy in Scotland. The questions of how much wind energy is enough and how much is too much scarcely ever seem to be asked in this place. We therefore need the energy minister to come here and answer a variety of questions, in what I think would be a very long session.

I agree with the proposal. Perhaps unusually, the Scottish Government’s responses have been pretty thorough and well argued. The marine directorate has provided a great deal of information and contradicted some of the claims that the petitioners had made in recent submissions. In particular, the Government’s statement has clarified that new management measures that were introduced in 2021 apply across Scottish waters, not only to SACs and MPAs. To be fair, the petitioners have had a thorough kick of the ball, and it is open to them to come back in the next parliamentary session if they feel that matters need to be considered again.

To follow on the theme of commenting on NatureScot, it seems that all species are equal, but some are more equal than others. Goats seem to be the species that does not merit any care or attention from NatureScot. Why that is the case is completely baffling, but NatureScot could no doubt explain it. I suggest that we ask NatureScot to explain why goats are apparently not worth anything as a species, and on what value judgment basis it has come to that apparent conclusion.

I want to pick up on a point that Lynda Graham made in her submission on 27 August, which is that, unless there is grazing of moorland upland by cattle, sheep or feral goats—I am told that the cattle and sheep have gone, which just leaves the goats—a fire load of tinder will be created. We have seen that in my constituency with the largest recorded wildfire in Scotland’s history—in Dava, Carrbridge and Lochindorb—and also, I gather, with fires in the Borders during the Easter period.

I am told that in the local press—perhaps the august journal that Mr Hoy mentioned as well as others; I do not know—the fire service has expressed concern that, unless there is grazing, vegetation will increase the propensity for fires to become even more serious than they have been in the past.

Therefore, I would be grateful if we could write to the chief of the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service to ask whether the service has a view on the desirability of moorland being subject to grazing. After all, it seems to be a pretty obvious and sound management practice, although, again, it is a practice that seems to have gone by the attention of NatureScot.

It was lodged by Terri Gunning.

I suggest that we write to the SPSO to ask for further information that it holds on requests for extensions to the 12-month time limit. If that information is unavailable, we should ask for an explanation of how the SPSO can be confident that its policies and processes are working for neurodiverse people, given the issues raised in the petition.

I was made aware by Mr Bisset, whom I commend for lodging the petition, that the process has been difficult for him and has resulted in some pressure and anxiety. That is most unfortunate and would not have arisen had the SPSO exercised the flexibility that it would surely be reasonable to expect it to exercise. I feel very strongly that that is a fault on the SPSO’s part, and it must be called to book. That is what we are here for.

Moreover, the fact that a rejection can be taken to judicial review is phooey. It costs hundreds of thousands of pounds to raise a judicial review. A huge amount of money is involved—massively more than would result from the additional workload for the SPSO if it just exercised flexibility in the first place. I thought that we in Scotland were supposed to be sympathetic to people such as Mr Bisset who have needs related to their neurodiversity. I commend my colleague Mr Mountain for taking the case on, and I hope that we can get some answers from the SPSO to prove that it is not just another unaccountable quango.

I agree, convener. Both are very serious petitions indeed, and both raise points that are, I am sure, of huge concern to a broader number of people in Scotland. The basic principle is that, if someone commits rape, they are committing an adult offence and should be dealt with in the adult courts, rather than the children’s system, which is seen as the soft option. I am absolutely certain that the petitioners speak for a lot of people.

I just want to make the point that the impression that I gained from the Lord Advocate’s evidence—we pressed the Lord Advocate and her colleagues very strongly on this—was that a new approach is being taken to both involve the victim more in decisions that are taken, and to make more referrals to the adult system, rather than the children’s system. The Lord Advocate did not specifically say that, though—she did not quite, as I would say, spit it oot. However, I very much hope that the Lord Advocate, who, to be fair to her, obviously treats these matters extremely seriously, will get the message that the public expect that a stronger approach should be taken. That was my takeaway, which I wanted to put on the record.

Mr Russell makes a fair point—these things are certainly not new. What is perhaps a bit different about the situation facing those with an interest in Loch Ness is the cumulative impact of several proposals. If we were talking about just one or two, that would be one thing, but there are several. The companies that have replied have defended their own proposals, but that is not really what the main concern is—it is the cumulative impact of numerous proposals.

I support Mr Torrance’s recommendation, but I make the additional request that, as well as the impact on wild salmon, the minister also considers the other potential impacts, including on water levels and on users of the loch and the Caledonian canal.

At the weekend, I heard concerns in the constituency that I represent that water levels could be seriously depleted during certain periods of the operation of the intended pumped storage scheme. I do not know whether that is the case, but if that happens, an awful lot of the existing businesses that survive by providing boat trips in Loch Ness, or fishing and leisure craft, will be affected, as will those who use the Caledonian canal. They were there first, so they are entitled to have their interests considered.

I added that because the petitioners have raised a particular concern, but there are other issues, too. I should declare that I know Mr Shaw. I have engaged with him, and I know that he adopts a very forensic approach.

Also, I do not think that they provide many jobs. I could be wrong, but that is what I have heard anecdotally. Therefore, the benefits are unclear—apart, possibly, from those with regard to storage capacity.