Chamber and committees

We have all the wisest owls.

In the first instance, we should ask the Scottish Government, because the matter will go nowhere if the Government is not persuaded; if it is persuaded, this might go somewhere.

I cannot demur from Mr Torrance’s recommendation. I do not think that the petition is going any further, but I feel, from quite long experience, that there is some substance behind the specific concerns that are highlighted in specific examples of quangos not taking account of local people’s views. I am afraid that I reached that conclusion a long time ago, and nothing has happened to make me change that view. I wanted to put that on the record.

The petition’s wording is maybe a bit vague. It is difficult to see how local knowledge could be the subject of mandatory duties in legislation, but the examples that have been given of where it has been felt that the state is not really interested in what the little person in rural Scotland says are well founded, and we will no doubt come back and consider some of those in the future.

The SGA is, of course, entitled to lodge petitions on the specific matters, should it so choose. I am a member of the SGA, and I think that I have paid my subscription.

I entirely agree with the recommendations that Mr Torrance set out and with your remarks. It seems to me that there is complete unanimity among the five committee members that this is an extremely strong case and that a just grievance must be corrected.

In addition to what Mr Torrance has said, could the letter to the Scottish Government indicate that the committee is unanimous on the issue, that we feel very strongly and that we will press for a debate in the Scottish Parliament if the Government is not willing to do what is necessary?

As well as adopting Mr Torrance’s suggestion, could we ask the Scottish Government, when we write, whether it has reached a conclusion on the matters that are set out in the submission from last November from the Minister for Energy and Environment, which said that

“officials are currently developing policy proposals for inclusion in the final Strategy, informed by the ... consultation, that will build on the successes of CARES”—

the community and renewable energy scheme—and

“our existing good practice principles for community benefit and shared ownership of onshore renewables”.

In previous meetings, I suggested that community ownership can be obtained without developers necessarily making financial contributions in addition to their current community benefit payments, which are normally at the tariff of £5,000 per annum per megawatt; that perhaps they could be persuaded to add community turbines to wind farms—for example, having 20 turbines instead of 18; and that the SNIB could fund a loan of most of the capital that would be required to purchase additional turbines.

That is the model that I sought to pursue when I was Minister for Energy, Enterprise and Tourism, and was successfully pursuing until the abrupt cessation of renewables obligation certificates. I will not go into that. It was being funded by private banks including Triodos, Close Brothers and the Co-operative Bank. I really would like the Scottish Government to be asked to address that and whether it will include this particular proposal in its plans.

Finally, in addition, there will be a new incoming United Kingdom Government. It seems to me that the petitioner would very much want the Scottish Government to collaborate with that incoming Government, of whatever hue it might turn out to be, and to make up for the lacuna in legal powers by agreeing to further community ownership. That is a really important issue for many people in rural Scotland, who feel that the benefits are passing them by and going to developers, and that they are not getting a fair share.

I am sorry to go on, but it did work before. Why has the Government not addressed that? Is it considering that now? If not, will it do so, and if it will not consider that, why not?

Yes.

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.