Chamber and committees

I agree with David Torrance’s suggestions. However, in light of the ministerial response, which, as you say, convener, is disappointing, we should seek to press the issue by seeking a parliamentary debate to pursue the petition’s call, which is to urge the Parliament to amend the 2020 act to allow mountain hares to be hunted for the purposes of falconry. A debate in Parliament would allow consideration of what, in many ways, is a very serious matter.

I do not think that anyone doubts the good intentions of the Scottish Government, but the trouble is that the question that I asked has not really been answered. The question is, what will be done now to deal with that anomaly? The answer that you gave, minister, was that you do not yet know clearly whether the change can be made without legislation. It seems to me that that is a yes or no question: either legislation is required to make that change or it is not. If it is not—you have suggested that that is something that you are considering—surely it is your duty to give us clarity on that specific question. If the answer is that you do not need to make changes to the law, the petitioners will say, “Get on with it; do it now.”

In response to Mr Golden, who quite rightly asked whether there is a capacity issue, your first answer was no, there is not. So, if there is the capacity in local authorities to provide the care, by not acting now we are allowing the anomaly to remain in place for another three, four or five years.

I appreciate that you have not been in post for a particularly long period of time—things take time in Government, as I well remember—but, nonetheless, with respect, your predecessor and you have had 14 months to give an answer to this question. The lack of clarity on the specific question is unfortunate. I would be most grateful if we could get a specific reply in writing. As I said, if legislation is not required, the petitioners will say, “Get on with it; what is the problem?”

In effect, you have admitted that this is an anomaly—I think that “inconsistency” was the word that you used. It seems to me completely anomalous.

We have clear evidence that many young people do not know their rights, and they do not know that, by being taken off a CSO, they will lose their rights. How can they be expected to know that? They certainly do not know about the incorporation of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Why would a 15-year-old have any knowledge of that? The idea that the fact that that was done in the Scottish Parliament makes a blind bit of a difference to young people knowing their rights seems to me to be completely fallacious.

It is our job to press for answers for the petitioner. You have had 14 months. We have not got anything in writing. We have not got clarity on that question. With respect, minister, if you are not able to give that clarity today, I would be most grateful if you could write to the committee as soon as possible to answer that simple question. To me, that then determines whether we might want to take the matter further in various ways, such as having a debate in the Scottish Parliament about it.

I support that. From the information that the clerks have provided to me this morning, my understanding is that the Scottish Government points out that, where an applicant for a disability benefit is suffering from a terminal illness, there is a process that allows that to be taken into account and the application to be fast-tracked.

I hope that it is of some comfort to the petitioner that, in fact, they are asking for something that the Scottish Government has assured us already exists, for those who, sadly, suffer from not only cancer but other terminal illnesses. The point that the petitioner has raised is valid and has already been recognised as valid, and a procedure has been put in place that has due sympathetic regard to people in that desperate situation.

Good morning, everyone. The petition was lodged on 6 September 2022, which is 14 months ago. Minister, at the moment we do not have any written response from you or your predecessor on the petitioner’s specific asks. The petition seeks to extend aftercare provision in Scotland to previously looked-after children who left care before their 16th birthdays, and to extend continuing care throughout care-experienced people’s lives according to their individual needs. The crux of the petition is that care should be based on need, not the arbitrary occurrence of people’s dates of birth or their attaining a certain age.

If, as I understand it, your plan is to introduce the bill in 2024-25, it will not become law until 2025. It might not come into force until some time after that—typically, 2026 or later. That would mean that about four years will have elapsed between the petitioner making her plea to the Parliament, which it is our duty to interrogate, and the occurrence of any potential response. That obvious problem raises two questions. First, what can the Scottish Government do now to end the practice of young people being taken off compulsory supervision orders ahead of their 16th birthdays? Who Cares? Scotland has given us worrying examples of that problem happening in practice. With respect, although your good intentions are admirable and absolutely clear, I think that the petitioner wants concrete actions.

That is a different kind of movie. [Laughter.]

We could have done that instead of doing a few other things.

I read Alex Hogg’s response to the Scottish Government’s response, which, although positive, was somewhat skeletal—it said that control of general predators was just a component alongside other things. In the petitioner’s submission, he has pointed out that the minister has contradicted what the Government has said, in that she says that the main elements are not predator control but well-managed restoration and expansion of the pine forest. That is not what NatureScot’s scientific advisory committee said—it said that predator control is essential. That is not happening in Strathspey, and the capercaillie is under threat of extinction. Journalists such as Magnus Linklater have championed the cause for a long time.

Without labouring the point and going on for ever, my recommendation is that, given the expertise and knowledge that is possessed within the ranks of the SGA, and Alex Hogg’s seniority as its president, it would be useful to have a short evidence session where we give him the opportunity to say what he thinks should be done. Plainly, he has a huge amount to offer, all in the cause of preventing the capercaillie from going into extinction. For the past 25 years, every land manager and farmer in my constituency has said that that will happen unless they start controlling the predators.

I was just going to make an additional suggestion.

I can see the logic of the replies from the Scottish Law Commission and the Law Society that this is a difficult area and that a blanket solution does not necessarily present itself. I note—this is my suggestion—that the Law Commission says that, in its 11th programme of law reform, which has not been published yet, it expects that aspects of family law, including issues relating to how family law intersects with domestic abuse and violence, should be covered between 2023 and 2027. I wonder whether it would not be indecorous or impolite for us to recommend to the commission that it perhaps tries to focus on that early on in its consideration. On the face of it, a man who carries out violence and has sole title to the matrimonial home is in a position of, if you like, benefiting from his crime to the extent of being able to sell a property—in certain circumstances anyway; interdicts might apply.

I just wonder whether members feel that we could urge the Scottish Law Commission to bring forward consideration to the early part of January 2023. This is an issue on which the commission’s advice will be essential, because it has provided family law in Scotland with a very solid base from the Family Law (Scotland) Act 1985 onwards, and that has served Scotland well. However, there are still loopholes to be filled, and I make this plea directly to the commission. If we were to write to it, I do not see that that would do any harm, and that might give the petitioner some comfort that we are not just kicking the issue into the long grass.

I have a few suggestions to make. As the clerks have helpfully suggested, perhaps we can write to the Minister for Energy and the Environment to ask whether the Scottish Government has the power to mandate community shared ownership for new wind farms, first, by using the devolved power under section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 to lower the threshold for when an application to build a wind farm requires a minister’s consent and, secondly, by withholding consent from any application that did not agree to a community shared ownership model. That is my first suggestion.

I want to make another suggestion, or an extended comment, if I may, convener. On rereading the submissions, I note that the Scottish National Investment Bank’s submission is dated 13 March, which is a long time ago now, and that the minister provided a submission on 6 April. Both submissions were quite helpful. Both referred to the work that Local Energy Scotland is doing, to which you have alluded, saying that they expected to hear from the organisation—this is the phrase that both used—“in the coming weeks”. Weeks have come and gone—months have elapsed—since then.

I will give one example. I spoke to a wind farm developer who is proposing to develop a fairly large wind farm in the Dava area of my constituency, which is already covered with wind farms and where the populace’s view of them is mixed. Initially, the developer wanted 50 turbines but is now down to 18, mainly because the Cairngorms National Park Authority has negotiated the number down to that figure. I have long thought that a way in which community ownership can be made to work, without its being seen as a penalty on commercial companies, is that, instead of a developer proposing 18 turbines, they propose 20 or 22, with the additional two or four being community owned. In other words, the company gets what it was planning to get anyway, but, in exchange for planning permission, it is required to enable the development to be expanded so that communities can add two or four turbines. In those distant days of yore when I was the responsible minister, funding was available for that to be facilitated. Triodos Bank, Close Brothers, the Co-operative Bank and some others funded it to the tune of between 90 and 95 per cent, with the Scottish Government funding the remaining 5 to 10 per cent. That allowed communities to have a real stake of ownership. My worry is that time is passing us by. Such applications are being made all the time, and every one that is granted is a lost opportunity.

The petitioner, Karen Murphy, has pointed that out. Lots of applications for onshore wind farms are going on all the time. Therefore, I wonder whether we could ask the minister and the SNIB to show a little bit more urgency in telling us what Local Energy Scotland has said, as they promised they would do within a few weeks of their submissions but have not done, and generally knock them out of this somewhat complacent approach when the real opportunities for Scotland, which everybody sees—I do not think that this is political, convener—are passing us by. We are losing those opportunities, when we used to grab them. There is a long history to this, and I have probably gone on long enough, so I will not even go to chapter 1 of that long history, you will be relieved to hear.