Chamber and committees

Ms Leitch, do you have anything to add before I hand back to the convener?

Maybe a little bit of change to the language might be helpful as well so that procedures are in place for unplanned restraint—that is, for matters of last resort rather than planned restraints. I think that that is what Kate Sanger was going on about.

How do we get into law what would be considered as the last resort for one child but not for another? I am finding that a little bit difficult to understand.

I want to follow up on what you said just now, Suzi, and on what Kate said, which was that what might be safe and enabling for one child could be considered restraining for another. How do we get it right? How do we ensure that we get it right for both the child that needs something in order to be safe and enabled and for the other child where the same thing is restraint? That might be a difficult question.

Good morning, panel. I would like to ask you quite an open question. In what circumstances would you see it as appropriate for staff to use restraint or seclusion? How would that compare with current practice in Scotland?

Ms Killean, can I come to you first?

I thank Emma Roddick for bringing this very important issue to the chamber for debate. It is important to remember that wildfire risk exists across Scotland. Nowhere is immune, and that will only become more obvious as we experience more frequent extreme weather events. Aberdeen is already familiar with the problem, with the Gramps—Tullos Hill—going up in flames again this year, and almost all of Scotland was categorised as having a high risk of wildfires in the summer months.

A key difference when a fire takes hold in the city of Aberdeen, compared with one on Dava moor or elsewhere around the Highlands, is that there is peat in the Highlands, which can continue burning for days or, more often than not, weeks. Land managers and gamekeepers know that. They know where the peat is and they know how to deal with it. I spend a lot of time in Emma Roddick’s beautiful region, as well as in rural Aberdeenshire, and I have seen for myself the expertise that exists in people’s roles. Sadly, that expertise is often overlooked in a crisis, and that is to our detriment. However committed our fire brigade workers are, they will not know the ins and outs of what is happening with the ground where the most flammable vegetation is, and they will not know where the ground might be more resistant to catching, in the same way that someone who is out there every single day tending to it will.

I support Emma Roddick’s comments about ensuring that the SFRS has the correct equipment available, but I urge our vital emergency services personnel to consider the value of what land managers and gamekeepers have to offer in a crisis, too. From knowing where natural fire breaks have been placed to being intimately aware of the most effective access points for emergency vehicles, their input is not just nice to have, it is crucial for fast action and fire resilience. That expertise is crucial in fire prevention as well as for the response.

Knowledge of how to safely carry out muirburn and prevent the build-up of dry vegetation is knowledge that we cannot afford to lose. We hear a lot about muirburn in wildfire discussions. Carried out responsibly in accordance with the muirburn code, it can be very effective in preventing wildfires from taking hold. I recognise that the Government is having to balance a lot of very important concerns when it comes to muirburn licensing, but I hope that consideration will be given to the issue and to how best to support those carrying out muirburn in any reviews of our wildfire policy.

I welcome the cross-party nature of the debate and my colleagues’ calls for a collective effort to find a way forward for wildfire prevention and effective response, but that will be incomplete without direct engagement with Scotland’s gamekeepers—on-the-ground professionals whose knowledge can help us to build the resilience that we need in rural communities.

Wildfires are a relevant issue to everyone in this country, and nowhere is immune from the risk, as Aberdeen knows. The increased potential for wildfires in rural areas and their capacity for destroying livelihoods and natural environments that we in urban areas rely on—whether in a broad sense of offsetting our carbon emissions and supporting biodiversity, which our cities struggle to maintain, or closer to home in the sense of getting food into our shops and on to our tables—should concern us and should provoke action from us all.

You have already answered my second question, which is about the remuneration of the chairs. In response to the convener’s question, you also said that you are supportive of the enhanced role of the chair and of having one chair throughout the process.

I will ask Mr Forde too, because he also spoke about it. Are you supportive of there being specialist panellists and do you think that they should be paid or remunerated for travel and so on?

You said earlier that specialist panellists would be good for baby and toddler panels—do you mean every time or, as Mr Bermingham said, as and when needed, albeit that it is important to have that oversight?

In all cases?

A fair few folk who responded to the call for views are supportive of the possibility of removing relevant persons from a children’s hearing, and we have got the ability to do so. You said in your response to the call for views that the bill does not go far enough and that children should be at the centre of the decision-making process regarding whether a relevant person gets to come in. Can you say a bit more about that? Does what I have just said make sense?