Chamber and committees

I think it was Mr Macpherson—but I heard another voice that sounded female. Was Ms Grahame trying to come in as well? I will take the intervention from Mr Macpherson.

Oh! I am sorry.

Yes, I will.

I congratulate Emma Roddick on bringing the debate to the chamber. What a different place the chamber is tonight—I well recall the absolutely packed public gallery and the celebratory atmosphere in here 10 years ago.

When I finally leave this place, the things that I will remember, and with which I will feel most proud to be associated, are things that have nothing to do with the Conservative Party. They include: the campaign for assisted dying; Trish Godman’s campaign on wheelchairs, which I remember from my first session of Parliament; Amanda Kopel’s campaign for free care for those who are suffering from dementia at an early age; the campaign for women affected by mesh; and, above all, the campaign for same-sex marriage. I am the only Tory left in the Parliament who was here, and who voted for the legislation, in 2014.

In fact, when I look across at Patrick Harvie, I think that, in all the years that we have served together in Parliament, we have had very little in common whatsoever, except that we share an interest in “Doctor Who” and in assisted dying, and we were two of the leaders of the cross-party campaign in Parliament for same-sex marriage. I remember the garden lobby being packed to the rafters with people who were here as we campaigned for that same-sex marriage legislation back in 2014. It truly was a transformative moment in the lives of so many people.

I do not want to upset Emma Roddick’s narrative, but this Parliament followed Conservative-led Westminster, which introduced same-sex marriage legislation in the rest of the country before we did so here. I observed at that time that I had many gay friends—I made the point that

“I am in the Tory party after all.”—[Official Report, 4 February 2014; c 27348.]

Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose—the world goes on.

I said then that I had been happily married for 26 years, and I wanted everyone in Scotland to have that same opportunity. Now I am 36 years happily married, and more than 10,000 same-sex couples have taken the opportunity to get married. Some of those marriages will have been a success, and some will not—that is not the point. The point is that everybody has an absolutely equal opportunity to enjoy the benefits of that union, and I am immensely proud of the job that we did in enabling that.

I have observed, for example, what happened with Whitelee wind farm in my constituency, and how all the opponents of that wind farm said that it would scar the landscape. Now, there is a generation who have grown up with the wind farm being there who think nothing of it. I think that it is remarkable that, 10 years on, there is a generation of older teenagers who were a little young at the time to have understood their own sexuality, but who, as they have matured, have done so in an environment in Scotland in which nobody is bothered by, or questions, their right to have the ability to choose what they want to be, where they will be and the union that they will eventually be able to have.

Challenges remain, and Emma Roddick identified some of those. My record, and my conscience, is clear on all these issues: I have voted, I think, consistently, on all such bills that have passed through the Parliament. I think all the time of friends of mine from the 1980s, some of whom died of AIDS, who did not have such opportunities and who endured an entirely different climate. Even now, I can get quite emotional thinking of some of those people. That was one of the key things that motivated me, when I came into Parliament, to be absolutely determined, as a straight person, to fight for the rights of everybody to have the same rights that I and my wife, and so many other people, had enjoyed.

The mood on that day in 2014 was genuinely celebratory. People were laughing and cheering, and applauding—they were doing all the things for which the Presiding Officer might consider suspending Parliament these days without so much as the drop of a hat—so much so that I introduced a little bit of levity. I thought, “Well, if you can’t introduce a bit of musical theatre into an occasion like this, when can you?”

This time, I conclude with these words for all the gay people, for the trans people, for the bi people—whatever. We are what we are; we are our

“own special creation”,

and

“Life’s not worth a damn,

‘Til you can”

stand up and say,

“I am what I am.”

Thank you for that, Mr Ewing. Having heard that, are colleagues content, on this occasion, to close the petition?

Members indicated agreement.

PE2060, which was lodged by Daithi Broad, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to review and revise existing legislation to offer better protection against trespassers. This is another petition that we last considered on 7 February. We agreed to seek the Scottish Government’s views on whether it intends to carry out work relating to the issues raised in the petition and to ask whether it would carry out any relevant awareness-raising work.

The Minister for Victims and Community Safety states that the Trespass (Scotland) Act 1865 effectively addresses the issue of persistent repeated trespassing. She also states that the Scottish Government does not consider that strengthening of the act is required and that no further work is planned in the area. She explains that the Government has received virtually no representations on the issue and will not take any direct action unless new and substantial evidence comes to light—so there we are.

Our next petition, PE2064, which was lodged by Julie Mitchell, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to ensure that under-16s charged with rape are treated as adults in the criminal justice system.

We last considered the petition at our meeting on 6 March, when we agreed to write to the Lord Advocate, seeking an update on her review of diversion from prosecution as it relates to sexual offences and requesting figures on cases of rape by under-16s. The committee also made reference to the petition in its letter to the Minister for Victims and Community Safety on PE1947, as the issue of serious crimes committed by young people cuts across both petitions. We considered PE1947 just a short while ago.

The Lord Advocate’s response states that the review is making good progress. At the time of her submission, a review of the existing prosecution policies and round-table discussion events had taken place. That included contributions from stakeholders who represent children in conflict with the law.

The response also states that a senior advocate depute has been appointed to conduct an examination of all cases of rape that were diverted or referred to the reporter in the past five years. That examination will inform the revised prosecution policies, which were due for publication by mid-summer.

On the number of cases, the response states that there were 266 cases reported of rape or attempted rape between 1 January 2018 and 31 December 2023 for children aged 12 to 15. Those cases were reported jointly to the children’s reporter and the procurator fiscal. The Lord Advocate goes on to say that there were 462 cases reported of serious sexual assault between 1 January 2018 and 31 December 2023—the same time period—by children aged between 12 and 15, which were reported jointly to the children’s reporter and the procurator fiscal.

I think that the issues here persist and are of concern. Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?

That is very much the petitioner’s concern, too.

Certainly, that particular visit was one of the most harrowing that I have made. We respected the anonymity of the victims of violence and their parents, but the way in which they had been targeted and their lives ruined with the perpetrators carrying on regardless was really very difficult to hear about.

It was a long response from the minister. I felt that I was almost being given a manual, against which I would like to test the actual life experience of people who have been subjected to such violence, because the minister’s response seems almost to be floating above practical experience in its otherworldliness. It could do with a little bit of worldliness.

I am quite happy to pursue some detail, but it would be good to test with the minister the experiences as we heard them, as they are very much still being represented by the petitioner. Are we agreed, colleagues?

Members indicated agreement.

I would be happy to draw to the minister’s attention the testimonies that we received as an illustration that she might find useful in challenging any advice that she might be being given on what everybody thinks, because obviously not everybody does think that way.

Are members content with that?

Members indicated agreement.

Our first new petition, PE2119, which was lodged by Calum Campbell, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to review the operation of the woodland creation scheme.

The petition has four particular asks: to make it mandatory for all new deer fencing to be marked, where necessary, with wooden droppers as it is erected to help prevent bird strike; to require all work on these schemes to be stopped or paused by the end of March to protect ground-nesting birds; to require NatureScot to carry out initial and annual environmental impact assessments to consider the effects of woodland creation on resident wildlife; and to ensure that any recipient of a forestry grant who then puts the forest up for sale must return the grant in full when sold.

In the background to the petition, Mr Campbell raises concerns about bamboo canes being used to mark deer fences in a section of the Cairngorms national park. He suggests that they are cheaper and less effective than wooden droppers, and they have led to black grouse flying into the fence and being killed. The SPICe briefing provides information on the use of netting and other measures, such as sawn wooden droppers, which are intended to help reduce the risk of birds colliding with fences. It also notes that bamboo should be used only as a last resort to mark fencing on extremely high-exposure sites.

In its response to the petition, Scottish Forestry notes that the choice of marking material and position of deer fences will require consideration of the visibility of the marker, the proximity of the fence to grouse activity and the durability of the material, with particular focus on the exposure of the site and what that means for the longevity of the material.

The response goes on to detail Scottish Forestry’s processes for considering woodland creation applications and its statutory duties to assess and determine whether a project is likely to have a significant effect on the environment.

We have also received a submission from the petitioner in which he raises concerns that the target of planting new trees might not achieve the expected carbon capture, particularly where planting takes place on heather moorland. Mr Campbell also highlights on-going concerns about the specific site in the Cairngorms. Scottish Forestry had instructed the forestry agents to undertake remedial work to address the impact on the black grouse population, but, by the beginning of November, that remedial work had not yet taken place.

The petition raises quite a specific issue, and we have received what I thought was quite a comprehensive response to it. Do members have any suggestions?