Chamber and committees

I have enjoyed listening to today’s debate, but a little bit of balance always has to be inserted into our debates. [Interruption.] The cabinet secretary groans. I know that she will not want to listen to me, but she has committed to listening more widely.

I have spoken many times in the chamber on the subject and have drawn on the words of Lindsay Paterson. It would be wrong for his voice to be absent from the debate, so I will start by citing a couple of his thoughts on the Hayward review. He said that

“the Review ought to be challenged, rigorously and radically, because it is deeply disappointing. Its methods were flawed, and its recommendations vapid. It has a few good ideas, but they are not worked out in any detail and their practicability is doubtful. Implementing what it proposes would perpetuate the harm already inflicted by the implementation of Curriculum for Excellence, that two-decade-old reform which the present Review extols as admirable.”

I am happy to acknowledge that there are good things in the review and that it is a good opportunity for a conversation about how we move forward, but I share the concerns about how rigorous the review has been in terms of its starting point and the evidence base on which it is built.

I worry—a number of members have touched on this—that not enough consideration has been given to how the changes will impact our most deprived communities and the young people who face the biggest challenges and barriers to education. Lots of things sound good in the abstract when we talk about them here in the chamber, but, like some other members, I worry about the “personal pathway”. I worry about what it means for young people in my constituency who do not have after-school clubs to go to, or access to exciting national programmes.

Opportunities such as the Duke of Edinburgh’s award are not attainable for all young people at the moment. There are schools in my constituency with young people who would love to continue playing a musical instrument, but that opportunity is not there for them, or is not properly supported. Many young people have the aptitude and ability to take on an interdisciplinary project, but maybe not at the age of 15 and maybe not from the starting point at which they currently find themselves.

I acknowledge that. However, the very good youth work services in my patch, which are award winning and for which I have huge admiration, do not have the resources to deliver that kind of support.

I also question whether such support would be a substitute for the teaching and academic support that those young people deserve; they would flourish if those things were there, too. I am concerned that, in some schools, in some parts of the country and in some quarters of our society, we say that it is okay for some people to opt out of qualifications and formal academic learning, despite the fact that they have the ability and the desire to achieve qualifications. We say, “These other things are the things for you. Don’t worry that you don’t have the qualifications that you need to follow your dreams—we’ve found some other things that can work as part of your qualification to make up for it.” We have to be very careful that we get the balance right and that we do not allow reform to be a chance to write people off.

I am happy for us to report the instrument on those grounds, but it is regrettable that the 28-day breach occurred, given the statements by the First Minister in the chamber. There was sufficient time to introduce the legislation earlier, given that, in essence, it replicates legislation in England and Wales.

Thank you, convener. I have no relevant interests to declare.

I thank Ariane Burgess for bringing the debate to the chamber. It provides a chance to talk about some of the positive aspects and untapped potential of forestry in Scotland.

I often find myself speaking out against tree planting in my constituency. As Colin Smyth mentioned, Dumfries and Galloway already has a large amount of forestry, an awful lot of which is commercial forestry, and I have grave concerns that those projects push ahead but represent the wrong tree in the wrong place. Many of the incentives and packages that are in place are geared towards commercial planting rather than doing what is right for communities and the environment. The large commercial forestry plantations are skirted by some broadleaf planting, but that is often on the least favourable ground and the trees are planted poorly, not cared for or maintained, and in such small pockets that they do not achieve the environmental and natural benefits that they would achieve if they were more concentrated.

Even in projects such as Langholm moor, which is very positive—an oasis in the desert—increasing numbers of commercial planting proposals come around, taking away some of the future opportunities for branching out. I understand that there is an economic benefit to having home-sourced commercial timber, but the Sitka spruce does not add much biodiversity. I am concerned that, in Langholm, as I think was mentioned by Colin Smyth, those trees spread out past where they were planted—almost like weeds on the hills—and the people who planted them in the first place do nothing to try to keep them within their existing boundaries. That is sad to see, because it wastes the potential for doing something better. That is only going to get worse, given the cut to the forestry grant, because, I imagine, in a race to meet planting targets a lot of focus will be on planting as many trees as is possible with the money. That is likely to favour planting large numbers of Sitka spruce in specific geographical locations rather than smaller native schemes.

The cut to the forestry grant should not happen, but, at the very least, I hope to hear from the minister that she expects such a cut to be proportionate and that smaller native planting schemes such as the planting of broadleaf trees will not be unduly squeezed in order to push ahead.

In the short time that is available, I will briefly mention deer fencing. In my constituency, a lot of unnecessary deer fencing is put up—often in scenic spots—preventing walkers and other land users from enjoying the hillsides. At Corehead in Moffat, there is a Borders Forest Trust project through which we see that, with careful management and other plans, there are alternatives and a better balance can be found, provided that the reason for planting trees is right in the first place and that it is not done to maximise economic return. The Government needs to do more in that space.

To ask the Scottish Government what protection is available to victims of domestic abuse when harassment and exclusion orders expire. (S6O-02935)

I thank the minister for that answer, but that has not been the experience of a constituent of mine who has struggled to get legal representation and to navigate the court process. More needs to be done. I would be keen to understand from the minister when domestic abuse protection orders will be implemented by the Scottish Government. Does the minister agree that a two-plus-year delay in getting that additional measure in place sends the wrong message to victims?

In this debate on the first group of amendments, I put on record that the Scottish Conservatives will support all the stage 3 amendments. I recognise that the minister has listened to stakeholders and the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee in order to strengthen the bill at stages 2 and 3. Following Stuart McMillan’s explanation for the addition of manuscript amendment 2A, we are content that the amendments that are before us represent the views of stakeholders and strike the right balance.

I therefore do not plan to make any further comments on the other amendments, but I will make some broader points in the main debate. I understand that my colleague Jeremy Balfour might have further comments on the amendments that he continues to take an interest in.

I am pleased to speak in the debate and to confirm that the Scottish Conservatives will support the bill at decision time. As the minister outlined, this is the first major overhaul of trust law in a century and, having listened to the evidence that has been brought forward, I think that it is clear that this much-needed modernisation will provide clarity and make the law in the area more user friendly.

Although the bill stops short of a full codification of trust law, it has captured the areas on which there is broad consensus. Given that it is a Scottish Law Commission bill that has come through the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee, it probably strikes the right balance. I know that, in the stage 1 debate, there was discussion about whether it could have done more on trusts and succession, but the way in which the bill has come to Parliament explains why some aspects are more modest, as it has sought to be less political and controversial and to move the law forward.

As with a great many areas that the Parliament has responsibility for but that do not always appeal to politicians, such bills can find it difficult to get chamber time, and I welcome the process that is now in place with the DPLR Committee. Obviously, no one ever wishes for more work for themselves, but we have worked well as a committee, and we have a new area of interest.

I have only one outstanding and significant concern about the bill, which is about how public awareness raising will be taken forward. That was a theme of the stage 1 debate. These are significant changes to trust law, and how the changes will be communicated to the smaller charities and organisations and individuals who operate in the space is important. Many of them have been doing the same thing for a long time, and many will likely get updated professional advice after the passage of the bill. The Law Society of Scotland is right to highlight in its briefing that a

“comprehensive publicity and awareness-raising campaign for trustees, their professional advisers and the wider public interacting with trusts”

is essential.

Throughout the passage of the bill, we have seen that this is not always the most interesting area that captures everyone’s interest straight away, and I recognise that there is difficulty in getting people to engage. That was the case with some stakeholders and people who work in the area—people do not always have the time or the energy. Sometimes, we think that everybody is watching and listening to every word that is said in the Parliament, and that those in the legal profession pick up on every bill that is passed. I am keen to hear more from the minister about that.

I am sure that unexpected challenges and unintended consequences may arise as a result of the changes, which are significant. In the future, we have to do better at scrutinising the success of legislation that we pass and at evaluating whether it delivers the changes that have been set out.

I could go back through all the things that the bill does, but the minister set that out pretty comprehensively. As I close, I suggest that the Parliament should not wait another century to review the law in this area. Given its significance and central importance—financially and to Scottish society—we should take a bit more interest in it.

I thank all those at the Scottish Law Commission and the many witnesses and organisations who have given their time and energy to get the bill to this point. At times, it must seem like a thankless task and deeply frustrating when their expertise and legal practice are not given the attention that they deserve. I hope that the passage of the bill—provided that colleagues support it, which I urge them to—shows that the processes work and are worth while. The many reports that the Scottish Law Commission has spent time on now seem to be proceeding with pace.

Thank you, convener, and good morning to committee members. I should say up front that I am not an expert on nuclear science, but I am clear, as an MSP with a legacy nuclear site in my constituency, that such sites are significant and they have a continued social, economic and environmental impact, as do other aspects of the civil nuclear industry across Scotland.

I and a number of the other members who are interested in forming the group consider that the area does not currently get the scrutiny or interest at Holyrood that it merits. We recognise that there is no collective view across the Parliament on the future of nuclear policy. However, a large number of people are employed in the sector and there will continue to be a significant nuclear footprint in Scotland for decades to come.

We are trying to create a space in which the policy issues affecting communities and individuals whom we represent can be explored in more detail. Our intention is to focus initially on those aspects in which cross-party support exists—skills and skill shortages, the supply chain and the role for communities in shaping the future of existing nuclear sites. We are also particularly keen to explore and highlight decommissioning work. The decommissioning sector will be a major employer and will have a significant economic and environmental impact in Scotland.

I am happy to take any questions that the committee might have. I am hopeful that the group will work well and will be an opportunity to create the forum that we refer to in our purpose statement.