This has been an eye-opening session, minister, and I am staggered at some of the responses so far—at the complete lack of understanding of the situation and circumstances that we have heard.

On the licensing system, the Scottish Government says:

“The Scottish Government believes that the licensing scheme for the control of mountain hares … does not impact on the ability of falconers to enable their birds to exhibit normal behaviour patterns.”

We have heard that the licensing scheme is completely and utterly unworkable, so do you believe that statement? It is not the position of the profession, which is able to understand what is taking place, but the Scottish Government fundamentally believes that it is the case. Do you still believe that it is?

You are indicating that the majority of the 21 licences are for shooting. Is that the case?

So only one licence has been requested that would deal with birds of prey.

There are many merits in the petition, convener, and it is important that we write to seek the views of stakeholders on the action that it calls for. Those might include COSLA, Early Years Scotland, the Scottish Childminding Association, and the National Parent Forum of Scotland. They could all give us a good indication of views about the petition.

I think that further information is required in order for us to continue with the petition. I suggest that we write to the Scottish Government to seek its response to the recommendations that are proposed by the Scottish Law Commission in its report on cohabitation and the timetable for bringing forward legislation in that area. I also suggest that we write to the Scottish Law Commission to seek information on what consideration has been given to the use of judicial discretion as part of the review on aspects of family law. In addition, I suggest that we write to the Law Society of Scotland and Family Law Association to seek their views on the issues that are raised by the petitioner. I think that all of those suggestions have some merit.

It was about the further developments that are planned and about how families who are affected by suicide are supported.

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak and I will support the amendment in Douglas Lumsden’s name. A common feature across all communities in Scotland is the desire to be involved in decision making at all possible levels. Community empowerment is the responsibility of both local and central Government, so I welcome the opportunity to debate the subject.

The 2015 act was an attempt to promote local empowerment by enshrining it in law in several different contexts. As a member of the Local Government and Communities Committee in the previous parliamentary session, I contributed to the report that assessed how effective the act had been in the four years since it had become law.

On part 5 of the act, it was clear that there was still more to do to unlock the potential benefits of asset transfer requests. Although awareness of asset transfers is now high among community groups, there is still too much variation in practice in how smoothly the process runs. For example, some groups are finding themselves being offered leases instead of ownership of an asset, and public authorities are sometimes reluctant to recognise that an effective asset transfer can be about more than just monetary value but instead be about the potential benefits to the community.

The statement confirms the position that was set out in the resource spending review, in which an increase of more than £550 million was allocated. In a recent letter, COSLA indicated that there is a black hole of around £1 billion. Council leaders have already indicated that, if that amount is not provided, they will struggle to provide even the basic essential services that communities rely on. Therefore, what services does the Deputy First Minister suggest that councils further cut back on due to the lack of funding that he is providing in the budget?

Thank you. The member makes a valid point. If there is no co-operation and understanding and if there is not a base of knowledge, projects will not progress, and that will frustrate the whole process in the community.

The public are well aware of the difficulties. Our committee was told that some communities were being put “through the wringer” during the transfer process. However, putting individuals and communities through a problematic process was never the intention of the act. The required culture shift has to take place, because the evidence in the report has shown that there is yet much more to achieve.

Further clarification is needed on how part 5 should work when it comes to arm’s-length organisations. Given the significant number of potential community assets that those organisations own or operate on behalf of councils, public authorities and community groups, there must be a clearer understanding of how the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015 applies in those areas. True empowerment of our communities will depend not just on unlocking the potential of the act but on ensuring that the opportunity for support will be there.

Although the act aims to empower communities on certain issues, we know that communities are diminished in other ways. Since 2017, nearly half of all planning decisions that were appealed to ministers have been overturned, which translates to hundreds of decisions being overturned against the wishes of a community and its elected representatives.

In the face of decreasing local government budgets, funding issues will continue. Throughout my time in local government, I have learned that community empowerment requires improvement in several areas. Although I hope that the benefits of asset transfers can be realised over time, the process must take place to ensure that community empowerment is possible.

Paul Sweeney rose—

I will happily take another intervention.