Official Report 635KB pdf
Agenda item 3 is consideration of two new petitions. As I always do, I say to anybody who might be tuning in because they know that their petition is being considered for the first time that, in advance of the consideration, we invite the Scottish Parliament’s independent research body, the Scottish Parliament information centre, to provide the committee with a briefing on the issues raised. We also seek a preliminary view from the Scottish Government on the issues raised. We do both those things in order to expedite the progress of our consideration of the petition.
Black Grouse (Protection) (PE2119)
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.
10:00In 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?
I have spent a little while studying the quite voluminous papers in the petitioner’s case and the Scottish Forestry response. Incidentally, I notice that the petition has more than 700 supporters, so it has plainly attracted considerable interest.
Having considered the documents—carefully, I would hope—I think that we should close the petition under rule 8.15.7 of standing orders, for three reasons. First, Scottish Forestry’s very detailed response makes it clear that there is technical guidance to assist with the choice of marking material for deer fences, set out in the Forest Research publication “Fence marking to reduce grouse collisions”, which came out in 2012.
Secondly, Scottish Forestry has a statutory duty to assess afforestation, deforestation, forest road and forest quarry projects to determine whether such proposals are likely to have a significant negative effect on the environment, including on black grouse.
Finally, Scottish Forestry can enforce adherence to approved forestry grant scheme contracts, which can include inspection of the scheme’s implementation and any remedial work to address any identified issues. I know that it does that already, although there are always some issues of contention.
In suggesting that the petition be closed, I would say that, although we cannot become involved with any particular concern or complaint about specific forestry projects—and the petitioner goes into some detail about specific projects—we might wish to write to Scottish Forestry to draw attention to the petitioner’s specific concerns and the level of support that the petition has received, with more than 700 signatures, and ask that it liaise directly and perhaps meet with the petitioner to have an open dialogue and discussion on the issues that he has raised, as they are important to a large number of people.
The final thing that I would say is that, on the first of the petitioner’s asks—that new deer fencing be marked with wooden droppers—Scottish Forestry has, to be fair, pointed out that that did not happen because the fencing was located on very high ground and was exposed to wind, and the weight of the droppers might well have caused the fence to be blown over. That is an obvious practical response—and, indeed, a direct response—to that concern.
I have spoken at some length, convener, because we do not necessarily like to close new petitions straight away. However, I would suggest that, in light of the comprehensive reply that we have received and the fact that the petition seems to relate to specific instances, it would be fruitful for Scottish Forestry to have a serious open dialogue involving the relevant personnel, the petitioner and perhaps any of the petitioner’s colleagues who he feels might bring experience to the table.
Thank you for that, Mr Ewing. Having heard that, are colleagues content, on this occasion, to close the petition?
Members indicated agreement.
ScotRail (Peak Fare Pricing) (PE2120)
Our final new petition, PE2120, which was lodged by Tam Wilson on behalf of the Scottish Trades Union Congress, calls on the Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to permanently abolish peak fare pricing on all ScotRail-operated rail routes.
Members will be aware that a pilot for the removal of peak-time fares ran between October 2023 and September 2024. Transport Scotland’s analysis of the pilot showed that, although there was a limited increase in the number of passengers, the pilot did not achieve its aims of encouraging significant modal shift from car to rail.
The evaluation also said that the pilot produced benefits of between £1 and £1.25 for every £1 spent, which compares favourably with some major transport investment projects that are being pursued by the Scottish Government.
In its response to the petition, Transport Scotland stated that the rail system relies heavily on the revenue generated during peak hours, and that abolishing peak fares would require diverting a significant amount of public funds—something between £25 million and £40 million annually—which the Scottish Government says is simply unaffordable in the current fiscal climate.
The response goes on to highlight the discounts that ScotRail has introduced to its season and flexipass tickets, and includes Scottish Government commitments to develop proposals for a new rail fare offering and investment in Scotland’s railway.
The petition touches on an area of current party-political and public debate. In that context, we have received a submission from the petitioner in which he acknowledges the fiscal challenges faced by the Scottish Government but says that he believes that the cost of inaction on the matter might be higher in terms of exacerbating environmental issues and social inequalities. He urges the Government to reassess the permanent removal of peak fares as part of its broader efforts to reduce the cost of living, combat climate change and improve public transport access for all.
It is perhaps worth noting, for the benefit of anyone who might be following the progress of the petition, that the Parliament agreed to a non-binding motion that called on the Scottish Government to reverse its decision to reintroduce peak fares on Scotland’s railway, and agreed that making public transport more accessible, affordable and reliable is key to supporting more people to use it.
In so far as the petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to do something, the Scottish Parliament has, through the non-binding motion, progressed, in its own way, that very request for action. In the light of everything that we are hearing and the on-going debate, do colleagues have any suggestions for action?
I wonder whether the committee would like to write to Transport Focus and Transform Scotland, and to the trade unions—the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers, the Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen, the Transport Salaried Staffs Association and Unite the union—to seek their views on the action that the petition calls for.
Mr Torrance, you have taken us by surprise with that list of recommendations.
You thought that I was going to close it. [Laughter.]
Mr Torrance has produced a list of suggestions as to what we might do. Are colleagues content to proceed on that basis?
Members indicated agreement.
That brings to an end the public consideration of our business this morning. We look forward to seeing those of you who are avid followers of our detailed consideration of public petitions on 22 January 2025.
10:08 Meeting continued in private until 10:12.Air ais
Continued Petitions