Seòmar agus comataidhean

We will keep the petition open and make those requests, and further examine the options at a later date.

PE2006, lodged by Ewan Miller, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to amend the Property Factors (Scotland) Act 2011 to cover dismissal of property factors or to lay regulations that would achieve the same aim. That could include giving the First-tier Tribunal for Scotland powers to resolve disputes related to the dismissal of property factors.

Our colleague, Sarah Boyack, joins us once again in our consideration of the petition. Good morning, Sarah.

We last considered the petition on 7 February, when we agreed to write to the Minister for Victims and Community Safety to seek an update on work to finalise and publish the voluntary code of practice for land-owning maintenance companies. The response from the minister highlights the mechanisms that are available to home owners to remove property factors, which have led her to the view that legislative change at this time is neither necessary nor proportionate. The minister’s response also notes that work has not progressed on the voluntary code of practice as anticipated, and adds that

“this code would apply only where homeowners pay a land-owning land maintenance company for management of the open spaces that are owned by the land maintenance company.”

Sarah Boyack, do you have anything to say to the committee in light of what has progressed—or not progressed, as it turns out—since we last considered the petition?

That brings us to the end of the formal part of today’s meeting.

We will keep the petition open and take forward the evidence gathering as suggested this morning. We will also write to the Minister for Housing to seek responses to the points that have been made by the petitioner, and we will seek information from the UK Government. We will do all that with a view to potentially hearing from the minister in order to explore the issues in, I hope, more detail and to get some answers for the many people who have been affected by this issue.

I see that the petitioners are in the gallery. Unfortunately, it is not competent for us to take contributions from the gallery, but I am delighted to recognise that they have taken the trouble to come along and hear our consideration of the petition this morning. I hope that they are pleased that the petition is staying open and that we will be taking forward the issues that it seeks to explore.

I would like us to do two things. First, we will write to the First Minister to say that Callum remains interested in having the opportunity to visit Bute house.

Secondly, in recognition of the fact that Callum was the youngest-ever petitioner to appear before the Parliament, which is quite remarkable, and that, as David Torrance has said, he was exemplary in his composure and focus on the issue, I think that it would be appropriate for the committee, on behalf of the Parliament, to present him with a certificate acknowledging the fact that he achieved that milestone in the lifetime of the Parliament. It would be appropriate for us to do that in the Parliament’s 25th year. That would be a nice way to recognise the contribution that he has made to the consideration of an important matter in the Scottish Parliament. We will take forward those two actions. I hope that we will manage to have the First Minister facilitate a visit to Bute house.

Thirdly, in closing the petition, the committee will write to Scottish Water, setting out the position in relation to our being able to progress the matter with the Scottish Government, but asking whether, as the national supplier of water in Scotland, it might be interested in sponsoring a reusable metal water bottle scheme for pupils throughout Scotland. We can draw Callum’s petition and the work that he has done to Scottish Water’s attention and, if it has any interest, we could try to facilitate further engagement on that basis.

Is the committee content with that?

Members indicated agreement.

Our next petition is PE1864, lodged by Aileen Jackson on behalf of Scotland Against Spin, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to increase the ability of communities to influence planning decisions for onshore wind farms by adopting English planning legislation for the determination of onshore wind farm developments, by empowering local authorities to ensure that local communities are given sufficient professional help to engage in the planning process and by appointing an independent advocate to ensure that local participants are not bullied and intimidated during public inquiries.

We have been joined by our MSP colleagues Brian Whittle and Douglas Lumsden. Brian Whittle has maintained an interest in the petition over a number of years now. We last considered it on 21 February, when we agreed to write to the Scottish Government seeking an update on efforts to ensure effective community engagement on planning issues and on its work to explore the scope for planning authorities to determine more applications for onshore wind farm developments. I am struck that we last considered the petition on my wedding anniversary. I cannot think that there could have been a more exciting way to spend the day.

In March, we received a response from the then Minister for Local Government Empowerment and Planning, indicating that the guidance on effective community engagement in local development planning was anticipated to be published later this year. The minister’s response highlighted the consultation on resourcing Scotland’s planning system, which included a question on whether the current 50MW threshold should be raised, enabling planning authorities to determine more applications for onshore wind farms. The minister also stated that the UK and Scottish Governments were in agreement that the Scottish energy consenting system needed to be reformed, and our papers for today note that a consultation on a package of proposals for reforms spanning the consenting process, including pre-application community engagement, will be open for responses until 29 November.

We have also received new submissions from the petitioner, expressing continued concern about the unequal playing field, particularly for people participating in public inquiries, noting that they have written directly to the minister about the lack of professional support available to members of the public and community groups wishing to take part in those processes.

The petitioner also draws our attention to the outcome of the Scottish Government’s consultation on planning resources, which indicated support for raising the 50MW threshold. The petitioner was concerned that, while action has been taken to progress other proposals from the consultation, little progress has been made on this matter.

In the first instance I would ask whether Brian Whittle wishes to say anything to the committee that we might take into consideration.

Agenda item 2 is consideration of continued petitions. Following the evidence session at our previous meeting, we will start with PE2089, which has been lodged by Deborah Carmichael on behalf of the Lochaber National Park—NO More group. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to suspend any action to create further national parks in Scotland; to instruct an independent review of the operation of the current national parks, including an assessment of the economic impacts on businesses and industries in the two parks, including but not exclusive to farming, forestry, crofting and angling; and to conduct a consultation with representatives of rural businesses and community councils to help frame the remit of said independent review.

At our meeting on 30 October, which I referred to a moment ago, we heard from two groups. First, we heard from Denise Brownlee from the No Galloway National Park campaign group, Mhairi Dawson from National Farmers Union Scotland, Nick Kempe from Parkswatch Scotland and Ian McKinnon from the Lochaber National Park—NO More campaign. We then heard from Rob Lucas from the Galloway National Park Association and John Mayhew from the Scottish Campaign for National Parks.

Today, we will take evidence from Pete Rawcliffe, head of people and places, and Eileen Stuart, deputy director of nature and climate change, NatureScot. I give a very warm welcome to you both.

Mr Rawcliffe, I am genuinely intrigued to know what the head of people and places actually means. I understand the people bit, but I am trying to understand the places bit. Could you explain what your title means?

Thank you to Mr Whittle and Mr Lumsden.

Again, I think that, if it is felt that, notwithstanding the commitment that has now been given to bring forward the regulations, the situation still persists, it would be open to the petitioner in a subsequent parliamentary session to lodge a fresh petition. We thank the petitioner and are pleased that the Scottish Government is taking forward the actions originally called for in the petition.

Our next petition is PE1945, lodged by Elizabeth Otway, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to place a legal ban on the extraction of peat, peat imports, exports and sales in order to protect peatlands in Scotland and worldwide. We last considered the petition on 7 February, and we agreed to write to the Scottish Government. Its response states that the Scottish Government hoped to legislate for a ban on the sale of peat during this parliamentary session.

In response to our request for clarification on its position regarding peat extraction, the submission confirms that there are no current plans to ban the extraction of peat. The submission also states that the Government is mindful of crofters and islanders who have relied on peat for fuel for generations and has been clear that any sales ban will not affect crofters cutting peat for their own use as a fuel.

On that basis, are there any suggestions for action from the committee?