Seòmar agus comataidhean

Our final petition this morning, PE2054, lodged by Colin Anderson, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to establish an independent review into the proposed Spaceport 1 development on Scolpaig farm in North Uist that focuses on examining: whether there is any conflict of interests for Western Isles Council—Comhairle nan Eilean Siar—as the authority that approved the plans and is taking the project forward; the process for purchasing the land on Scolpaig; potential errors and omissions in the environmental impact assessment of the proposal; and the economic case for pursuing the project.

Mr Anderson tells us that the spaceport proposal has attracted little public support, with public objections outweighing support by a ratio of 45:1. The petitioner also raises concerns that the proposal has been fast tracked, which has limited the public scrutiny of the process.

In responding to the petition, the Scottish Government states that a direction requiring planning authorities to alert it to new planning cases for spaceport-related development was issued in June 2020. That allows the Government to have a national overview of such development in the planning system, while offering it the opportunity to put in place additional safeguards and intervene, if necessary, by calling in applications. In this case, it is stated that ministers gave full and proper consideration to the proposal and determined that it did not merit call-in. The response also states that the Scottish Government is supportive in principle of space projects that will contribute to its ambitions to become a leading European space nation and to deliver economic benefits to the local region.

We have also received submissions from the petitioner and from Angus McNab, a local resident, which set out their concerns about the way in which the process to determine the application has been carried out. Those include, but are not limited to, errors in the economic impact assessment, lack of effective and timely public consultation, and a general lack of transparency around the council’s intentions for the Scolpaig site.

Western Isles Council has also provided a submission that responds to the issues raised by the petition, as well as highlighting that a stakeholder and community consultation is due to begin in the new year—in January—as part of the airspace change proposal that has been submitted to the Civil Aviation Authority.

This is clearly a live planning application. In the light of that, do members have any suggestions as to how we might proceed?

Thank you very much, Mr Ewing. It is open to the committee to take action if the focus of a petition is a national issue. However, the focus here is much more specific to an individual planning consideration that is live. In those circumstances, Mr Ewing, you are probably correct to suggest that we move to close the petition, given that it would be inappropriate for us to involve ourselves in that process. Are members content that we pursue that recommendation?

Members indicated agreement.

Rona and Naomi, would either of you like to say anything before we move to questions? If you would like to speak, will you please just raise a hand? If you indicate anything below that level I will not see it because the screens are so far away. Okay—we will move to questions.

I will ask a general question. What are the petitioners’ views on the Scottish Government’s approach of addressing representation on boards through their recruitment processes? If anyone would like to speak, please just let me know.

Rona MacKay, would you like to add anything on that?

Thank you for that, and thank you to you all for your evidence. The petition was lodged at the start of the session and it has maintained the interest of the committee since 2021—as Fergus Ewing said. We are very grateful for the evidence that all three of you gave this morning.

Colleagues, can I get your agreement that we will consider the evidence further in private at a later date?

Members: Indicated agreement.

That brings us to petition PE1971, which calls for robust action to stop motorcycle theft. The petition, which was lodged by Kenneth Clayton on behalf of the Motorcycle Action Group, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to increase the actions available to prevent and reduce motorcycle theft by empowering the police to pursue and tactically engage thieves and by reviewing sentencing policy to allow the courts to implement tougher punishment for those who are convicted of motorcycle theft, including the use of mandatory custodial sentences for those who carry weapons or groups who threaten individuals with violence.

We last considered this petition at our meeting on 3 May 2023, when we agreed to write the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service. We have now received a response, which provides information on the outcome of the cases that are noted in the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Office’s submission to the committee. The response also states that the SCTS is not aware of any evidence that cases involving the theft of a motorcycle are taking any longer to prosecute through the courts than other types of offence. In fact, we got a quite detailed schedule by way of a response. In the light of that, do colleagues have any suggestions as to how we might proceed?

Rona, I am sorry—you were off screen, so I did not see that you were seeking to come in a moment ago. Would you like to contribute on this matter and on the other question that I asked?

Following Mr Choudhury’s comments and Maurice Golden’s suggestions of organisations for us to write to, do members have any other suggestions for action?

Members: No.

Thank you. From the evidence that the committee received, that seemed to me to be a deficiency. As there are no further comments from colleagues, are we content to keep the petition open and seek that additional information?

Members indicated agreement.

Petition PE1988, which was lodged by Sue Wallis, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to review the process for allowing raw sewage discharge from homes into Scottish coastal waters, provide additional funding to the Scottish Environment Protection Agency for enforcement and introduce legislation to ban households from discharging raw sewage.

The committee previously considered the petition on 8 March, when we agreed to write to SEPA and the Law Society of Scotland. The Law Society of Scotland’s written submission outlines the process and requirements during the conveyancing process for properties with no connection to a mains sewer or private septic tank, which was of interest to members of the committee.

The most recent submission from SEPA confirms that the review of its approach to regulating private sewage discharges has concluded. It points to a service level statement that sets out SEPA’s intention to restrict the majority of its complaint action to providing advice and guidance. SEPA states that the onus will be on owners and operators to ensure that treatment systems meet the required standards and are maintained in good working order. Deterrent action by SEPA will take place through specific campaigns targeted at known problem areas.

The petitioner highlights the selective nature of SEPA’s approach and states that that will not help all areas. She shares that a member of staff at SEPA informed her that it does not have the resources to monitor agreements made by homeowners to repair broken pipes. The petitioner has asked that a new law be created to legally impose timescales for changing to a private processing system or connection to the mains sewer.

Do members have any comments or suggestions as to how we might proceed? I seek inspiration, colleagues.