Seòmar agus comataidhean

Are we content to proceed on that basis? I should note in passing the further representation that we have received from Sue Webber in relation to the petition. We will write to the First Minister to seek an update and to express our disappointment that neither Callum nor the committee has received any response, particularly given the personal engagement that the First Minister had with Callum on the occasion of his giving evidence to the committee.

Members indicated agreement.

The next petition is PE1930, which was lodged by George Eckton, on ensuring that, as part of any new ScotRail contract, customers are always given information on the cheapest possible fare.

The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to ensure that a requirement of future rail contracts is for customers to be given information on the cheapest possible fare as a matter of course, and to recognise the vital role of the existing ticket office estate in delivering on that aim.

We are joined by Monica Lennon. Good morning, Monica; it is lovely to have you with us again. We will hear from you in a moment.

The committee previously considered the petition at our meeting on 29 June, just before the summer recess, when we agreed to write to the Scottish Government and Transport for London. I am pleased to say we have now received responses from Transport Scotland and TFL, as well as two submissions from the petitioner.

Transport Scotland has indicated that the Scottish Government is considering whether Scottish Rail Holdings Ltd will be covered by the consumer duty legislation. Its response also contained information on the progress and purpose of the fair fares review, which is expected to be concluded in full at some point during 2023, and on the work that is being undertaken to develop and trial smart ticketing options.

The response from Transport for London provides information on how its fare-capping and pay-as-you-go system operates, and on the work that goes into ensuring that customers can trust that they will always be charged the correct fare for their journey.

The petitioner has also been in touch to update the committee on the freedom of information requests that he has made to ScotRail about how the £5 city-to-city advance fares are advertised. Mr Eckton has shared information on how easy it is for passengers to miss out on cheaper fares when using the ScotRail app, and he has set out his view on why ScotRail should be included in the consumer duty.

Before I open it up to wider discussion, I invite Monica Lennon to speak in support of the petition.

You are not a witness, so we cannot ask you questions.

No. That is a fair point, which—as I said—relates to the petition.

Your points have been noted. We will keep the petition open and proceed on that basis.

Members indicated agreement.

The next agenda item is consideration of new petitions. PE1954, which was lodged by Lorna Buntain, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to amend the current permitted development rights for digital communications infrastructure to encourage the use of underground ducting for new broadband service installations and avoid the installation of unsightly telegraph poles and overhead cables; ensure that local communities are made aware of plans to install digital communications infrastructure in their areas and are given an opportunity to share their views prior to any installation work taking place; and ensure that all digital infrastructure, including underground ducting, is routinely maintained by the developer.

Lorna tells us that, as part of the roll-out of ultrafast full fibre broadband, Openreach has erected hundreds of telegraph poles across Lennoxtown and Milton of Campsie. That work was carried out without prior consultation with the local community. Having received no prior notice, local residents raised objections with Openreach about the installation of the telegraph poles only to receive what they felt were unhelpful and dismissive responses.

As we do with all new petitions, the committee requested an initial view from the Scottish Government. In its response to that request, the Scottish Government has highlighted that, although

“land use planning is a devolved power”,

telecommunications remains “a reserved matter”. In response to the petition’s aim to amend permitted development rights, the Scottish Government notes that the permitted development right for digital communications infrastructure was included in phase 1 of its review of permitted development rights and was amended following a public consultation in August 2020. The Scottish Government believes that, having been recently reviewed and updated, the

“current provisions ... strike an appropriate balance”

and it has no plans to further amend permitted development rights in that area.

Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?

Are we generally agreed, then?

Members indicated agreement.

Are members content to proceed on that basis?

Members indicated agreement.

The petition will stay open. We will write as suggested by Mr Stewart and consider the petition again in due course.

I am grateful for that exposition. It seems like a commendable action that we could take in relation to the Scottish Government.

Is there also a way forward for us on Mr Sweeney’s suggestion? Would it involve our writing to the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and finding out what enforcement takes place? I know from wearing a different hat in relation to showpeople that councils’ approaches to this matter can be highly individual and variable in the extreme. I do not know whether there would be a common response, but it might be interesting to find out how those matters are being approached and dealt with.

Does the committee agree to keep the petition open, move forward on those two streams and see what further information comes to us?

Members indicated agreement.