Seòmar agus comataidhean

Thank you for your responses to that general opening question.

Thank you—that was very helpful. In just a moment, Alexander Stewart will pursue the matter of the scope of the review that you would like to see.

As the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee, we are new to this particular case, but I understand that you lodged a petition in the previous session of Parliament. I want to understand what you feel, in your own mind, are the differences between your previous petition and this one.

Yes. Thank you.

Marie McNair would like to ask a question. Unfortunately, we do not have a video link, so it is likely to be an audio-only contribution.

I am not sure whether I heard you, Mr Stewart. Did you include Blood Cancer UK, Immunodeficiency UK and Kidney Research UK as organisations that we might write to? Are you content that the committee approaches them?

PE1812, on protecting Scotland’s remaining ancient, native and semi-native woodlands and woodland floors, was lodged by Audrey Baird and Fiona Baker, from whom we have previously heard, on behalf of the help trees help us campaign.

The petition called on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to deliver world-leading legislation giving Scotland’s remaining fragments of ancient, native and semi-native woodlands and woodland floors full legal protection before the 26th United Nations climate change conference of the parties—or COP26—in Glasgow in November 2021. Of course, that was the petition’s original aim but, even though we are now in the middle of COP27, the issue remains one of concern.

We last considered the petition on 4 May, when the committee indicated that it would like to visit some of the areas to explore the issues. As a result, on 21 September, we visited Pressmennan Wood in East Lothian, and I want to put on record our thanks to the Woodland Trust for hosting and looking after us that day.

At our last consideration of the petition, we also agreed to write to Scottish Forestry and all local authorities, seeking information on the operation and enforcement of tree preservation orders. We have now received responses from Scottish Forestry, 22 local authorities and the petitioners.

Throughout our consideration of the petition, we have heard that a number of issues are impacting on the effectiveness of current woodland strategies and policies and the protection of our ancient, native and semi-native woodlands and woodland floors. We also heard evidence on possible areas for improvement, including prioritising the development of the inventory of ancient woodlands; strengthening the legislative framework and language in existing policies such as national planning framework 4; and taking steps to improve compliance and enforcement. We have also heard from the relevant minister in our consideration of those matters.

Having had a visit, and having heard from the petitioners, various representative organisations and the minister, I just wonder where, on the balance of all the evidence that we have received, members would be most comfortable going with regard to the petition.

We thank the petitioner for raising the issue. The consultation has now been published and, as Mr Torrance has said, given the Scottish Government’s response, that is the limit that the committee can go to. Do colleagues agree that we should close the petition?

Members indicated agreement.

That brings us to the last of this morning’s new petitions. PE1951, which was lodged by Alistair Bally Philp on behalf of the Scottish Creel Fishermen’s Federation, is on reinstating an inshore coastal limit on the use of dredge and trawl fishing gears. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to reintroduce a variation of the historical 3-mile coastal limit on the use of mobile dredge and bottom-trawling fish gears to support: the recovery of Scotland’s inshore demersal fin-fish population and the wider ecosystem; opportunities to optimise the social, economic and environmental returns within the new spatially managed area; and increases in the number of fishing jobs and the revitalisation of coastal communities.

The Scottish Creel Fishermen’s Federation highlights the decline in fish landings and the significant losses of marine features since the removal of the historical inshore limit. It is concerned that, despite the use of marine protected areas, less than 5 per cent of Scotland’s inshore waters are currently protected from damaging trawling and dredging activity. The federation has also shared information on economic studies, showing that switching fishing effort from trawl fishery to creel fishery has the potential to

“yield substantial economic, social and environmental benefits to Scotland”.

In its response to the petition, the Scottish Government states that it has engaged in extensive discussions on the matter with the Scottish Creel Fishermen’s Federation and has no plans to introduce a 3-mile limit to restrict mobile gear activity in inshore waters. The Scottish Government suggests that there are already a range of measures in place to protect fish stocks, and it highlights commitments contained in the Bute house agreement, including the designation of highly protected marine areas, which are to cover at least 10 per cent of Scotland’s inshore and offshore waters by 2026.

The petition has already attracted a large number of written submissions, many of which indicate concerns about the Scottish Government’s approach to marine management.

Given everything that we have received in advance of our consideration of the petition this morning, do members have any comments or suggestions? It appears that both Mr Stewart and Mr Torrance are keen to jump in.

We will therefore write to organisations involved in order to do that and ask the Parliament’s engagement team to develop a programme for us. Are members happy for that to happen?

Members indicated agreement.

Would members like us to visit anywhere in particular, bearing in mind that, given our timetables, any visit is not likely to happen until the new year, or is the committee happy for the engagement team to come back to us?