Seòmar agus comataidhean

Mr Ewing, were you nodding in assent?

Thank you. We will do that, then.

I thank the petitioner for bringing their petition to the committee.

That concludes the public part of our meeting. We have not agreed the date of our next meeting as yet, but we will meet again in early course. Are members content for me to liaise with the clerks, agree the date and advise members of it?

Members indicated agreement.

Thank you. We will now move into private session.

No, we did not. I am sorry, but we lost the last sentence, Mr Lyon. Could you conclude that point again?

I understand all that and it is a helpful exposition of the position. It sounds—and I am choosing my words carefully—as though force majeure motivated the change in the position as opposed to a re-evaluation of HIAL’s original thinking and as though an evolution of the various points that you have just raised led to the change of heart. Is there a bitterness in HIAL that the change has been brought about and that it is not the route that you would have preferred to take?

That leads me to another question that has come up in some of the evidence that we have received. I have to say that Prospect seemed reassured on this point, but is there a commitment that the strategy that will now be followed will be sustained? Is there no suggestion that the plan is to return to the original proposal after a period of time and when there is a further window of opportunity?

Thank you. That is clear.

That is great—thank you.

Rhoda Grant—do you have an observation or a question?

PE1895, which was lodged by Gary Wall, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to make it mandatory for NatureScot to explain its conservation objectives in decision making within the framework of the Scottish regulators’ strategic code of practice and the Scottish Government guidance “Right First Time: a practical guide for public authorities to decision-making and the law”.

We last considered the petition on 2 February, when we agreed to write to NatureScot, asking whether it routinely provides information about its conservation objectives when rejecting licensing applications. In its response, NatureScot explained that the circumstances under which licences can be granted do not always relate to conservation objectives. It states that licence refusals are routinely issued, and that its approach is always to explain to the applicants the reasons for the refusals against the relevant legal tests.

In their recent submission, the petitioner cites case law that they believe highlights the requirement for NatureScot to balance objectives when deciding whether to grant exemptions for licensing. They also stress the requirement on NatureScot to be transparent, accountable, consistent and proportionate, and express concerns about conflicts with NatureScot’s policies and a lack of oversight and accountability.

Do members have any comments to help us advance our thinking?