Seòmar agus comataidhean

Yes, the same thought had occurred to me: why is it not allowed? Therefore that is very much a question that you could put to the appropriate minister. If colleagues are happy to again delegate determining who that is to me, we will proceed on that basis.

Members indicated agreement.

PE1887, which was lodged by Nicola Murray, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to create an unborn victims of violence act, creating a specific offence that enables courts to hand down longer sentences for perpetrators of domestic violence that causes miscarriage.

The committee has received submissions from the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, Scottish Sentencing Council, Scottish Law Commission and Victim Support Scotland. The Scottish Sentencing Council notes that it has established a committee to oversee the development of a draft guideline on domestic abuse. The Scottish Law Commission highlights an opportunity to contribute to its programme of law reform consultation that will open in the coming months. In its submission, Victim Support Scotland notes its support for the petition and its aims, stating that it believes an update to the law is necessary.

In view of the responses received, I welcome comments from colleagues.

That makes eminent sense. Are we agreed on that, colleagues?

Members indicated agreement.

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 Scottish Government’s guidance, right first time.

The committee wrote to the Scottish Government seeking information on the application of test 2, including whether assessing licence applications on the basis of there being no satisfactory alternative, as opposed to no other satisfactory solution, is likely to lead?to a different outcome.?

The Scottish Government sought advice from NatureScot and responded to state that

“The terms ‘no satisfactory alternative’ and ‘no other satisfactory solution’ are considered to be analogous.? This view is supported by the European Commission’s recently updated guidance on the strict protection of species, which refers to birds directive case law for the interpretation of test 2”.

The petitioner highlights that although NatureScot references European Union Commission guidance, the rejections that he has received in relation to licence applications have been on the basis of actions that are not challenged by the EU Commission in other countries. He states that the

“Scottish Government recognise that ‘proportionality’ is one of the foundations of regulation and yet in ten years of license refusals it has never been explained to me what factors have been considered in relation to ‘proportionality’.”

The petitioner concludes by stating that

“at least a citizen should be able to expect clarity in what the conservation objective is in refusing a license.”

Do any members wish to comment?

In your role as Deputy Presiding Officer, you promoted Mr Stewart; my deputy convener is David Torrance.

We will therefore close the petition and thank the petitioner for drawing it to our attention. It must be a very uncomfortable circumstance.

PE1812, which was lodged by Audrey Baird and Fiona Baker on behalf of Help Trees Help Us, calls 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. The petitioners initially hoped that that would be done before the 26th United Nations climate change conference of the parties—COP26—in Glasgow last November.

I am delighted to welcome Jackie Baillie. Before I come to Jackie, I will provide a little background. The committee previously considered the petition on 8 September, when we agreed to write to the Scottish Government to seek an update on its response to the deer working group. To date, no response has been received from the Scottish Government. However, the petitioners have made a further submission, in which they raise concerns that Scotland’s ancient woodland, Atlantic rainforest, country parks, remote glens, areas of outstanding beauty and farmland are all now being overrun by invasive non-native ecosystem-engineer conifer species.

The submission explains that such species already cover around one sixth of the country and that, where conifers are not being deliberately planted, they are planting themselves. The petitioners understand that Scotland added around 10,500 hectares of new invasive conifer-dominated plantations last year and, by 2024, aims to plant a further 18,000 hectares each year for felling.

The submission explains that, at the first part of the United Nations COP15 biodiversity conference in China, the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services stated that invasive species and destructive land use are two of the five biggest threats to the natural world.

The petitioners explain that the UK law on escaped non-native trees is set out in the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, which states:

“any person who plants, or otherwise causes to grow, any plant in the wild at a place outwith its native range is guilty of an offence.”

The petitioners are concerned that no one appears to be upholding that law, with the forestry industry being exempt. The petitioners call for the act to change to reflect the growing scientific understanding of the impact of invasive ecosystem engineers, as well as the forestry industry’s inability to manage the risks that are associated with planting invasive conifers across Scotland.

I express disappointment that we have not had a response from the Scottish Government. However, I am happy to invite Jackie Baillie, who is with us this morning, to update us with any comments that she may wish to contribute.

I was worried that that might be the case.

No comment. I thank them very much for that. I wonder whether we would like to have the petitioners involved, too. As a courtesy, it might be nice to have them.

PE1862, which was lodged by Rona MacKay, Angus Campbell and Naomi Bremner on behalf of the Uist economic task force, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to introduce community representation on boards of public organisations that deliver lifeline services to island communities, in keeping with the Islands (Scotland) Act 2018.

I am delighted to welcome back Liam McArthur and to welcome Alasdair Allan, both online, to speak to the petition. Before I come to our guests, I will provide a little additional background.

We last considered the petition on 1 September 2021. At that meeting, the committee discussed an earlier submission by the Scottish Government, which explained that the requirements for the appointments to a public body board are set out in the public body’s founding legislation. The committee highlighted that there was

“nothing in the Scottish Government’s submission to suggest that it has any plans to amend founding legislation for public bodies on the basis that lifeline services to island communities require community representation on their boards”.—[Official Report, Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee, 1 September 2021; c 19.]

The committee therefore agreed to write to the Scottish Government to clarify whether it had any plans to amend founding legislation for such a purpose. As with one of the previous petitions, we have had no response as yet from the Scottish Government ahead of our consideration today. However, I am happy to bring in both of our parliamentary colleagues for further comment. I ask Alasdair Allan to comment first.