Seòmar agus comataidhean

I suggest that the clerks liaise with the clerks of that committee to see what understanding they have of the issue. Maybe that committee can come back to us and we can decide how its work might fit with anything that we are doing.

Are we agreed on that approach?

Members indicated agreement.

Thank you all, and thank you, Mr Allan.

PE1864, on increasing the ability of communities to influence planning decisions for onshore wind farms, was lodged by Aileen Jackson on behalf of Scotland Against Spin. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to increase the ability of communities to influence planning decisions for onshore wind farms by adopting English planning legislation for the determination of onshore wind farm developments, empowering local authorities to ensure that local communities are given sufficient professional help to engage in the planning process, and appointing an independent advocate to ensure that local participants are not bullied and intimidated during public inquiries.

The petition was last considered by us on 1 September 2021. The committee agreed to write to a range of stakeholders. I am pleased to say that responses have now been received from Scottish Renewables, Planning Aid Scotland, the Royal Town Planning Institute and the petitioners. We also received a late submission from Finlay Carson MSP in support of the petition.

The submissions that we received were very detailed and comprehensive. I thank those who have taken the time to research the information, forward it to us and to submit their views on the petition. All of the submissions have been shared with members in the papers that they received in advance of the meeting, and for people following our proceedings, the submissions are all publicly available on the petition’s website.

Common themes across the submissions include: the role of local planning authorities as decision makers; ensuring that communities have access to professional help in navigating the planning process; ensuring that communities have early notification of section 36 applications; capacity issues for local authorities in meeting future net zero targets; potential learning from elsewhere in the UK, for example, local authorities applying English planning law; the use of inquiries and how communities can best contribute to them; and mechanisms to enable any issues with a developer’s conduct to be formally raised. Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?

There is a willingness for us to take evidence, but we want to be sure we are taking evidence from the right source. Are members happy to delegate to me the decision as to who that would be?

There is another group I am quite interested to hear from. There are repeated references to the powers that local authorities in England have in relation to wind farms. I wonder whether we could touch base with a representative organisation of local authorities in England to understand a little bit better the actual application of that process. I would like to know whether in practice that has worked in the way that is being suggested and whether there are any concerns or anxieties among English local authorities about the responsibility that has been devolved to them.

Are members content to proceed on that basis?

Members indicated agreement.

I am grateful for that. Do any members of the committee wish to comment?

I would like to write to those organisations and the Scottish Government to ascertain what qualifications must be in place, prefacing it by saying that the evidence the that committee has received so far seems to point to a lack of clarity about where the leadership for a resolution of this issue might lie. I would be interested in their comments on that because, from the evidence that we have received, the situation is not clear and therefore we are amassing evidence without it being clear what the trigger would be to give effect to progress. We will keep the petition open and proceed on that basis.

We took evidence from the minister prior to your joining the committee, but there is every reason to suggest that we might wish to have the minister back.

She stole your thunder.

PE1892, which was lodged by Evelyn Baginski, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to make attacks by one dog on another dog a crime and subject to a penalty requiring the owner to pay a fine and reimburse any expenses related to the incident.

The initial Scottish Government response outlined existing legislation and recent consultations relevant to the petition, including stating that people and assistance dogs are protected under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991. Under the 1991 act, an attack on another dog could be considered dangerous if the test for the offence is met, including reasonable apprehension that it will injure a person or an assistance dog. One response to the consultation in the 1991 act review highlighted that it did not raise the issue of whether legislation should be extended to cover attacks on another dog.

The Scottish Government’s most recent response sets out the rationale for including assistance dogs in the 1991 act, stating that

“if an assistance dog is attacked, the assisted person may suffer a significant reduction in freedom through either temporary loss of a dog whilst it recovers or permanent retirement and the resultant wait for a replacement dog.”

The submission highlights the Scottish Government’s intention to undertake a review of the 1991 act in the near future.

Information has been provided by Polmont veterinary clinic on injuries and associated costs from dog attacks on other dogs, based on details from neighbouring clinics. The costs are detailed in your papers.

Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?

PE1897, which was lodged by Richard Anderson, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to reform the procedures for the collection of council tax that apply when a person has difficulty in making payment. The committee sought views from stakeholders after its last consideration of the petition and to date responses have been received from the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, Citizens Advice Scotland and Social Security Scotland.

In response to the petitioner’s concerns about individuals not receiving a council tax notice, COSLA suggests that, based on the reliability of postal services and the availability of e-billing, that circumstance should be

“an exception rather than the norm.”

Citizens Advice Scotland clarifies a number of points made by the petitioner and makes suggestions for improvements to the council tax system, including a review of the time between the point someone falls behind and the issuing of a summary warrant, as it believes that that is currently “very short”; a review of whether liability for the whole year’s council tax should be applied when someone falls one month behind; and a review of how council tax reduction is promoted and ensuring that all councils have an automatic entitlement for those on qualifying benefits.

The committee asked Social Security Scotland whether systems would be designed to automatically notify individuals if they are eligible for a council tax reduction. In its response, Social Security Scotland states that the Scottish Government has commenced conversations with local authorities about opportunities that might exist to make access to entitlements automatic for clients. One example of that is that Social Security Scotland will explore automatic entitlement to free school meals, school clothing grants and council tax reduction for those who are eligible for Scottish child payment.

I open up the discussion for comments from colleagues.