Seòmar agus comataidhean

Is the committee content to do as Mr Torrance suggests?

Members indicated agreement.

We move to consideration of new petitions. For those who are tuning in to hear how their petition is going to be resolved, I will start, as I always do, by saying that the committee takes advice on the issues that are raised in each petition from the Scottish Parliament information centre—SPICe—which is the Parliament’s independent research body. We also invite the Scottish Government to offer a preliminary view because, historically, those were the first two actions that we would take, and this process allows us to expedite the discussion of the petition.

The first new petition is PE2110, which was lodged by Charles Millar. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to develop and introduce a statutory fisheries management plan that is focused on protecting wild wrasse stocks in Scottish waters, beginning with a data collection exercise and introduction of precautionary fishery management measures ahead of the next fishing season, which commences in May 2025.

The petitioner tells us that wrasse are used as a cleaner fish to tackle lice in aquaculture facilities, and that their unusual reproductive patterns make them vulnerable to overcatching. The SPICe briefing notes that there

“is currently no Total Allowable Catch ... applied to commercial wrasse fishing”.

That means that

“there is no limit to the number of wrasse above a certain size limit ... which can be fished during the fishing season”,

which runs between 1 May and 30 November each year.

In its response to the petition, the Scottish Government highlights the mandatory management measures that were introduced in 2021. Those require Scottish vessels to successfully apply, on an annual basis, for a letter of derogation from the Scottish ministers in order to fish for wrasse. The response also refers to the UK joint fisheries statement, which contains

“a statutory commitment for the production of 43 Fisheries Management Plans”.

The Scottish Government indicates that it is

“unable to confirm or commit to the production of additional”

fisheries management plans

“beyond those that are currently in development”.

We have also received a submission from the petitioner expressing concern that

“the mandatory measures ... are insufficient to ensure the sustainability of”

the wrasse fishery. The submission also highlights the development of a wrasse fisheries management plan for England.

Ahead of today’s meeting, we have received an update from the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs, Land Reform and Islands indicating that the Government will be undertaking “an appropriate assessment” of wrasse fishing interactions, along with assessments of special areas of conservation and marine protected areas, ahead of the next fishing season opening in May 2025.

The cabinet secretary’s update prompted a late submission from the petitioner, which has been circulated to members. It raises concerns that the Scottish Government received a report that was mentioned in the cabinet secretary’s submission in 2020, but has failed to act on it until now.

Members will also have noted that the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee is exploring issues relating to wrasse fishing as part of its consideration of amendments to the joint fisheries statement and its follow-up inquiry on the salmon farming industry.

Therefore, the Government will—however belatedly—do something in respect of the monitoring of all this. I wonder whether colleagues feel that that leads us in a particular direction.

I am slightly conscious of the time; I mention that in passing.

We move to the third theme, which is the engagement process and local buy-in.

I want to fully understand that point. I asked about your conclusion that national parks have failed to make a positive contribution. Does that mean that the Cairngorms national park has made a neutral contribution, or has it created a negative environment for farming and crofting?

Good morning, and welcome to the 16th meeting in 2024 of the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee. We are in a different committee room from our normal one this morning because one of our witnesses is joining us online. I am sorry—I have been nodding in the wrong direction to the sound people to tell us to go live, because they are sitting in a different part of the room this morning.

Our colleague Fergus Ewing is unfortunately not to able join the committee this morning. We have apologies from him, and we do not have a substitute from the Scottish National Party or from Fergus for this morning’s business.

Our first agenda item is to agree whether to take agenda items 4 and 5 in private. Agenda item 4 is consideration of the evidence that we will hear this morning, and agenda item 5 is consideration of the draft report on our inquiry into the A9. Are colleagues content to take those items in private?

Members indicated agreement.

Is it still morning? No, it is afternoon by six tenths of a second, as it turns out.

We last considered the petition at our meeting on 24 January 2024, when we agreed to write to Police Scotland. We have received a response from Police Scotland that states that it

“requires no evidence or certification as proof of biological sex or gender identity other than a person’s self-declaration, unless it is pertinent to any investigation with which they are linked as a victim, witness or accused and it is evidentially critical that we legally require this proof ”.

We also received a submission from the petitioners, reflecting on all the responses that we have received from Police Scotland during consideration of the petition. Their submission also highlights the media coverage generated by Police Scotland’s most recent response and the subsequent comments that have been made by the chief constable and deputy chief constable, including in correspondence with the Criminal Justice Committee.

Our colleague Michelle Thompson, who is unable to join us today, has provided a written submission in support of the petition that shares her view on the lack of clarity being offered by Police Scotland on the operational detail of its policies.

Before I invite the committee to consider how we might proceed, I wonder whether Tess White would like to contribute to our deliberations.

In an unexpected further burst of interventionist action, Mr Torrance has come forward with a proposal that we keep the petition open and try to track down a bit more detail. Are colleagues content that we do so?

Members indicated agreement.

I need to move along and bring colleagues in, but there is something that I am interested in. I will put to you a similar question to the one that I asked of the previous panel. What impact have national parks had on people living in them and on the economy on which they depend?

Mr Lucas, do you wish to add to that?