���˿���

I have allowed the question session to run on a little bit, because it is an important subject. Would you like to volunteer any final comments before we conclude?

No one has any other comments. I am very grateful to the witnesses for their helpful, candid and forthright evidence.

I will suspend the meeting briefly.

Our next continued petition is PE1864, lodged by Aileen Jackson on behalf of Scotland Against Spin, which 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 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.

We last considered the petition as far back as 31 May 2023, when we agreed to write to the Minister for Local Government Empowerment and Planning to seek clarification on what the Scottish Government means by ensuring communities can have a “meaningful say” on planning applications.

The minister’s response refers to the definition of community set out in the national planning framework, and notes that, at the time of writing, a consultation was under way on

“effective community engagement in local development planning guidance.”

Members may be aware that the consultation closed on 13 September 2023.

The minister’s response goes on to highlight that the Government’s planning and environmental appeals division has agreed to consider a refresh of reporter training on handling inquiries to ensure that members of the public are able to give their views and to have those properly heard in a safe environment at inquiries.

We have received five submissions subsequently from the petitioner, the first of which comments on the response that we received from the minister and suggests that clearer definitions are required to make an effective assessment of the effectiveness of planning guidance. The petitioner has also restated their proposals for enabling communities to access professional help when engaging with the planning process, which they suggest could be financed through an increase in planning application fees.

The subsequent submissions from the petitioner draw our attention to the type of experience that community groups face when confronting or being confronted by a developer’s legal team during inquiries.

The petitioner highlights comments from the United Kingdom Government that

“decisions on onshore wind are best made by local representatives who know their areas.”

They also refer to the publication of a deal between the onshore wind industry and the Scottish Government with the industry and highlight a comment that was made in relation to that:

“A well-resourced and efficient planning system is needed ... to enable projects to go ahead where they have local support.”

We have received a range of submissions from the petitioner and a response from the Government. The consultation that it held has subsequently been published. Do members have any comments or suggestions as to how we might proceed?

Do we agree to do that?

Members indicated agreement.

PE1957, lodged by Catherine Donaghy, calls on the Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to ensure that surveyors are legally responsible for the accuracy of information provided in the single survey, and to increase the liability on surveyors to pay repair bills when a home report fails to highlight existing faults in the condition of the property. At this point, I excuse Mr Choudhury from our proceedings.

We last considered the petition on 17 May 2023, when we agreed to write to the Scottish Government seeking further detail on its plans to review home reports. In its response, the Scottish Government has stated its position that delivering the ask of the petition would be inappropriate as the scope of the home report survey is outlined at the beginning of the report and that members of Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors carrying out home report surveys are required to have in place a complaints handling procedure and professional indemnity insurance. The response goes on to note that the delayed 2020 review on home reports will now be progressed alongside the Government’s work to update cross-tenure housing standards.

In light of that, how might we proceed?

Are members content with Mr Ewing’s suggestion?

Do we agree to close the petition?

Members indicated agreement.

We thank the petitioner for lodging the petition. Given the reasons set out by Mr Ewing, we feel that we will have to close the petition at this point, but I hope the petitioner has also taken note of Mr Golden’s comments.

I add that we note the additional measures that the SLAB is trying to implement to facilitate access. Are colleagues content to close the petition at this point?

Members indicated agreement.

Again, we thank the petitioner for lodging the petition. There seems to be some movement from the Scottish Legal Aid Board. Of course, it is open to any petitioner in the light of subsequent experience to bring a fresh petition if that does not make the hoped-for difference.

Agenda item 3 is consideration of new petitions. As always, I say to people who might be joining us to hear their petition being considered for the first time that, ahead of our first consideration, we invite the Parliament’s independent research body, SPICe—the Scottish Parliament information centre—and the Scottish Government to offer a preliminary view or to offer us any guidance. We take this action because, previously, that would be the first action that we as a committee agreed to take, which only delayed proper consideration of the petition.

Our first new petition is PE2050, which was lodged by Lee Watson on behalf of Ythan seal watch. This interesting petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to amend the current guidance on flying recreational drones on national nature reserves so that use is prohibited without a permit; that permits include a flight time, date and agreed flight path; that operation is in accordance with the drone code; and that advice on the legal status of the wildlife and habitats is provided.

The petitioner raises concerns that drones can be used both intentionally and unintentionally to cause disturbance to wildlife and can have a significant impact on the wellbeing of many species on national nature reserves, particularly on nesting birds and seal colonies.

Aviation matters—to which drones are subject—are reserved. As such, aviation legislation, including drone-specific legislation, is the responsibility of the UK Parliament. However, NatureScot has powers to make and enforce byelaws for national nature reserves under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.

In 2018, NatureScot and the partnership for action against wildlife crime in Scotland—PAWS—raised concerns about wildlife disturbance by drones. The Scottish Government’s response to the petition notes that existing law requires that licences are obtained where wildlife photography may disturb a protected species. The submission also states that the Scottish Government will ask PAWS to consider whether its guidance on drones and wildlife needs to be updated and republished.

Given the increasing prevalence of drones, and the potential consequences of that for wildlife—both well intentioned and ill intentioned—this is an interesting petition. What do colleagues think?