Chamber and committees

I will just formalise the point about writing to the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee. Recently, in deciding on a stage 3 amendment that was proposed in respect of dog collars—by Mr Golden, I think—the Parliament took the view that there had not been an opportunity to properly consider those matters. The amendment that we are talking about today is an example of exactly that—it was a stage 3 amendment where there was not proper consideration of the potential consequences.

The Parliament has acted differently in different situations. It would be right to write to the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee to say that there ought to be a principle that the Parliament adheres to because, otherwise, we will pass legislation that has consequences that could have been foreseen if they had been properly examined. Obviously, in this case, the consequences were unforeseen by many members, because they did not have the proper opportunity to be alerted to what might follow as a consequence of the amendment being passed. Therefore, I think that we would want to write to that committee.

If we are contacting Mr Blyther, who is here today, and if there is the opportunity to get some information quickly, that might allow the issue to be one of the subjects that I raise with the First Minister at next week’s meeting of the Conveners Group. That would be one of a couple of issues that I could draw to the First Minister’s attention, but I want to do that in full possession of the latest facts. I can perhaps agree, by correspondence with committee colleagues, on the nature of the question that I might put. Does that seem reasonable?

We last considered this petition at our meeting on 1 May 2024, when we agreed to write to relevant stakeholders seeking their views on the asks of the petition, and copies of the responses that we have received are included in the papers for today’s meeting.

The response from the Scottish Forum of Community Councils states its belief

“that Community Councils should be given more responsibility in relation to their existing involvement with local planning applications.”

The forum notes that councils could amend their standing orders to devolve power

“to a sub or ward committee”

to determine routine planning applications affecting a particular council ward. It also suggests a process be developed that would enable planning applications to be allocated to one of the four following groups for decision: the full planning committee, a ward-specific committee, a community council or a planning officer.

In its response, the Scottish Government indicated that it expected to publish guidance on

“effective community engagement in local development planning”

later in the year, and it did so in December 2024.

We have also received a response from the Royal Town Planning Institute, which outlines its support for community involvement in the planning process. Although it acknowledges

“concerns about community engagement being a box-ticking exercise”,

the response offers examples of meaningful community engagement practices that are being carried out across Scotland. It goes on to state:

“The role of Community Councils in the scrutiny of planning applications is well established”,

but it does not

“see any justification for the relocation of decision-making powers from local authorities to Community Councils.”

There is therefore a slight contradiction in the responses that we received. Before we consider what we might do next, I invite Jackie Baillie to offer her thoughts to the committee.

Ms Baillie has emphasised a point in the Scottish Forum of Community Councils’ suggestion about the different ways in which local concern could be expressed.

I did not see the footage to which you referred, Ms Baillie. You are not here to give evidence, but if the community thought that that was the wrong place for the facility, I am interested to know whether it had in mind a different place that would have offered more protection in the circumstances of that storm.

I couple that with the points that Mr Sweeney made about real detail in relation to longer-term commitment.

I was kind of minded to let the petition close, but, on the appeal of Mr Sweeney and in the light of Mr Choudhury’s recommendation, are members content to keep it open?

Members indicated agreement.

I am also aware that there are some dogs that go and sit by the grave of the person who formerly owned them. They are very sensitive to the reality of these things. I would be interested to hear the response to the request that we are going to make. Does the committee agree to proceed on that basis?

Members indicated agreement.

Agenda item 3 is consideration of new petitions. Before we consider them, as always, I indicate to those who might be joining us online to hear their petition reviewed for the first time that there are two actions that we take in advance of the consideration of a new petition. We invite the Scottish Parliament’s independent research body, the Scottish Parliament information centre, to give us a proper briefing on the issues underpinning the petition that has been lodged. We also contact the Scottish Government to get its preliminary views. The reason why we take those actions is that, historically, when the committee met to consider a new petition, if we had not done those two things in advance, we simply agreed to do them, which delayed the proper consideration of the petition. All of that is done to expedite the detailed consideration of the issues that are raised.

The final point that I want to put on the record relates to PE2056, on introducing legislation to allow the Scottish ministers to intervene in the hiring of public land. I am very sorry to say that, after we wrote back to the Scottish Government following what we felt was an incomplete response, the Government has sent us more or less the same response again. I feel that that shows discourtesy to the committee.

Therefore, with the committee’s permission, I would like us to write to the Government to specifically draw its attention to the actual question that we are asking and to say that we wish to have an answer to that question, not some generalised answer on the issue that is not relevant to the point that we are putting. Are colleagues content for us to write directly to the Scottish Government to ask it to answer the question that we are asking?

Members indicated agreement.

I notice that we have been joined by Paul Sweeney and Jackie Baillie. In order to facilitate what I am sure is a busy morning for them, I will reorder the petitions that we will be considering today.

PE1976 is on backdating council tax discounts for people with dementia to the date of general practitioner certification. The petition, which was lodged by Derek James Brown, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to require council tax discounts to be backdated to the date when a person was certified as being severely mentally impaired, where they then go on to qualify for a relevant benefit.

We previously considered the petition on 12 June 2024, when we agreed to write to the Scottish Government. The response from the Scottish Government states that removing the requirement for a person to be entitled to a qualifying benefit in order to be disregarded from council tax would require changes to legislation. The Scottish Government was due to explore the issue further in partnership with local government at what was then to be the next meeting of the joint working group on council tax reform at the end of summer 2024.

I think that we were quite impressed by the petition when we first heard about it, as it raises legitimate issues, and I do not think that we have had an update on the outcome of that conference in 2024. Do colleagues have any suggestions for how we might proceed?

PE2021, which was lodged by David Peter Buckland and Graham Charlesworth, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to clarify the definition of protected animals, as contained in the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006 and the associated guidance, to ensure that the feral sheep on St Kilda are covered by that legislation, enabling interventions to reduce the risk of winter starvation and the consequential suffering of the sheep.

We previously considered the petition on 1 May 2024, when we agreed to write to the Scottish Government. The response from the Government states that it

“does not consider there is a need to clarify the definition of protected animals in the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006 and associated guidance.”

It remains the Government’s view that the sheep on St Kilda are

“protected by the Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996, in the same way as any unowned and unmanaged population of wild deer.”

We had requested a copy of the June 2009 communication between the Scottish Government and the National Trust for Scotland, but the Government has been unable to locate that document, which was likely to have been deleted from its system in 2019, in line with its retention and disposal policy.

We have received two submissions from the petitioners, the first of which comments on submissions from the National Trust for Scotland and the Scottish Government and refers back to the passage of the 2006 act and the provision of detailed guidance to explain exactly which animals are protected under the legislation.

The petitioners make comparisons with similar legislation in England and Wales. There, the United Kingdom chief veterinary officer’s interpretation of animals

“of a kind commonly domesticated in the British Islands”

is such that Soay sheep found in Lundy, an island off the north coast of Devon, are considered to be feral sheep. That means that the sheep are protected under the equivalent legislation in England and Wales and have been subject to humane culling to control the population.

The petitioners’ second submission provides information on the various freedom of information requests that they have made. The responses have revealed that UNESCO has raised concerns that mismanagement of the sheep population on St Kilda could be adversely affecting the outstanding universal value of the world heritage site, which is recognised for its natural and cultural significance.

I would like to hear colleagues’ thoughts on how we might proceed. We can either have another go at this or take the view that we have run out of steam.