Chamber and committees

PE1885, which was lodged by Karen Murphy, calls on the Scottish Government to make community shared ownership a mandatory requirement to be offered as part of all planning proposals for wind farm development.

The committee wrote to the Scottish Government asking whether the Scottish Government could use? existing ?planning powers to ?provide incentives ?for developers to offer community shared ownership. The Scottish Government’s response highlights good-practice guidance, which indicates that planning authorities

“should not seek to secure shared ownership though the use of planning conditions or obligations”.

The Energy Saving Trust suggested that the UK Government’s contracts for difference could be a route to making community shared ownership offers mandatory. The trust notes that due to competitive bidding rounds, opportunities for community shared ownership could be threatened by bidders cutting costs to try to win contracts. It was suggested that community shared ownership could be protected if additional points in the contract evaluation were awarded to bidders for offering community shared ownership.

The petitioner raises a number of additional issues. Her view is that some developers refuse to interact with the local community, some refuse to offer community shared ownership, and others might make community shared ownership offers that do not meet the definition of community shared ownership as defined by the Scottish Government. The Energy Saving Trust and the petitioner make a number of recommendations for improvement: they are detailed in the clerk’s note in your papers.

Do any other members have any comments or suggestions for action?

We have decided that we will invite the cabinet secretary to come in relation to petition PE1864, which is a different aspect of the whole wind farm debate, so I think it would be perfectly reasonable to combine this petition with that on that occasion.

That is a novel suggestion, but yes, the issues are very important. In the first instance, we will seek to take evidence from the petitioner and the bodies that Ruth Maguire suggested. We will write to the Scottish Sentencing Council, drawing its attention to the issues involved and the evidence that we might seek from the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, while trying to fathom and bottom out the scope of the potential issue that we are addressing here. It is a very important issue. In the first instance, let us take more evidence, but it might well lead to recommendations that could form the basis of initiatives that others might wish to take forward thereafter.

I think that that is right. I was almost going to ask, “Are we able to initiate bills?” but I think that, as a committee, we are. It is perfectly open to us, but we will get a bit further down the road before we get to that.

Are we agreed in the first instance to hear evidence from the petitioner and relevant stakeholders?

Members indicated agreement.

Yes. The committee had delegated it to me to decide on the appropriate minister—you are quite right. It could be either minister in that event.

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.