Chamber and committees

PE1812, which was lodged by Audrey Baird and Fiona Baker on behalf of Help Trees Help Us, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to deliver world-leading legislation giving Scotland’s remaining fragments of ancient, native and semi-native woodlands and woodland floors full legal protection. The petitioners initially hoped that that would be done before the 26th United Nations climate change conference of the parties—COP26—in Glasgow last November.

I am delighted to welcome Jackie Baillie. Before I come to Jackie, I will provide a little background. The committee previously considered the petition on 8 September, when we agreed to write to the Scottish Government to seek an update on its response to the deer working group. To date, no response has been received from the Scottish Government. However, the petitioners have made a further submission, in which they raise concerns that Scotland’s ancient woodland, Atlantic rainforest, country parks, remote glens, areas of outstanding beauty and farmland are all now being overrun by invasive non-native ecosystem-engineer conifer species.

The submission explains that such species already cover around one sixth of the country and that, where conifers are not being deliberately planted, they are planting themselves. The petitioners understand that Scotland added around 10,500 hectares of new invasive conifer-dominated plantations last year and, by 2024, aims to plant a further 18,000 hectares each year for felling.

The submission explains that, at the first part of the United Nations COP15 biodiversity conference in China, the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services stated that invasive species and destructive land use are two of the five biggest threats to the natural world.

The petitioners explain that the UK law on escaped non-native trees is set out in the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, which states:

“any person who plants, or otherwise causes to grow, any plant in the wild at a place outwith its native range is guilty of an offence.”

The petitioners are concerned that no one appears to be upholding that law, with the forestry industry being exempt. The petitioners call for the act to change to reflect the growing scientific understanding of the impact of invasive ecosystem engineers, as well as the forestry industry’s inability to manage the risks that are associated with planting invasive conifers across Scotland.

I express disappointment that we have not had a response from the Scottish Government. However, I am happy to invite Jackie Baillie, who is with us this morning, to update us with any comments that she may wish to contribute.

I was worried that that might be the case.

No comment. I thank them very much for that. I wonder whether we would like to have the petitioners involved, too. As a courtesy, it might be nice to have them.

PE1862, which was lodged by Rona MacKay, Angus Campbell and Naomi Bremner on behalf of the Uist economic task force, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to introduce community representation on boards of public organisations that deliver lifeline services to island communities, in keeping with the Islands (Scotland) Act 2018.

I am delighted to welcome back Liam McArthur and to welcome Alasdair Allan, both online, to speak to the petition. Before I come to our guests, I will provide a little additional background.

We last considered the petition on 1 September 2021. At that meeting, the committee discussed an earlier submission by the Scottish Government, which explained that the requirements for the appointments to a public body board are set out in the public body’s founding legislation. The committee highlighted that there was

“nothing in the Scottish Government’s submission to suggest that it has any plans to amend founding legislation for public bodies on the basis that lifeline services to island communities require community representation on their boards”.—[Official Report, Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee, 1 September 2021; c 19.]

The committee therefore agreed to write to the Scottish Government to clarify whether it had any plans to amend founding legislation for such a purpose. As with one of the previous petitions, we have had no response as yet from the Scottish Government ahead of our consideration today. However, I am happy to bring in both of our parliamentary colleagues for further comment. I ask Alasdair Allan to comment first.

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.