Chamber and committees

PE2050, which was lodged by Lee Watson on behalf of Ythan seal watch, 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 their 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.

We previously considered the petition on 21 February, when we agreed to write to NatureScot, Police Scotland and the United Kingdom Government. All committee members were intrigued by the issues raised by the petition and the use of drones in respect of wildlife. Police Scotland’s response states:

“there is only one reported and prosecuted wildlife crime case involving drone use in recent memory.”

Its submission explains that it is “challenging” to quantify the number of investigations into suspected wildlife crimes of this nature but that, since 24 January, Police Scotland has logged 400 drone incidents, the vast majority of which were

“notifications of legitimate drone use.”

All wildlife crime liaison officers in Police Scotland were canvassed and reported that, beyond that one noted earlier incident, there were no significant incidents of drone-related wildlife crime.

On the question of byelaws, NatureScot states that it

“would only consider creating byelaws for”

national nature reserves

“or any other protected area where there is clear evidence of their need and the likely benefits to protected species, as well as evidence that a byelaw is the only or best way to address a particular issue.”

The NatureScot submission also notes:

“The process for making byelaws is very complex and time consuming, and ensuring compliance can also be resource-intensive.”

I was quite surprised by the evidence that we received. In the light of that, do colleagues have an idea of how we might proceed?

This petition runs through the parliamentary DNA of David Torrance and me because we have lived with it parliamentary session after parliamentary session. We have stood on various sites and looked at the different options, so I feel that I know more about the A83 and the intractability of many of these problems than I do about the subjects of many other petitions. The fact that there is even a nominal solution is progress of sorts.

We will come back to that in a moment. In the meantime, we will consider petition PE1967, which is on protecting Loch Lomond’s Atlantic oak wood shoreline by implementing the high road option for the A82 upgrade between Tarbet and Inverarnan. The petition, which was lodged by John Urquhart on behalf of Helensburgh and District Access Trust and the Friends of Loch Lomond and the Trossachs, calls on the Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to reconsider the process for selecting the preferred option for the planned upgrade of the A82 between Tarbet and Inverarnan, and to replace the design manual for roads and bridges-based assessment with the more comprehensive Scottish transport appraisal guidance.

This is another petition that concerns Jackie Baillie’s constituency, so she is with us for it. We last considered the petition on 6 March 2024, when we agreed to write to the Cabinet Secretary for Transport. The cabinet secretary tells us that the Government is progressing detailed development and assessment work on the scheme but is not yet in a position to confirm a timescale for the publication of draft orders and the associated statutory consultation period. In response to our questions about the estimated cost of the time required to complete a STAG appraisal of the A82 Tarbet to Inverarnan corridor, the cabinet secretary tells us that that would likely take 12 to 18 months, but that doing so would return the project to the very start of the process, resulting in several years’ delay to the scheme as well as significant additional cost. It is the cabinet secretary’s view that that would unnecessarily repeat work that has already been carried out and would not provide any value for the Scottish taxpayer.

We have also received a submission from the petitioner, which draws our attention to the construction of a new timber extraction road along the line of the proposed high road, which the petitioner suggests demonstrates the feasibility of that option.

The submission also raises concerns about the accuracy of cost estimates that have been used to compare the high road and lochside proposals.

Jackie Baillie, would you like to contribute any thoughts?

I am surprised that you cannot promise sunshine—I thought that Labour was promising sunshine for all.

Colleagues, I am looking at both the petitions and I think that we are now driven in a similar direction as to how we might take them forward. We are going to keep both petitions open.

Are we content to keep the petition open and proceed on that basis?

Members indicated agreement.

I do not know whether my own declaration was one of a personal interest, but, if it is seen as such, it is on the record.

Item 3 is consideration of new petitions. As always, I say to those who might be tuning in or joining us for the first consideration of their petition that, ahead of so doing, we invite the Parliament’s independent research body, the Scottish Parliament information centre, to offer the committee a briefing on the issues raised. We also ask for a preliminary view from the Scottish Government. We do those two things because, historically, when we considered petitions, those were the first two things that we did and we then had to wait until the next meeting before we took any further action. The current approach allows us to progress with a little bit more speed.

It is generous of you to spoil all our fun. I am sure that we might want to consider some of the issues raised in the petition in the first instance while you go on your next trip to area 51 and your various monster quests.

Are there any suggestions on how we might proceed?

We have suggestions from Mr Golden and that suggestion. Perhaps we should write to SEPA asking for the make-up of the local information advisory groups. We might want to hear a bit more about that. We might also want to hear what action SEPA is taking to ensure that the knowledge of local communities is properly included, given the issues that have been raised in other petitions as well. Are members content that we proceed on that basis?

Members indicated agreement.

I have a final question before I ask for follow-up questions from colleagues. This is called the Galloway national park, but as we have heard from people in South Ayrshire, it will go a bit wider than that. Are you satisfied that the scope of the national park is fully appreciated by all communities?