 Be fan hyn. Mae cyfnod mai arded clerkio iawn the consideration of new petitions. Obviously, there is something of a backlog of these as many will have been received towards the end of the previous session and over the course of the election, and so we have a considerable number of new petitions to consider. The first of which is petition number 1850, natural flood prevention on grouse moors lodged by Les Wallace. This is the first one that we are considering. Natural flood prevention on grouse moors, the petition calls on the Scottish Government to make use of natural flood prevention methods a condition of obtaining a grouse moor licence. The Scottish Government submission that we have received highlights that it commissioned an independent group to look at the environmental impact of grouse moor management, and this was prompted by a NatureScot report in May 2017, and was part of a package of measures aimed at tackling the on-going issue of wildlife crime. SEPA's role in examining and mapping areas of natural flood management, best use, in conjunction with responsible authorities, is highlighted as an area of importance in relation to the issues raised in the petition. The submission highlights that, following the analysis, plans include a total of 104 actions with the natural flood management NFM element. The submission concludes that the Scottish Government does not believe that it would be appropriate to make the inclusion of natural flood management methods a condition of obtaining a grouse moor licence. The SPICE briefing notes research commissioned by the Scottish Government published in 2018 sets out that it is difficult to demonstrate the role of grouse moors or their potential role in flood risk mitigation due to a lack of studies assessing those areas, and in its submission, the petitioner emphasises the importance of flood management from an economic, environmental and human perspective. The issues highlight and include loss of life, damage to homes and businesses, soil washing, chemical polluting and solid waste contamination in rivers. In light of all that we have received, do colleagues have any comments or suggestions for action? David Torrance Thank you, convener. In light of the Scottish Government's response and the responsibilities of SIPA for natural flood management and the lack of evidence, I would be quite happy to close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders. Okay. Any other proposal from David Torrance? Are colleagues in agreement with that? Yes. Yeah. Okay. Then that is what we will do. We move then on to petition number 1851, Justice for the Public in the Legal System, lodged by Melanie Collins and William Tate, which calls on the Scottish Government to urgently review the reform of the Scottish legal system, including an update of the systems and practices to ensure bodies, authorities and institutions are fit for purpose. In its written submission, the Scottish Government outlines its on-going work regarding the reform of legal services regulation, judicial register of interests, law reform, legal aid reform and mediation. In respect of legal services regulation, it highlights the independent review that commissioned, which was chaired by Esther Robertson. Although the review concluded that the current complaint system was not fit for purpose, the Scottish Government explains that it is seeking to build consensus where possible on the way forward prior to deciding on a course of action. Although progress on this appears to have been disrupted by the impact of Brexit and Covid-19 pandemic, the Scottish Government anticipates that it will be able to publish a consultation to seek views on a way forward in this session of Parliament. The submission also highlights work to progress interim improvements to the complaint system ahead of wider reform. The consultation on those changes ended in February this year, and the Scottish Government is currently analysing the responses. In their submission, the petitioners state that the issues in their petition are important and impact all living in Scotland. Again, colleagues, I wonder if anybody has any thoughts on the course of action that we might take. Considering the Scottish Government's plans to bring forward secondary legislation and also the work that the Justice Committee has already done on the previous petition, I think that we should close the petition under rule 15.7 of the standing orders. If a petitioner is not happy with the outcomes, he could bring the petition back in a year's time. Any other thoughts? I am minded to close it, but I do wonder whether there is any further merit in writing to the Scottish Government just to try and get some further guidance on when in this session they think they might bring forward something. This session is quite a wide canvas at this stage. It has only just begun, so that could be any time in the next five years. It would be interesting to know when they were thinking of bringing forward any secondary legislation, but I think that we could close the petition in any event, seek that information and then advise the petitioner of that as well, if that seems agreeable. The third petition is petition number 1852. I am tempted to say 1852, since it relates to the increased planning protection of Scottish battlefields. I am not sure if we had a battle in 1852, but petition 1852, which is increased planning protection for Scottish battlefields lodged by George Kempick on behalf of group to stop the development of Culloden. The petition calls on the Scottish Government to designate historic battlefields with a heritage status and implement a stricter planning framework to protect them. The submission from the Scottish Government states that current legislation, planning regulations, national policy and related guidance already sets out the recognition and protection principles for battlefields. It explains that Historic Environment Scotland is responsible for designating nationally important battlefields and adding them to the register. Those battlefields are then given additional consideration in the planning system, both in terms of local development plans and individual planning applications. The submission states that safeguards were strengthened in March 2019 when the Scottish Government issued a notification direction requiring authorities to alert it to any new planning cases for non-house builder development. That may affect any designated historic battlefields. While the petitioner appreciates that there are already substantial measures in place, he is concerned about the persistent nature of developers. He doubts whether the measures in place are sufficient to provide protection to such historic areas such as the Scottish battlefields in the face of such persistence. Again, I am happy to hear comments from colleagues. Bill Kidd. I do understand very much the argument coming from the petitioners. In fact, just a few weeks ago I actually visited Culloddon itself and I'm very aware of the fact that a lot of people in the area are talking about the fact that there are persistent development calls from developers. However, we can't stop people from lodging development applications and I don't think that doing any further work on this when the Scottish Government has already said where it stands on not allowing such developments. I don't know that we can take it any further there actually. Any other comments? I have is the fact that there are repeated planning applications. I think that there is something that may be worth looking into. Why do we have this legislation but they are still repeated? Why do people keep coming back at it? Paul, have you anything you want to come in on this? Not particularly. I think that the planning process of a designated battlefield is in the same way that a listed building was protected. I think that there are sufficient provisions within a discretionary planning system for local authorities to determine that it is a suitable grounds for rejection of a planning application. I think that probably most of us in our normal experience will have, particularly those with fringe boundaries to green belt, developers who make persistent applications, which are routinely declined, seeking to develop land in the hope that eventually one of those will be successful, which can be quite onerous on local communities who continually have to mount a fresh campaign in respect of that. I am certainly aware of certain developers who have a reputation for being persistent in the expectation that they have found this to be a successful course of action in different parts, not just of Scotland but around the rest of the United Kingdom. I can see the particular argument in relation to historic battlefields in that it should not be the case that there should have to be a sustained effort to frustrate those applications. I am kind of minded again to close the petition, but I wonder in closing it if we could not still write to the Scottish Government seeking a response to this particular aspect of repeated and persistent applications, which undermine the campaigns that have been done. I can see that that can become quite an exhausting commitment for people and that some applications may then make progress when that was really not anybody's desire or the intent. I have been interested to see that the Scottish Government is saying about that. That seems to be the essential point that the petitioner is making, but the Government itself has made plans. It has made clear that there are no plans to review the actual processes, so it would be a comment on that aspect of it that would be useful. Does that seem reasonable? Thank you. The next petition is to introduce a lifeline ferry service from Campbellton to Ardrossan. It is lodged by Councillor Donald Kelly and Councillor Douglas Filland. The petition calls on the Scottish Government to provide an all-year round freight and passenger ferry service from Campbellton to Ardrossan. The Scottish Government's submission advises that the request to extend the ferry service was discussed with elected members from the Argyllinbuke Council and other stakeholders—presumably the petitioners in that situation. The Scottish Government states that it is not operationally possible to extend the current operating service period of the Ardrossan Campbellton service as there are no available vessels. The submission highlights that the Scottish Government remains committed to securing two new ferries, which are currently under construction, with the delivery of MP Glenn Sannocks expected in April to June next year. It suggests that, once the Glenn Sannocks has delivered, the potential for a year-round Ardrossan Campbellton service could be explored, subject to a robust business case and the availability of funding. The petitioners have discussed the possibility of potential vessels with well-known ferry consultants who have advised that vessels are currently available outwith the CalMac fleet, which could potentially be procured to meet the requirements to providing a lifeline service. We have received a late submission from Donald Cameron MSP, who was hoping to be able to attend for the consideration of this petition, and members have been provided with a copy of that submission. Donald Cameron states that the petitioners have identified the need for alternative forms of transport from Kintar Peninsula to the central belt. Donald Cameron MSP addresses the suggestions made by the Scottish Government submission regarding options such as flying from Campbellton to Glasgow and using ferry services to Dunoon and Hunter's Key. He offers that these alternatives are not suitable, either on the basis of above-average cost or notable time travel. The submission continues by raising concerns about possible links with the anticipated depopulation of the Kintar area and suggesting that the creation of a permanent ferry service could contribute to encouraging people to remain in the area. Donald Cameron states that he supports further exploration of potential vehicles that meet the requirements of a year-round service by Transport Scotland and the Scottish Government and concludes by stating that the inability of Transport Scotland and CalMac to be able to offer an all-year round ferry service to one of the major towns of Argyll and Bute is simply not good enough. Colleagues are obviously quite an important petition, and I wonder if there are any observations anybody would like to offer. David Torrance Thank you, convener. I think that we should write to the Scottish Government to ask them whether it is possible for a non-CalMac fleet vesselable to provide all-year-round service for CalMac Town to address them. David Torrance I think that that seems reasonable. I think that we might also ask them to be a little bit more expansive on what the process might be for evaluating a subsequent business case for the route in the event that, as they say, it does become possible at a later stage. We are useful for people to know how that would proceed. I think that we will keep that petition open in the meantime and pursue those two lines of inquiry. Does that meet with the agreement? Thank you. Petition 1855 is to pardon and memorialise those convicted under the Witchcraft Act of 1563. This petition is lodged by Clare Mitchell QC. The petition calls on the Scottish Government to pardon, apologise and create a national monument to memorialise those people in Scotland accused and convicted as witches under the Witchcraft Act of 1563. In its submission, the Scottish Government explains the process involved in granting a free pardon. If such a pardon is granted, the conviction is risk-regarded to the extent that, as far as possible, the person is relieved of all penalties and other consequences of the conviction. The conviction is not quashed, however, as only the courts have that power. The responsibility to review and refer alleged miscarriages of justice to the High Court lies with the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission. The commission has the power to consider a case even after the death of the person or persons convicted. Humanist Society Scotland has provided a submission in support of the petition. The organisation urges the committee when considering those historically convicted of witchcraft to also consider how the Scottish Government's current work in international development, particularly through the Scottish Malawi Partnership, can better challenge witchcraft based on violence. I think that all colleagues will have received a number of emails in respect of this petition, making representations in addition. Again, I am happy to open this up to colleagues to consider how we proceed in the light of the quite detailed response from the Scottish Government and the other submissions that we have received. David Torrance, in the first instance. I think that we should take the recommendations of the Scottish Government and write to the petitioner to ask if he could bring a specific case forward. I think that that is a reasonable approach because I think that it is a matter of long-standing concern, which still resonates today in some parts of the world, but it resonates with people in Scotland on the basis that injustice was done to a large number of people. However, to be able to take that forward most successfully, I do think that, as has been suggested, a specific case or set of cases could provide a focal point that we could work from and take that towards the Scottish Government rather than try to take on the whole large number of people over a large period of time. It is astonishing that the petitioner suggests that some 4,000 people were prosecuted under the witchcraft act and that some 85 per cent of them were women. Paul Sweeney, I think that the proposal to refer to the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission seems inappropriate, given the historic nature of the issue, and that the effect of that would not really be pertaining to any meaningfully live criminal case. I think that the Royal Progress of Mercy, although it is an unusual process in modern times, seems like a more effective discretionary activity. If there is a political decision by the Scottish Government, the First Minister, it seems like a fairly straightforward exercise to write to the Queen to request that is done. That is probably one of the few grounds that would be viable for a Royal Progress of Mercy to be considered, as opposed to the more onerous process of a Scottish Criminal Cases Review, because such a historic situation, no-one affected by it is alive and has been long dead. I think that it would be a purely political consideration. Obviously, bearing in mind the wider international development implications for contemporary issues, I suggest that this is actually more of a broader political exercise rather than something that is engaging criminal law. OK. Tess White. It might be historic, but it is horrific what happened. Two and a half thousand people killed, so 4,000 cases and two and a half thousand, mainly women killed. I support my colleague in terms of having an actual case to look at would be a good way forward, but it should be recognised that this was horrific. I think that we have two suggestions that have come forward there. One is to invite the petitioners to consider the Scottish Government's response in outlining the process by which a pardon is granted, whereby it would normally be by exception and individually in response to the actual case that was prosecuted. Paul Sweeney is advocating a broader question to the Scottish Government as to whether or not they might make a political decision, or is there a process by which they could make a political decision to seek to have a broader… Do you want to just clarify that? Paul, I think you said… Well, it was just… The Scottish Government's response to the issue is basically saying that they would need a submission from the petitioner in relation to why it would be justifiable grounds for an rpm. The scene is quite unusual in anachronistic process in current times, and generally they would refer to the Scottish Criminal Cases Commission. Given the historic nature of the absolutely horrific activity, it would seem like it is a more appropriate process to do the rpm, because it is a discretionary decision of the First Minister alone to refer to the Queen for a pardon. It does not really need to go through a particularly onerous legalistic exercise to determine harms, etc., in the merits and demerits of cases, to simply accept the historical facts of the horrific nature of this superstitious activity in the past and to make a political decision and the First Minister's personal discretion to do so. Once equipped with the historic briefing of the incidents and the nature of it, it would simply be a more straightforward exercise to realise the effects of the petitioner's request. I am quite happy to write to the Scottish Government, if colleagues are on the basis that we would be interested to know whether, given the particular lay historic and the fact that so many people were affected by this act, whether it is possible for the proposalist Paul Sweeney to be progressed. At the same time, I am writing to the petitioner to ask whether it would be possible, in the absence of that, to identify the circumstances of any individual case that might then be one that led to some sort of precedent being set in respect of the issue. If the committee is happy to pursue both those options, I am quite happy to pursue both. Are we agreed to do that? We will see what we hear. That brings us to petition number 1856, which is support for the taxi trade. The petition is lodged by Pat Rafferty on behalf of Unite. The petition calls on the Scottish Government to protect the future of the taxi trade by providing financial support to taxi drivers, setting up a national stakeholder group with trade union driver representatives, reviewing low-emission standards and implementation dates. In its submission, the Scottish Government begins with acknowledging how acutely difficult the Covid-19 pandemic has been for the taxi and private hire drivers. The Scottish Government confirmed that at the time of their submission, which was 29,000, is that it? 29 million, so I have to check my figures here. I thought 29,000 didn't seem to go very far. 29,125,500 pounds have been paid out to 19,417 drivers. The submission confirms that Transport Scotland will explore with trade unions and other stakeholders the best forum for engagement with the taxi trade. The submission explains with regards to low-emission zones that it is for local authorities to design their local emissions zones and to make decisions regarding timelines. In their submission, the petitioner welcomed the national funding from the Scottish Government but expressed the view that that was not sufficient. The submission continues by explaining that many drivers still report takings of less than £20 for a 12-hour shift. The petitioner believes that the taxi trade will be one of the last sectors to recover, given its reliance on tourism, hospitality and business travel, and asks that pre-Covid plans are adjusted to take into account just how severe the taxi trade has been impacted by the pandemic. Since the publication of the meeting papers, the committee has received a further submission from the petitioner, which has been circulated ahead of the meeting today. In this submission, the petitioner notes that UNITE members represent some 50 per cent report business presently at some 50 per cent of pre-pandemic levels and reiterate that the impact has been felt from, as previously suggested, sectors such as travel, tourism and hospitality. The submission calls for greater clarity on exemptions to the lezs and taxi cabs to be considered exempt from such charges in line with other functions of the public transport network. It also raises concerns about council proposals to introduce an age cap for vehicles on the road, noting that some taxi drivers finance vehicles over a longer period of time and that that could result in their investment becoming non-compliant, meaning that they are required to finance another new vehicle. The submission welcomes informal engagement that has taken place with the Scottish Government, but emphasises that formal consultation arrangements are required to protect the future of the taxi trade. I am interested to hear from colleagues. Anyone want to come in on this? Very simple fact to the petitioner and the taxi trade, but in light of the transport Scotland in the form that we are looking to engage with the association, do you see how we can take all the recommendations forward? I am quite happy to close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders, and if the petitioner does not get satisfaction from the form and the outcomes of it, we can bring the petition back to committee. Do we have any other thoughts? Paul Sweeney? I would like to first of all declare an interest to the member of the United Trade Union and my dad's a taxi driver as well. I know certainly from personal experience how significantly detrimental the pandemic and the lockdown has been to the taxi trades. I think that anyone who has tried to get a taxi in Glasgow in recent weeks will realise how limited the capacity currently is, because so many people have exited the trade all together. Distance during the pandemic has been a severe problem for people. Effectively, many taxi drivers were recommended to go on to universal credit throughout the pandemic, so there has been a severe detriment to the livelihoods of people, as opposed to, for example, bus drivers who were furloughed during the pandemic. Bus companies were given significantly higher levels of financial support. I have sympathy with the petition and I think that the demands are reasonable. I would be inclined to request further positions from the petitioner about the response to the Scottish Government and what they would do about inadequate levels of funding, because I do think that it is not sufficient the response of the Scottish Government alone. Although the invitation about financial support for improvements to vehicles is significant, which is to be commended, I think that the on-going issue about the lost income during the pandemic is something that is still very much an open wound and has not been sufficiently addressed. Bill Kidd? I understand what Paul Sweeney is saying. I understand it very much, but I am also looking at the request from Mr Rafferty and the United Nations to set up a national stakeholder group with trade union driver representatives that the Scottish Government has confirmed in its submission that Transport Scotland will explore with trade unions and other stakeholders the best forum for engagement with the taxi trade. That sounds good to me as well, except for that could take a considerable period of time, as far as we know, and if we could maybe find out whether there is a timescale attached to that in order to give comfort to the taxi driver and the taxi trade. Thank you. I should say that I am certainly aware of my own eastward constituency in East Renfisher that many taxi drivers have withdrawn from the industry, and I am sure that that is a pattern that has been repeated in many other places. Very much the same representations have been made to me that the lack of tourism, the lack of business travel and the lack of hospitality, which have been the bedrock of many of the taxi driver's package of incomes, have been severely affected and are taking time to recover. I am minded to keep the petition open if the committee is agreeable. I think that we should write to the Scottish Government in the light of the petitioner concerns requiring the current funding being inadequate and to ask them to consider the suggestions that have been made within the petitioner's additional submissions. Similarly, I think that the suggestion from Bill Kidd that it would be helpful if the Scottish Government was able to give a little bit more detail and maybe a timescale for any stakeholder group that they are proposing to establish in order that this does not seem to be something that is always on the horizon but never something that actually materialises. If we take forward both those things, would you be content with that, Mr Sweeney? Absolutely, that sounds like a reasonable course of action yet. Okay, so I think that you are happy with that. Having previously advocated, we closed the petition. Mr Todd, are you happy with us doing that? I will say his consensus, I will say yes. Well, we are very grateful. That brings us on to petition 1857, in the name of Stephen Layton, to regulate the role of Curator ad litum. Sorry, I did dual-level latin, but I'm afraid it deserted me there. I'll no doubt be suitably reprimanded. The petition calls on the Scottish Government to regulate the Curator ad litum and ensure historical claims of malpractice of Curator's ad litum in Scotland are investigated. The Scottish Government notes the Curator ad litum's first responsibilities to ascertain whether, in fact, the person has capacity to give legal instruction similar to when a client has to have capacity to instruct a solicitor, otherwise the solicitor cannot legally act. That decision is evidence-based and, in order to properly fulfil the role, the Curator must be able to undertake full and relevant inquiries and to commission or prepare reports where necessary. The Scottish Government notes that it does not regulate Curator's ad litum. Instead, there is a general regulation of the legal profession and of social workers. Given that Curator's ad litum are very small in number and most of them are either solicitors or social workers, they will be regulated under their own professional regulatory body if there are concerns or complaints raised about their conduct. The submission advises that the Office of the Public Guardian can investigate property or financial matters and the local authority and mental welfare commission can investigate welfare matters. The petition advises that changes to the rules of court made in 2017 were a result of someone complaining about a Curator's ad litum, but he believes that the law changes increased the risk of potential malpractice of the Curator's ad litum role, as now the regulation of the role is to be overseen by the Curator's ad litum themselves. There is no oversight by regulation of the Curator's ad litum role, yet there are complaints of claims rather of malpractice by curators. It is quite a complicated issue in respect of a position that I myself had not heard of. I notice from the information obtained that there are only a few of those, it seems, I think, as maybe as few as a dozen currently in place. Comments, colleagues, if anybody had any chance to reflect. I would like to examine this further, whilst there is a need to look at petitions, address them and perhaps close a few, this one I would like to keep open and right to various stakeholders, the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, the Social Services Commission and the Welfare Commission Law Society to seek their views and if we can look into it and dig a bit deeper. Maybe there is a case, obviously, maintaining the confidentiality of the case, but look at something. So there is something here that I think needs looking at. So that's the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission. Sorry, Mr Sweeney, is there anything you want to add? Nothing to add at this stage. Okay, so that's writing to the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, the Scottish Social Services Commission, the Mental Welfare Commission, the Law Society of Scotland, the Office of the Public Guardian Scotland to seek their views. I think there is potentially an issue there in terms of the lack of regulation. It would be interesting to have a response from all of them. So I think we'll keep that petition open and seek further information. Petition number 1858 is to provide free masks for everyone in Scotland. This is lodged in the name of the petitioner Alex Wallace. The petition calls on the Scottish Government to provide free face masks for everyone in Scotland during the Covid-19 pandemic. The Scottish Government's submission highlights and advocates the use of reusable face coverings and has provided guidance on how to make these using widely available household products. In respect of affordability, the submission notes that the Scottish Government has committed over £1 billion of additional investment to help local communities to build resilience in public services. Some of that has been used by local partners, including the third sector, to provide face coverings free of charge to people on low incomes and particularly to vulnerable groups such as homeless people. While the Scottish Government is not centrally providing face coverings to the general public, local authorities and schools consider how to address any equity concerns arising from the use of face coverings. It also advises that many homelessness outreach teams also provide disposable face coverings and a number of supermarkets, I think that most of us will be aware, and other retailers provide free disposable face coverings. Do we have any comments from colleagues? I have read over the Scottish Government's submission, which I think does actually look—it's fairly comprehensive—and does look to reply to the issues raised by the petitioner in a reasoned manner, including people at the very bottom of the economic pillar in society, those people who are homeless. I think it's very important that we look to make sure that this has been done from what I can see. I think that the Scottish Government's replies have been reasoned. On that basis, I would advocate that the response has been delivered and that we should close the petition. I am in agreement with my colleague Bill Kidd. I think that the work done by the Scottish Government and the first sector and the accessibility of face masks when you go to train stations, shops or any public building, I think that the aims of the petitioner have been met through that, so I am happy to close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders. Does anybody else wish to comment? Mr Sweeney, do you wish to say anything? The only thing that I noted in the SPICE report was that if you benchmark against other Governments in Europe, for example, Germany, which have targeted FPP2 masks being distributed to people with underlying health conditions and people over the age of 60 years because it provides additional protection, it seems quite an interesting proposal. It might be worthwhile that the committee writing to the Scottish Government to request that continued benchmarking against the activities of other Governments is undertaken just to see where the benefits have been realised. For example, there are general public health benefits in wearing a face mask, particularly in winter months. It reduces not just the prevalence of Covid transmission but other infectious diseases that often can disproportionately impact the elderly and vulnerable populations. It might well be a good prophylactic public health measure to look at that investment, particularly targeted towards vulnerable populations. I wonder then whether we could combine both the recommendations of colleagues and still bring using rule 15.7 to close the petition, but at the same time writing to the Scottish Government pointing out the experience elsewhere on the continent and maybe just seeking some clarification as to whether or not there might be some areas where they could extend the practice of the delivery of face coverings. Would that be acceptable? Just to say that there was a point about the prevalence of disposable masks, which could have an unintended consequence elsewhere and making sure that we had reusable face masks to protect the environment. That is just an angle looking at. If we are closed to the petition, I would support that and benchmarking if, in other countries, Germany is being given as an example if they have best practice of using recyclable face masks. That is what I think would be useful to see. I do not know that I would keep the petition open for that. I think that we could seek that information in any event if that meets with everybody, but I think that the suggestion that we use the information that we have received from the briefing about practice elsewhere is just to draw that to the Scottish Government's attention and see whether they have given any thought to any of that at the same time as closing the petition. Is that agreeable to everyone? The next petition is petition number 1859 to retain Falconer's rights to practice upland falconry in Scotland lodged by Barry Blyther. Mr Blyther's petition calls on the Scottish Government to amend the Animals and Wildlife Act 2020 to allow mountaineers to be hunted for the purposes of falconry. In its submission, the Scottish Government explains that, during the passage of the Animals and Wildlife Penalties, Protections and Powers Scotland Act 2020 through Parliament, an amendment was made to schedule five of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, referred to now after as the 1981 act, to include mountaineers as a protected species. The Scottish Government's submission confirms that, when considering the amendment to include mountaineers as a protected species, it took into account the recommendations from the Grousemore Management Group report, which stated that the shooting of mountaineers should be subject to increased legal regulation, and should the conservation status of mountaineers prove to be unfavourable, then a licensing system for the shooting of mountaineers should be introduced. The submission does highlight that, in certain circumstances, birds of prey can still be used to take mountaineers for purposes such as to protect timber or agriculture. In his submission, the petitioner explains that mountaineers need to be conserved at a high density to attract falconers, which in turn creates significant commercial value and support isolated rural economies through visiting falconers. UK animal welfare standards and SSPCAR SPCA guidance is referenced in the submission to state that there is a legal obligation to allow trained captive bred birds of prey freedoms, including the freedom to express the natural behaviours of these species. Therein lay a bit of a conundrum, I felt, in considering this petition. I wonder what thoughts colleagues have. I am right to think that there was a subsequent submission from the petitioner in response to the Scottish Government's view in which he takes some issue with the ability of the species to exist on eating other species that are unsuitable. I noted that as well. I would like to know what colleagues think. I found this, I have to say, quite complicated and quite technical in trying to understand the relative merits of the rights of birds of prey to express their traits of the natural species with the legislation in place. Tess White? Thank you. I have just two questions, as you say. This is complicated. In terms of size of the problem, we need to protect the hares. How many falconers are there in Scotland? That is my first question. The other point that I empathise with Mr Lubton is that if you have a falcon, how do you know that the falcon is going to go and kill a stote or a rabbit? The falcon cannot differentiate between what the falcon will kill. Are we going to prosecute him if one day he kills a rabbit, the next day a stote and the third time it is a hare? That is why it is so complicated. Anybody else? Bill Kidd? I do understand that from Tess White. I would have to say that if a bird of prey is a wild species on its own, as it actually lives in the same way as mountain hares live by their development under nature, then certainly birds of prey will kill mountain hares. We are talking specifically about hunting mountain hares with falcons. Personally, knowing that, over many, many months, during a campaign to save mountain hares, with petitions coming to me as an MSP, I do not think that they are a species that can support this form of hunting. I personally think that it is perfectly reasonable and rational that a bird of prey will kill in order to live, but to do so specifically for the purposes of hunting, I do not think that it is something that I am in favour of and I think that that is the way that the Scottish Government supply has come forward also. I am struck by the observation that there is a legal obligation to allow trained captive birds, presumably the ones to which you are referring, including the freedom to express the natural behaviours of the species. That was the conundrum that I came up with. I am not quite sure how you do that. I am minded to write to the Scottish Government just asking how they reconcile that right with the legislation for some clarity, because I was left confused by that. I think that if colleagues are agreeable. Yes? Yes? I think that it is possibly an instance of the law of unintended consequences. Clearly, the legislation was written with the intention of regulating mass culling of hares populations and shooting of hares. The falconry is such an incidental and marginal activity that it has a negligible effect on any real, discernible level. It has been a sort of unintended chilling effect that we need to address with the Government. It is clear that the submission was inadequate in addressing the specifics of falconry. The other thought coming back to Tess White's point, is there anybody who would be able to tell us how many falconers there are operating in Scotland? I mean, it would be quite nice to quantify what the actual issue is in relation to the number of people affected. I am quite happy to pursue those two aspects and we will keep that petition open on that basis. Thank you very much. That brings us to petition number 1860, new legislation for prescription and limitation act. This is a petition lodged by Jennifer Morrison Holden, which calls on the Scottish Government to amend the prescription and limitation act to allow retrospective claims to be made. The Scottish Government states that prescription and limitation incentivise people to enforce their legal rights through the courts promptly without delay. They also provide legal certainty. The submission states, however, should the court be persuaded that it is equitable to do so, it can already override the principle limitation time to allow a legal action. In her response, the petitioner states that she has been treated unfairly in her own case due to a lack of timely action in the part of her solicitor, and she therefore believes that there should be an opportunity for people in similar situations to make retrospective claims at any time. I think that we have probably all been written to it at some stage, those of us who have been around a bit, from constituents who have fallen foul of the time limit in relation to those matters. That is obviously what the Scottish Government seek to address in their response. I note that, in the case of limitation, it is already possible for a court to override the principle limitation time limits, where it is persuaded that it is equitable to do so, to both sides, both the claimant and the defendant. I would say that, on that basis, it is something that requires the petitioner or someone in her position to engage legal representation in order to approach a court and say that they are looking for an overriding of the principle limitation of time limits in that case. If there is a legal framework in a process to go through it to override it, I do not have an option, but to close the petition understanding orders rule 15.7. I am inclined to agree. Is there any way of quantifying how often courts have overridden? We are being told that, in the case of limitation, it is already possible for a court to override the principle limitation time limits, where it is persuaded that it is equitable to do so. Part of me worries that that is a sentiment that is expressed, but it is a hurdle that is impossible for anybody to overcome. Potentially very rarely is overcome. Would it be possible for us to try to identify whether, in fact, that opportunity is successfully pursued in any way, rather than just being a general provision that sits here as a sort of, this is what people can get. I am mindful of constituents who have written to me who I know feel that they have just banged their head against a wall when trying to pursue any of these matters. I wonder how widely known that is. We are happy to find a little bit more out about that process just to see whether, in fact, our constituents are able to exercise it and how many of them have and whether they have been successful in doing so. If we find that nobody knows that it is there and nobody is doing it, then it is not really serving its function. Mr Kidd? I am aware that, in this particular case where the petitioner actually has suffered a serious loss, both family and financially. Therefore, I am very much in favour of trying to help out as much as possible. What we do not know is whether or not the failure on behalf of her legal representation has been raised with the Law Society of Scotland or whatever, but I do not think that it would do any harm to try and help her out as much as possible. I think that the point is that we are not allowed to pursue individual cases in that way. That is out with the remit of the commission. It is the general provision, but I think that it would be useful to find out whether, in fact, this safety net is assisting anybody or whether, in fact, it is not known about and is not being used, in which case I think that there would be a deficiency. Petition number 1861 used teacher-assessed grades to award national qualifications in 2021. I should flag up initially that the petitioner has requested that this petition be removed from the petition process given that results have now been awarded for 2021 and work is under way to reform the SQA and Education Scotland. I am inclined in view of the desire of the petitioner not to pursue the petition to close the petition under rule 157, if that meets with members' agreement. Petition number 1862 introduced community representation on boards of public organisations delivering lifeline services to island communities. That has been lodged by Rona Mackay, Angus Campbell and Naomi Bremner on behalf of the used economic task force. The petition calls on the Scottish Government to introduce community representation on boards of public organisations delivering lifeline services to island communities in keeping with the island's Scotland Act 2018. In its submission, the Scottish Government explains that the requirements for the appointments to a public body board will be set out in the public body's founding legislation. In the case of more than 70 boards, the recruitment process is also regulated by the Ethical Standards Commissioner. The Scottish Government states that this means that, as far as possible, the recruitment process is fair, transparent and based on merit. In their response, the petitioners argue that a lack of local knowledge results in decisions being made that do not fully consider the practical impact on those living in the islands. They believe that introducing community representation on boards would lead to better decision making for people. I note that some of our parliamentary colleagues have asked written questions and oral questions on the matter. I wonder whether any members have any comments that they would like to make. I am just wondering, convener, if, when you look at the island's Scotland Bill, what's actually in place there on ministers to ensure that public bodies exercise their duties in involving communities and bringing them on function on boards if there's enough protection there for it. It's a difficult one and there's also the Ethical Standards Commissioner who could come in if they disagree that they've not been consulted with or invited on to a board. So I think there's protections there in place for anybody who... Could we write to the Scottish Government just in view of the fact that there's nothing in their submission to suggest that they have any plans to amount founding legislation for public bodies on the basis that lifeline services to local communities require community representation on the boards? Could we write to check that that actually is the case? We're content, we'll do that. Petition number 1863, a mandatory annual cancer blood test from the age of 55. This is lodged by Mr Michael Campbell and it calls on the Scottish Government to provide mandatory annual blood tests from the age of 55 to detect cancer. The Scottish Government's submission highlights that it recognises the importance of early cancer diagnosis and its impact on cancer patient outcomes. The Scottish Government advises that it has already taken a number of actions to continue enabling an early cancer diagnosis. It notes Scotland's first early cancer diagnostic centres are now being established in NHS Fife, NHS Dumfries and Galloway and NHS Ayrshire and Arran. It highlights that although there is currently no single blood test that screens for different cancer types, there is continually on-going research which the UK NSC will review to make a recommendation for population screening. So there is currently no blood test that would pick up all the cancers but it's continually under development. I think that we could write to one or two bodies just to see what their views are on the petition. Mr David Torrance? I think that we should write to relevant stakeholders like Cancer Research UK and McMillan Cancer Support to see their views on the petition. However, in light of there being no blood test that could detect them all, we have to look and wait to see what recommendations are from the body from the UK. I would like to keep the petition open. I'm just wondering whether we might also write to UK NSC just to understand where they think they are in the process of potentially the research that they're undertaking. I think that it would be useful to know if that's something that they anticipate coming to fruition or whether it's of a very open-ended nature still at this point. I think that would be helpful to know and to the bodies that Mr David Torrance has suggested. Anybody else wish to come in? Thank you all. That brings us to petition number 1864 to increase the ability of communities to influence planning decisions on onshore wind farms. We have our first special guest of the new live proceedings from Parliament in our colleague Oliver Mundell MSP has attended for this petition, which has been lodged by Eileen Jackson on behalf of Scotland against SPIN. The petition calls on 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 the appointing an independent advocate to ensure that local participants are not bullied nor intimidated during the public process. In its written submission, the Scottish Government highlights that it is currently reviewing Scotland's national planning policies, and expects to publish a draft national planning framework for in the autumn of this year. It states that it consulted on MPF4 position statement and will carry out extensive public consultation following its publication. The submission notes that, in preparing MPF4, the Scottish Government is considering priority policy changes to support a spatial strategy for net zero, which includes strengthening its support for repowering and expanding existing wind farms. The petitioners have provided two submissions. Some of the issues raised in those submissions include the costs involved in challenging planning applications, not only financial but also in terms of the time and the expertise required, and the disparity in planning application fees between Scotland and England, the fee to apply for a 50 to 100 megawatt onshore wind farm in Scotland is less than half of the fee for the equivalent in England. The committee has also received more than 100 additional submissions, most of which are from people living in rural communities. Many of the issues raised echo the points raised by the petitioner and their petition, and in their submissions. Issues raised constantly across the submissions include people in communities feeling overwhelmed by the volume of information and the planning process. Advice is available for organisations such as Planning Aid Scotland. However, the advice is general and there is a lack of capacity to deliver it to all who need it. The cumulative impact of wind farms on not only the environment but also the ability of individuals and organisations such as community councils to repeatedly respond to applications. Across the majority of submissions, there is a consensus on the need to act to avert a climate emergency. However, the submissions highlight that, in the main, it is Scotland's rural communities who are burdened with the adverse effects of producing wind energy. Since the publication of our meeting papers, we have received a submission from Dr Rachel Connor in support of the petition. In her submission, Dr Connor Connor raised several of the concerns highlighted by both the petitioner and throughout the additional submissions that the committee has received. Finlay Carson MSP was hoping to join us today. However, he is a prior commitment, as he is convener of the Rural Affairs, Infrastructure and Natural Environment Committee, which is meeting at the same time. He has therefore sent a message asking that the petition be continued with further information sought. He also suggests that it could be referred to the Rural Affairs, Islands and Natural Environment Committee. Although I would make the point that, as the petition relates to the planning system, the relevant subject committee would, in the first instance, most likely be the local government housing and planning committee. I am minded to bring in our colleague Mr Mundell. Does anyone in the first instance wish to speak ahead of that? In which case, Oliver Mundell? I thank the convener and committee members for making the time for me to speak. I am not generally in the habit of attending this committee and I recognise that considering the petitions is primarily your work to do, but I was keen to come today because I wanted to express my support for petition PE 1864. From my work as a constituency MSP across the last five years, I know that it speaks to a very real problem and captures the concerns of many people living in rural Scotland. The present planning system for onshore wind leaves those most directly affected by what are often industrial scale projects feeling ignored and irrelevant. They come up against developers who spend what seem like endless resources promoting applications and gaming the planning system. They see the views of community councils and local authorities discounted and are slowly worn down by repeat applications and long drawn out multi-stage processes. This is not fair and, in my view, it does not reflect well on a modern democratic country. I strongly believe that we need to tackle the climate crisis and that there is room for all energy sources in doing so, but that cannot be at the expense of small rural communities. I strongly believe that the whole way the process operates urgently needs to be looked at again and that it is time that this Parliament gave our communities a voice. I therefore ask the committee at the very least to keep the petition open and continue to follow developments around the planning framework, but I would also ask you to consider taking further oral evidence from the petitioners and look to see if there is a way in which the Parliament can give those individuals and communities a voice and make sure that those issues are properly explored. Thank you, convener. I am in agreement that we should keep the petition open and that certain effects of rural communities are more than any other. I do think that we have to wait to see what the national planning review policy what is published in it to see before we can do anything else with the petition, but at that time I would like to ask the right to all the relevant stakeholders and the whole list here, the Heads of Planning Scotland, Drill Town Planning Institute, Scotland's newables planning democracy and planning aid for Scotland. I would like to write to all of them to find their views on the petitioner. Thank you. Oliver Mundell. I was just going to ask if you would add local authorities into that list, because certainly I think that my own local authority in Dumfries and Galloway might have a view given the volume of planning applications that they receive in relation to wind. Okay, we are happy to do that. Anybody else's wish to comment? Tess White. Just one comment. I agree that we need to explore further to gain input from rural communities and also to balance the need for onshore wind farms. The two do need looking at and addressing, but definitely keep it open. Okay, we might need to keep this open. I think that it would be premature to consider referring it to any other committee at this time. I think that we will write to the various stakeholders that have been identified by David Torrance and by Oliver Mundell. I think that we will consider those responses ahead potentially of seeking any further oral evidence from the petitioner, look to those written responses in the first instance and keep the petition open and consider it afresh when we have those responses. I thank Oliver Mundell very much for participating in relation to the petition. Thank you very much. That brings us to the end of our consideration of petitions this morning. There being no other business, thank you all very much. And we will resume again, I believe, next week to continue our consideration of petitions that stand ready and to be reviewed and discussed. Thank you all very much.