Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: Wednesday, February 21, 2024
Official Report 737KB pdf
Contents
New Petitions
Recreational Drones (Use in Nature Reserves) (PE2050)
Agenda item 3 is consideration of new petitions. As always, I say to people who might be joining us to hear their petition being considered for the first time that, ahead of our first consideration, we invite the Parliament’s independent research body, SPICe—the Scottish Parliament information centre—and the Scottish Government to offer a preliminary view or to offer us any guidance. We take this action because, previously, that would be the first action that we as a committee agreed to take, which only delayed proper consideration of the petition.
Our first new petition is PE2050, which was lodged by Lee Watson on behalf of Ythan seal watch. This interesting petition 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 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.
The petitioner raises concerns that drones can be used both intentionally and unintentionally to cause disturbance to wildlife and can have a significant impact on the wellbeing of many species on national nature reserves, particularly on nesting birds and seal colonies.
Aviation matters—to which drones are subject—are reserved. As such, aviation legislation, including drone-specific legislation, is the responsibility of the UK Parliament. However, NatureScot has powers to make and enforce byelaws for national nature reserves under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.
In 2018, NatureScot and the partnership for action against wildlife crime in Scotland—PAWS—raised concerns about wildlife disturbance by drones. The Scottish Government’s response to the petition notes that existing law requires that licences are obtained where wildlife photography may disturb a protected species. The submission also states that the Scottish Government will ask PAWS to consider whether its guidance on drones and wildlife needs to be updated and republished.
Given the increasing prevalence of drones, and the potential consequences of that for wildlife—both well intentioned and ill intentioned—this is an interesting petition. What do colleagues think?
I wonder whether the committee would consider writing to NatureScot to ask for an updated view on concerns that it raised in 2018 about wildlife disturbance by drones; to ask how many complaints about drone use have been investigated since then and whether any of those were referred to Police Scotland; and to ask whether it would consider creating a byelaw prohibiting the use of drones on national nature reserves without a permit under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.
I also wonder whether—this is probably key, convener—we could write to Police Scotland to ask whether there have been any prosecutions for wildlife crimes in Scotland related to drone use and, if so, how many, and how many police investigations into suspected wildlife crimes arising from drone use have taken place each year since 2018, and how many investigations have been reported to the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service each year since 2018.
I want to make one suggestion and to put one point on the record. The suggestion is that, because drones are fairly widely used for various purposes, many of them legitimate, we could also ask NatureScot—I accept Mr Torrance’s recommendations—whether it would involve disproportionate costs to introduce such a licensing scheme. I am concerned that such a scheme may be difficult to operate in practice on grounds of cost, not least because NatureScot’s budget is, apparently, to be slashed. Therefore, will it even be able to carry out the workload that it has? Franky, I think that it might not be able to.
The point that I want to put on record, convener, is that these stories have another side. I have a constituent who was extremely concerned that drones were used, apparently at the insistence of a wealthy voluntary body—in fact, the wealthiest in Europe—with an interest in birds to carry out surveillance of locals who live near an area where that organisation felt that wildlife crime may be going on. The person felt that drones were being used to invade their privacy. I have raised the case with the Lord Advocate.
I make no judgment about the merits of that case or of any other—it is not for me to do that. However, it is for me to say that this story has two sides; it is not all one-sided. People in the countryside are quite concerned about the inappropriate use of drones by pressure groups with particular campaigning interests.
I am grateful for all that. I wonder whether we might also write to the UK Government, since it is responsible for aviation. In this instance, I am quite interested to know its thoughts on a summarised version of the petition and the issues arising from it, and on whether there is a similar prevalence of drone use elsewhere within the UK and whether that may lead it to think afresh about any regulation of drone use. Are we content with all that?
Members indicated agreement.
Thank you very much. That was an interesting petition. We will keep it open and we will undertake the inquiries that we have just set out.
Children and Young People (Protection from Trauma) (PE2051)
PE2051, on improving the processes for protecting children and young people from traumatic incidents, was lodged by Dianne Youngson. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to establish a consistent and transparent reporting mechanism for incidents that affect the health of pupils in schools; to review and improve the existing guidelines for schools in dealing with at-risk pupils; to place in law the monitoring of reporting mechanisms, with ultimate responsibility being placed with the Scottish ministers and local authorities; and to reform the exclusions procedure to include consideration of whether exclusions may cause further harm.
On reporting and monitoring, the SPICe briefing notes that all schools and local authorities are expected to use the bullying and equalities module in the SEEMiS information system to record and monitor bullying incidents. However, Education Scotland’s review found that the module is challenging to use and that national guidance is not being fully implemented, which leads to inconsistencies.
The submission from the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills highlights the getting it right for every child approach and, in particular, the role of a child’s named person. She has also highlighted the counselling services that are in place throughout secondary schools, which are available for children who are 10 years old and over.
On exclusions, the 2017 national guidance is noted. That guidance states that exclusion should be used as a last resort and should be a proportionate response where there is no appropriate alternative, with the wellbeing of the individual being a key consideration.
Last year, the Scottish Government held a series of summits on relationships and behaviour in schools. The cabinet secretary provided an update on that work to Parliament in November and announced that a joint action plan will be developed to address the issues that had been raised. In that statement, the cabinet secretary also encouraged more accurate recording of all incidents of inappropriate, abusive or violent behaviour in schools.
In view of the information that is before us, do members have any comments or suggestions for action?
Could the committee write to the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills to request a timeline for the development and publication of the joint action plan on relationships and behaviour in schools, and information about how the Scottish Government expects its call for accurate recording of incidents in schools to be achieved?
Do colleagues agree to that approach?
Members indicated agreement.
We will therefore keep the petition open and seek the information as set out by Mr Torrance.
Dog Boarding Kennels (Fire Safety) (PE2058)
PE2058, on requiring all dog boarding kennels to install smoke detectors, smoke alarms and sprinkler systems, was lodged by Julie Louden. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to improve fire safety in dog boarding kennels by mandating the installation of smoke detectors, smoke alarms and sprinkler systems.
The SPICe briefing explains that animal boarding establishments in Scotland must be licensed by local authorities under the Animal Boarding Establishments Act 1963. That act requires that, in determining whether to grant a licence, a local authority shall have regard to the need for securing that appropriate steps will be taken for the protection of the animals in case of fire or another emergency. Conditions set at a local authority level can include more detailed requirements. However, I very much doubt that sprinkler systems were too widely applied or even available in 1963.
The Scottish Government recently consulted on proposals to revoke the Animal Boarding Establishments Act 1963 and instead regulate animal boarding under the Animal Welfare (Licensing of Activities Involving Animals) (Scotland) Regulations 2021. Its response to the petition states that that approach is being considered and that it could provide a more cohesive and robust framework for ensuring the wellbeing of animals that are being cared for.
The issue and the petition are important.
I think that we should write to the Scottish Government to ask when its analysis of the responses to its consultation on the licensing of activities involving animals will be published and whether it will give specific consideration to fire safety in the forthcoming animal boarding regulations. In that letter, it would be worth while highlighting rehoming centres, which are not boarding kennels but are similar facilities, with the caveat that the dogs in them do not have owners. Otherwise, they are essentially similar facilities and, I presume, the requirements would be the same.
I also wonder—I am relaxed about whether we should do this once we get a response to that letter—whether we should write to the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities about licensing requirements and whether local authorities would have the resources to check on the matter, as well as to the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service to find out how prevalent the issue is. It is clear that there is one case, but how often does that happen? For context, it is important to differentiate between rehoming centres and boarding kennels. That approach might provide us with an indication of how prevalent the activity is.
Those suggestions seem to be very worth while.
I support Mr Golden’s suggestions, but will add one inquiry that should be made, although I am not quite sure of whom. Obviously, we have legislation on sprinklers in domestic flats—I think that that was introduced pre-Covid, around 2018. It has been drawn to my attention by a constituent of mine who is a builder or renovator of flats that, at that time, the estimated costs that were given for installing sprinklers were very modest. He told me that, for various practical reasons, those costs have risen astronomically such that, in his instance, they might even make the construction of flats unviable.
I thought that I would mention that because, if costs have risen several times—not just by £1,000 or £2,000, but by huge amounts—and we are to pursue the proposal, at an early stage we would need somewhere to get advice from about the costs to kennels and other establishments that Mr Golden mentioned. I thought that I should throw that in out of fairness and balance.
Just last week, I got a quite alarming letter from a constituent. We all want safety, but would a £100 smoke detector be as effective? That was his argument, rightly or wrongly. I voted to pass the sprinkler legislation, but it has turned out to be grossly more expensive than was estimated at the time.
That is also a perfectly reasonable suggestion to make. We will take forward the petition, mindful of all the suggestions that colleagues have made.
I wonder who we should write to. What relevant dog agency might we take views from?
I do not know about boarding kennels. There is one at Happas, near Forfar. Edinburgh Cat and Dog Home deals with rehoming, and it might even have made an assessment. Dogs Trust has two places in Scotland.
In view of Mr Ewing’s comments, it might be worth our asking one or two relevant associations what they believe the consequence of the proposal would be and what existing fire safety measures they have in place, or about the regulations relating to all of that. There could be alternatives to sprinkler systems, and it might be worth while investigating those.
I do not think that they are extremely profitable businesses.
No. Okay. We can do that, too.
Pedestrian Crossings (PE2059)
PE2059, on ensuring that pedestrian crossings cannot be disabled without an equivalent safety measure being in place, was lodged by Lachlan McDowall. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to introduce legislation that requires that, during road works or at any other point where a pedestrian crossing is disabled or otherwise bypassed, measures to allow alternative pedestrian traffic flow are put in place, and any broken-down or otherwise disabled crossing is rectified or has an alternative in place within 24 hours of being reported. The petition was prompted by experience of a pedestrian crossing on a busy road outside a primary school being deactivated.
The SPICe briefing and the Scottish Government’s response note that “Safety at Street Works and Road Works: A Code of Practice” requires anyone who is undertaking works that require a pedestrian crossing to be suspended to agree with the roads authority what, if any, alternative arrangements will be provided for users of the crossing prior to its suspension. It is also noted that those who are undertaking works are required to take specific consideration of the needs of pedestrians, particularly the needs of those with small children and pushchairs and those with reduced mobility. That includes visually impaired people and people who use wheelchairs or mobility scooters.
Do members have any suggestions?
Could the committee close the petition under rule 15.7 of the standing orders on the basis that bodies that undertake road works are already required to consider the needs of pedestrians and must agree appropriate alternative provision with the roads authority before works take place, as set out in “Safety at Street Works and Road Works: A Code of Practice”?
Do members agree to that approach?
Members indicated agreement.
We will close the petition, but we can draw the petitioner’s attention to the provisions that currently exist and to which there is recourse in the event of any pedestrian crossing being disabled.
That concludes the public part of our meeting. We will meet again on 6 March. We will now move into private session.
11:16 Meeting continued in private until 11:45.Air ais
Continued Petitions