Seòmar agus comataidhean

Item 4 is consideration of new petitions. Unusually, we are running 40 minutes later than planned.

The new petitions that we will consider today are some of the final new petitions that we will be able to introduce in the current parliamentary session. I say to those who have joined us for the consideration of new petitions that we undertake work in advance of our preliminarily consideration of a petition. We ask the Parliament’s independent research body, the Scottish Parliament information centre, for its view, and we also ask the Scottish Government for its preliminary view. We do that because, previously, those were often the first actions that the committee agreed to take, which simply delayed more substantive consideration of petitions.

I did not know that we were talking about just closing the petition, Mr Mountain, but thank you.

Do colleagues have any suggestions for action?

Is that what you were going to suggest, Mr Golden? I see that you are nodding.

The only point that I will add is that I would not want the date on which we will be able to see the cabinet secretary to be conditional on her having responded in advance. We can seek to get that response, or perhaps the cabinet secretary will be in a position to speak to the response that might be made at the point when we have a meeting with her. Do members agree that we should do what has been suggested?

Members indicated agreement.

PE2160, lodged by Tina Dawn Marshall, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to publish its energy strategy and just transition plan to address environmental, infrastructure and land use issues. Our parliamentary colleague Douglas Lumsden joins us to speak to the petition. I think that this is a return ticket. Having only just walked out the door, Mr Lumsden has beaten a path back to join us. Good morning—well, almost good afternoon—to you.

The SPICe briefing reminds us that the Scottish Government’s first energy strategy was published in 2017. That was followed by a draft energy strategy and just transition plan, which was published for consultation in 2023. The finalised version is still awaiting publication.

In its response, the Scottish Government states that the issues in its draft energy strategy and just transition plan are affected by on-going developments in the UK Government’s energy policy, including consultations for which responses have not yet been published, as well as various court cases. It stresses that it is taking sufficient time to analyse those developments and their impact on Scotland.

In terms of alternative action, the Government highlights its 2024 green industrial strategy, as well as its investment in skills development through its just transition fund. It also flags the publication over the course of this year of a bioenergy policy statement, the solar vision for Scotland, the sectoral marine plan 2 and an offshore wind policy statement. It also states that, most important of all, it expects to publish its draft climate change plan later this year, which will be accompanied by a consultation.

We have also received submissions from the petitioner, who mentions a range of on-going concerns in the absence of an energy strategy and just transition plan.

Mr Lumsden, the floor is yours.

Two colleagues have suggested that we add the matter to the thematic session. In advance of that, we should write a letter asking where we currently stand with the energy strategy. There is also Mr Ewing’s additional suggestion to the cabinet secretary that, in addition to our addressing the subject in a thematic committee session, it would be useful for the Parliament to consider the issues in a chamber debate. We can suggest that accordingly. We will keep the petition open.

Members indicated agreement.

If colleagues have no other suggestions, are we content to proceed as Mr Golden has suggested?

Members indicated agreement.

Agenda item 2 is consideration of continued petitions. We will first consider two youth crime petitions. At our 25 June 2025 meeting, before we went into summer recess, the committee heard evidence from the Rt Hon Dorothy Bain KC, the Lord Advocate, as well as officials from the Scottish Children’s Reporter Administration and the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service. That evidence session was followed by one with the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs, Angela Constance, and officials from the Scottish Government. The meeting covered issues raised during our consideration of two petitions: PE1947, on addressing Scotland’s culture of youth violence, and PE2064, on ensuring that under-16s who are charged with rape are treated as adults within the criminal justice system.

As we recently gathered oral evidence on those petitions together, are members content that we discuss them together?

Members indicated agreement.

The next petition is PE2089, lodged by Deborah Carmichael on behalf of Lochaber National Park—NO more group, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to suspend any action to create further national parks in Scotland, instruct an independent review on the operation of the current national parks, including assessment of the economic impacts on businesses and industries within the two parks—including, but not exclusive to, farming, forestry, crofting and angling—and to conduct a consultation with representatives of rural businesses and community councils in order to help to frame the remit of said independent review.

The committee last considered the petition on 22 January 2025, when we wrote to the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs, Land Reform and Islands to highlight the issues that were raised during the committee’s consideration of the petition, including the impact of existing national parks, the consultation process and NatureScot’s role as the reporter. We also wrote to Dumfries and Galloway Council.

The cabinet secretary’s response provides information on the wider impacts of national parks, based on information provided by the two Scottish national park authorities. The submission reiterates the Scottish Government’s position that there are no current plans to conduct an independent review of the two existing national parks in Scotland, which I think is a disappointment to us as committee members. The cabinet secretary states that this is because national parks are accountable to their boards and to the Scottish Government. Delivery is monitored and reviewed at regular meetings between the Scottish Government and national park authority conveners and chief executives. Park authorities are also required to produce annual reports and accounts, which are laid before the Parliament and published.

The response provides details of the public consultation, which was launched in November last year, and highlights the fact that NatureScot has commissioned an independent review of the consultation process—whatever that means. The committee has received a written submission from the No Galloway National Park campaign, which reiterates concern about NatureScot’s role as reporter—indeed—and raises points about the impact of the Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill.

Since those submissions were received, the Scottish Government has announced that it has decided not to pursue a proposal to designate Galloway and Ayrshire as a national park. The recommendation that was made by the reporter was to not proceed with the designation but instead strengthen a range of existing arrangements, including a better resourced and more influential Galloway and Southern Ayrshire Biosphere reserve; a renewed focus on people and nature, alongside commercial forestry operations in the Galloway forest park; and a new commitment to the implementation of management strategies for the three national scenic areas.

Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?

Gosh, I see that we have guests with us, so I shall rearrange the order of our consideration to facilitate colleagues who have turned out.

Thank you, and I hope that we can do a bit more than that. Colleagues, do you have any suggestions for action?