Seòmar agus comataidhean

Does anyone have any further thoughts?

I might be less surprised—he said, trying not to be party political—that the Scottish Government is not rushing to follow the UK Government. However, the fact that the European Union is pursuing a similar legislative solution leaves us as a bit of an outlier and potentially open as the source of comfort to those whom we least want to potentially assist.

Moreover, I take Mr Ewing’s point that it is one thing for the Scottish Government to assert that the 2021 legislation will have dealt with matters here. We would like to understand how that is to be achieved, rather than it just being asserted that it is the case. I agree with Mr Ewing that this is an important issue and that the committee could pursue it further in the light of the evidence that we receive. It would be useful for the people whom we contact to know that we are minded so to do if we feel that the answers that we receive are in the first instance less than persuasive.

Mr Sweeney, you look like you are seeking to intervene.

I am happy to pursue those things. I hesitate in relation to the member’s bill point, simply because, as a member of the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body, I know that we already have a record number of members’ bills before us in this session of Parliament, and I struggle to see how we are going to get round to considering them all before 2026. However, we would certainly want to pursue Mr Sweeney’s other suggestions in the first instance.

Good morning, and welcome to the first meeting of the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee in 2023.

On our agenda this morning, we have continued petitions that we wish to discuss, followed by the first consideration of some new petitions.

The first continued petition is PE1864, lodged by Aileen Jackson on behalf of Scotland Against Spin, which 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.

We last considered the petition on 29 June last year, when we agreed to explore a number of the issues by writing to the Minister for Public Finance, Planning and Community Wealth, UK Government ministers, Planning Aid Scotland and the Scottish Government’s planning and environmental appeals division—DPEA. We have now received responses from all of those bodies.

The DPEA sets out the training and advice provided to reporters when conducting public inquiries. It notes:

“Reporters are advised to be alert to any overstepping of the mark and to intervene if they perceive that cross-examination is becoming overbearing”.

Planning Aid Scotland says that all its staff and volunteers are required to be chartered planners. Although it has not recently provided training relating to public inquiries, it says that it will continue to monitor the type of advice requests that it receives and use the information to inform the training that is provided to its staff and volunteers. PAS would welcome the Scottish Government undertaking research into how support could be provided for communities that participate in public inquiries.

Following the evidence session with the minister, the committee received clarification that the Scottish Government has powers to alter the 50MW threshold for renewable energy developments but has not explored the benefits or disadvantages of doing so.

Although the Secretary of State for Scotland and the UK Minister for Energy and Climate declined to comment on the specifics of the petition, they indicated the UK Government’s willingness to engage constructively with the Scottish Government on planning matters.

We have also received two new submissions from Aileen Jackson, the petitioner, commenting on the responses received. She welcomes the minister’s clarification on the Scottish Government’s power to alter the 50MW threshold—I think that Mr Ewing raised that matter in examination. Aileen considers that that potentially opens the possibility for more decisions on proposed wind farm developments to be taken at a local authority level. She also highlights the UK Government proposals for changes in national planning policy on onshore wind farm developments in England. That is coupled with the United Kingdom Government’s willingness to work with the Scottish Government on these matters.

We have had a lot of constructive feedback from the various bodies to which we wrote. On the basis of that feedback, do colleagues want to suggest ways in which we might take things forward?

Yes—that is quite a nice marriage of the different suggestions that have been made. It makes clear that, although we feel the technical need to close the petition, we have not lost sight of the underlying issues and are almost encouraging it to be brought back to us, should the shortcomings prevail. Are we content to proceed on that basis?

Members indicated agreement.

I suppose that we might also usefully ask the industry for information. I am not quite sure whether the petition is arising out of an industry concern or whether it sits outside of an industry concern—for all I know, the concern might not exist in the industry in Scotland at all.

That is my thought, too. We could write to the NFUS.

I accept that, but I am mindful of the petitioner here, and I wonder whether, in the first instance, we want to focus specifically on the position in NHS Grampian in our inquiry to the minister.

Just to be clear, what would that involve us doing?