Seòmar agus comataidhean

The Scottish Government would argue that there is a sustainable funding model for Scotland’s colleges, but I disagree with that, and I would widen that out to the tertiary education sector. Nonetheless, with regard to the petition’s aims, I believe that the committee has no choice but to close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders, on the basis that the Scottish Government, is engaging with the Scottish Funding Council and Colleges Scotland on the wider college sector and is looking into a review of the funding allocation model.

I note that many colleges are making difficult decisions in order to be sustainable. Dundee and Angus College has recently closed its swimming pool at Gardyne Road, much to the dismay of the local community. However, unfortunately, at this stage in the session, I do not believe that there is anything that the committee can do to further progress the petition’s aims.

Yes. I agree with you, convener. It is reasonable to ask the future committee to attempt to get some data on what every local authority in Scotland is doing on this. Allergies are very prevalent, so the issue is worthy of further consideration before coming to a conclusion, although that would be for a future committee.

I think that we should close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders, principally because of time constraints—it will not be possible to progress the petition further in this session of Parliament.

However, I note that the Scottish Government has established an adults with incapacity reform expert working group. In my experience in Parliament over the past decade, establishing an expert working group often means that nothing happens. I hope that that is not the case here.

Despite the Scottish Government announcing in 2024 that a bill would be introduced to amend the 2000 act, it has proposed that that be taken forward in the next parliamentary session. A promise that a bill will be taken forward by future Governments is a very weak promise, even a future Government of the same party. We have had experience of such bills being delayed for the best part of eight or nine years.

Nonetheless, I will try to step back from being so cynical and hope that the matter will be addressed in the next session of Parliament. If it is not, closing the petition today will allow the petitioner the opportunity to bring back the issue and increase the pressure on the Government, if required.

The issue warrants further consideration, but, unfortunately, the committee will not be able to give it that consideration at this point in the parliamentary session. We come back, again, to the term “sustainability”, this time in respect of the gannet population, but, ultimately, the committee has to close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders, principally because the Scottish Government has made it clear that it does not intend to amend section 16 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 to remove the power to grant licences for taking gannets on this particular island, whose name I struggle to pronounce.

My understanding of international law is that the International Criminal Court, which is based in The Hague or New York, can, as required, look into specific cases. In order for such a court to be established, my understanding is that the UK would need to pull out from the Rome statute, which is clearly not a devolved matter. I would have concerns about international legal obligations were that to be the case.

On that basis, and on the basis that the Scottish Government is not willing to progress the petition, such matters are outwith the jurisdiction of the Parliament. I believe that the committee should close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders.

I wonder whether this petition might be one that we could keep open for further consideration at a future meeting, if the committee is so minded. There are inadequacies in Police Scotland’s work to align the data. As soon as I hear the phrase “working group”, it raises a red flag about the possibility that there will be no action. The issue is perhaps worthy of further consideration but, clearly, the committee cannot make a decision until we see the full list of all the petitions that we might want to keep open.

The risk of black and brown starts being required is far higher than it ever has been, and we require the transmission to do that.

It would be remiss of me to move off energy infrastructure without recognising the plight of the communities. The UK and Scottish Governments have set up a system in which a high amount of energy is generated far away from demand. That means that there is a requirement to transport said electricity a long way to demand. That is not the communities’ fault. By the time that they heard about those requirements, it was a bit too late. To be frank, both Governments failed in that community engagement, as did the other actors, which would have been National Grid, Ofgem and others, until it was far too late.

Onshore wind, battery and solar are far more localised. Some of that might be dealt with by the Scottish Government and some of it might be deal with at a council level, and community engagement around that varies.

NESO takes a UK-wide view of requirements and has made positive movements in that direction more recently. What are your thoughts on the Scottish Government’s role? You mentioned the cumulative impact. How is the Government tracking those developments at a council level and marrying that information up with what may be coming to the ECU? What is the view on land use, and on the loss of land for food production, in particular, which might be prime agricultural land?

I welcome the cabinet secretary to the meeting.

There is probably a gap in people’s knowledge in relation to which actors are present in the process for energy infrastructure, whether it be for transmission infrastructure or more local energy infrastructure, so it might be helpful if that could be set out in public.

NESO, the National Energy System Operator, operates the system overall. Transmission owners own the infrastructure, and they are instructed by the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets, as the regulator that operates under UK Government licence conditions, to build said infrastructure, which they must justify on the basis of those licence conditions.

09:45

Then there are the DNOs—the distribution network operators—which are perhaps more local. It is as if the transmission owners are the trunk roads and the DNOs are the B roads. Then there is retail, which is what most consumers see. All those actors do things differently.

About two years ago, every party was supportive of both an expansion in said renewables, particularly offshore, and public consultation, as was ingrained in the 1998 Aarhus convention. Today, however, there is a conflict between the environmental principles of public participation and the energy infrastructure.

Given that I have outlined everyone else’s role, it might be helpful if you could outline the Scottish Government’s role in that process, cabinet secretary.

Yes.