Seòmar agus comataidhean

I imagine that the petitioner and others who have an interest will consider the matter each year, so it is possible that, if matters deteriorate or do not improve, the petitioner and others who have a similar concern could bring the issue back to the Parliament in the light of the decisions that the Royal Conservatoire makes this year. That might focus minds a little bit.

I do not think that “bursting” is the word that I would use. I think that Mr Torrance was planning to say something.

Yes, I am content with that. I think that the petition should be closed, but I point out that, although the increase in funding has been welcome, the people who are most in danger from potholes are probably not motorists but cyclists, so the Government should consider diverting some of the massive amount of money that is devoted to active travel—I think that it might be as much as £200 million—to filling in potholes. After all, if a cyclist dies, there is no more active travel, is there? That might be a better and more effective method of spending public money to ensure an all-round safer experience for road users, including cyclists.

We have all the wisest owls.

I have some sympathy with what the petitioner has said. This is not an easy topic at all. I will start by making the point that the pre-application process is essential. Once things get to the stage of formal application, the developer will have spent an enormous amount of money on setting out a very detailed scheme; that process can be very costly. There will be an in-built reluctance to depart from that scheme after it has got to that stage. Therefore, it makes sense that pre-application stage is where the real effort on consultation should be made. Moreover, as I understand it, that approach is taken towards large planning applications. It would be inconsistent if that approach did not apply to energy.

Secondly, there is now a new UK Government, and the Scottish and UK Governments are aligned in saying that renewables are a great hope for the economy and for energy. If I set aside whether that is right or wrong, there is a confluence of objectives.

Close consideration needs to be given to how we persuade people that their views are being taken seriously. The SPICe briefing says, for example, that the pre-application guidance states that seven days’ notice must be given of consultation meetings. That period is hopelessly inadequate. Many people will simply not be able to change plans that they have made in order to attend in seven days, or even hear about the consultation meetings or see that in the newspapers. That is a common complaint.

I do not know the situation that Tess White has alluded to in the north-east as I am not familiar with the details, but I know that, in the Highlands—according to Graham Barn, the spokesman for the Civil Engineering Contractors Association Scotland, who gave evidence to the committee on another matter—that there is £45 billion of grid-strengthening work in the SSEN area alone between now and 2035. That is unprecedented, and it will involve substations at places such as Kiltarlity and Broadford, which have attracted huge controversy. Therefore, unless the process is one that enjoys the confidence of people, the Scottish and UK Governments will be storing up problems unless they give serious consideration to that.

My last two points are about the related issue of what benefits local communities get. Unless they get cheaper electricity, there will be sour, rumbling, protracted discontent. Both Governments need to consider how the areas that take the flak and get the infrastructure, receive some benefit directly, whether that be in lower electricity costs or in community ownership, or both.

Lastly, I agree with Maurice Golden that the committee does not have the power to say what Parliament should debate—it is a shame that we do not, because things might have gone a bit better if we did. [Laughter.] That is just my humble opinion, and who is going to listen to that? However, why are we not debating this topic? It is a live issue. Tess White has brought it here today, but a whole suite of MSPs, if that is the right collective noun, are affected, and there is huge concern across Scottish communities about where the turbines and the substations will be. The rest of Scotland may well be absolutely supportive of renewable energy, but it is not bearing the brunt of things.

I am very pleased that the petition has been raised and that Tess White has addressed us today. The interests of other MSPs are noted. I hope that the Scottish Government and the UK Government will take all those things into account.

I am sorry, convener, that that was a bit long.

In the first instance, we should ask the Scottish Government, because the matter will go nowhere if the Government is not persuaded; if it is persuaded, this might go somewhere.

I cannot demur from Mr Torrance’s recommendation. I do not think that the petition is going any further, but I feel, from quite long experience, that there is some substance behind the specific concerns that are highlighted in specific examples of quangos not taking account of local people’s views. I am afraid that I reached that conclusion a long time ago, and nothing has happened to make me change that view. I wanted to put that on the record.

The petition’s wording is maybe a bit vague. It is difficult to see how local knowledge could be the subject of mandatory duties in legislation, but the examples that have been given of where it has been felt that the state is not really interested in what the little person in rural Scotland says are well founded, and we will no doubt come back and consider some of those in the future.

The SGA is, of course, entitled to lodge petitions on the specific matters, should it so choose. I am a member of the SGA, and I think that I have paid my subscription.

I entirely agree with the recommendations that Mr Torrance set out and with your remarks. It seems to me that there is complete unanimity among the five committee members that this is an extremely strong case and that a just grievance must be corrected.

In addition to what Mr Torrance has said, could the letter to the Scottish Government indicate that the committee is unanimous on the issue, that we feel very strongly and that we will press for a debate in the Scottish Parliament if the Government is not willing to do what is necessary?

As well as adopting Mr Torrance’s suggestion, could we ask the Scottish Government, when we write, whether it has reached a conclusion on the matters that are set out in the submission from last November from the Minister for Energy and Environment, which said that

“officials are currently developing policy proposals for inclusion in the final Strategy, informed by the ... consultation, that will build on the successes of CARES”—

the community and renewable energy scheme—and

“our existing good practice principles for community benefit and shared ownership of onshore renewables”.

In previous meetings, I suggested that community ownership can be obtained without developers necessarily making financial contributions in addition to their current community benefit payments, which are normally at the tariff of £5,000 per annum per megawatt; that perhaps they could be persuaded to add community turbines to wind farms—for example, having 20 turbines instead of 18; and that the SNIB could fund a loan of most of the capital that would be required to purchase additional turbines.

That is the model that I sought to pursue when I was Minister for Energy, Enterprise and Tourism, and was successfully pursuing until the abrupt cessation of renewables obligation certificates. I will not go into that. It was being funded by private banks including Triodos, Close Brothers and the Co-operative Bank. I really would like the Scottish Government to be asked to address that and whether it will include this particular proposal in its plans.

Finally, in addition, there will be a new incoming United Kingdom Government. It seems to me that the petitioner would very much want the Scottish Government to collaborate with that incoming Government, of whatever hue it might turn out to be, and to make up for the lacuna in legal powers by agreeing to further community ownership. That is a really important issue for many people in rural Scotland, who feel that the benefits are passing them by and going to developers, and that they are not getting a fair share.

I am sorry to go on, but it did work before. Why has the Government not addressed that? Is it considering that now? If not, will it do so, and if it will not consider that, why not?

Yes.