Seòmar agus comataidhean

PE2159, which was lodged by David Mackay on behalf of Innes community council, calls on the Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to place a moratorium on the production of hydrogen from fresh water until scientific studies are undertaken to understand the impact on the environment, local economies and society.

We last considered the petition on 24 September 2025, when we agreed to write to the Cabinet Secretary for Climate Action and Energy and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency. The written response from the cabinet secretary reiterates that, in the first instance, it falls to the relevant planning authority to consider whether a proposed development requires an environmental impact assessment—an EIA—to be undertaken.

SEPA notes that it assesses applications using the most current environmental standards, considering the capacity of the water body to support the proposed abstraction. As we have heard in relation to PE2109, in determining an application for authorisation, SEPA must assess the risk posed by the proposed development to the water environment, including cumulative effects with other activities.

In relation to concerns about water scarcity, SEPA highlights that it has exercised its regulatory powers to restrict or suspend abstractions in affected areas, including in relation to hydrogen productions. The response adds that new permits could impose stricter conditions, including earlier cessation of abstraction during dry periods and adaptive management clauses in response to changing environmental conditions.

The amendments to the Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill that related to the impact of developments on the environment, which I mentioned earlier in relation to PE2109, are also relevant to this petition. I reiterate that the Parliament considered them at stage 3 but, ultimately voted against them.

Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?

In closing the petition, we could write on the petitioner’s behalf on that basis, and try to direct the response in the first instance to the petitioner, if possible, given that we will not be here. Are members content to close the petition, but to try to do what we can in that respect?

Members indicated agreement.

Good morning, and welcome to the fourth meeting of the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee in 2026. Time and tide wait for no one: this is the third-to-last meeting of the committee, after which there are just two meetings ahead of us in this parliamentary session.

Before we get into the substance of this morning’s meeting, I would like to offer a correction to the official record. At our last meeting, it was noted that the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland had not provided a response to PE2139, and I was very trenchant in my criticism of that omission. However, following the meeting, the clerks became aware that a response had, indeed, been provided. It was an administrative error, and I have written to the commissioner on behalf of the committee apologising. The commissioner’s response had not been processed or provided to the committee in advance of that meeting; however, the petition will be scheduled for a future committee meeting at which we will be able to consider the evidence from the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland, which will contribute to our understanding of the issues.

Agenda item 1 is the consideration of continued petitions. I highlight to those who are joining us, whether they are online or in the room, that, given that we now have only today plus two additional meetings of the committee, one of which will be used to consider our legacy report, there is very little that the committee can actively do in relation to petitions, notwithstanding their merit. In some cases, it may well be that the issues that a petition addresses have been explored to the extent that we can offer in this session of Parliament. In others, it may well be that insufficient time has been left for us to explore the issues fully and that the best course of action is for a fresh petition to be brought back in the next parliamentary session. I say that because, if a petition is kept open—we will plan to hold open a very small number—and our successor committee then chooses to close it, the issue that the petition raises cannot be brought back again for 12 months, under the rules of the petition system. For some petitions that are at an early stage, it is better that we close them and that a fresh petition be lodged immediately in the new session of Parliament. That is the best advice that we as a committee can offer.

That brings us to a series of petitions on the overall theme of energy. We took extensive oral evidence on them and the various issues that they raised on 14 January this year from the Cabinet Secretary for Climate Action and Energy, Gillian Martin MSP. The themes that we considered were community engagement and input on energy projects, about which there was a lot of interesting discussion and acceptance from the cabinet secretary; the cumulative environmental impact of developments and strategic oversight; and the interaction between the Scottish and United Kingdom Governments in relation to policies on energy. After the evidence session, the cabinet secretary followed up in writing to the committee on a number of the outstanding issues that were raised in that discussion. All of that, sadly, means that I will have to speak at some length this morning, as I will give a preamble to each of those petitions in order to ensure that the record is completely up to date in terms of where we think we are.

We now move to the first of those petitions. Alexander Burnett MSP is attending to observe our discussion of this petition as he has an interest in it. It is lodged by Aileen Jackson on behalf of Scotland Against Spin and 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 10 September 2025, when we agreed to invite the Cabinet Secretary for Climate Action and Energy to provide evidence, as happened on 14 January this year.

On 30 December 2025, the Scottish Government published a consultation seeking views on increasing the 50MW threshold that determines whether applications for onshore electricity generating stations are decided by the Scottish ministers or by the relevant planning authority.

The Cabinet Secretary for Climate Action and Energy has indicated to the committee that the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 confers new regulation-making powers on the Scottish ministers regarding making community engagement mandatory. In light of that, the Scottish Government intends to consult all stakeholders, including communities, to assess exactly what mandatory community engagement should look like in practice.

The cabinet secretary suggested during the evidence session, and reiterated during stage 3 consideration of the Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill, that work on revising the Scottish Government’s good practice principles for energy developments was under way. During those stage 3 proceedings, she added that she has instructed her officials to plan a series of targeted public engagements as part of that work, in order for the Government to hear directly from communities.

Additionally, we have heard that, in cases where applications are objected to by the planning authorities, an appointed reporter can decide to hear representations from any persons, as appropriate. Although the petitioner, Aileen Jackson, agrees that reporters may be trying their best to level the playing field, she remains concerned that third parties will continue needing more support in order to be on equal terms with developers.

A written submission in support of the petition sent by our colleague Finlay Carson is included in members’ papers.

Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?

Are we content to proceed on that basis?

Members indicated agreement.

As I said, that brings us to the end of the selection of petitions that were borne forward on the themed evidence session that we had with the cabinet secretary.

PE1859, in the name of Barry Blyther, on retaining falconers’ rights to practise upland falconry in Scotland, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to amend the Animals and Wildlife (Penalties, Protections and Powers) (Scotland) Act 2020 to allow mountain hares to be hunted for the purposes of falconry.

10:15

We last considered the petition on 19 March 2025, when we agreed to write to the Minister for Agriculture and Connectivity, the petitioner and the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee. The committee very much hoped to have a chamber debate on the issue. Colleagues will, of course, remember that Mr Blyther was a regular attender of the committee. Stanley the golden eagle also visited the Parliament. He was unable to fly, under the restrictions in the 2020 act. However—and this is a matter of considerable satisfaction for the committee—since we last considered the petition, the Parliament voted to pass the Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill on 29 January 2026, and there was agreement to Willie Rennie’s amendment 165, which allows licences to be issued to take mountain hares for the purposes of falconry.

We have received a very generous letter from Mr Blyther, which the members of the committee will have before them, in which he commends the committee and thanks it for all its work. In turn, we commend Mr Blyther for the persistence with which he has brought attention to the issue. We are delighted that the work of the committee and the petitioner has led to a legislative change that addresses the issue that was at the heart of the petition.

So we are minded to close the petition on the basis that the Government said that it would not commission an independent review. However, after the Government’s evaluation is published, there could be the opportunity for a completely fresh petition to take the position forward. I urge the petitioner to consider that in the next session, and I hope that Meghan Gallacher will be able to discuss that route forward with the petitioner, too.

With that valedictory, are members content to close the petition?

Members indicated agreement.

Accountability of organisations such as SEPA and NatureScot has been a recurrent theme during the Parliament’s consideration of a number of petitions. There is no option but to close this petition at the moment, notwithstanding the efforts of Mr Shaw, because supposedly there is something in place. However, whether that proves to address the issue may well be the subject of fresh discussion in the next session of Parliament. I am pretty sure that there will be an opportunity with a fresh petition—I should say with a “new” petition, given that we are talking about freshwater—to explore the issues further in that next parliamentary session. We thank the petitioner very much, but that is the position that we are in at this stage in the session.

Do colleagues agree to support Mr Golden’s proposal to close the petition?

Members indicated agreement.