Seòmar agus comataidhean

Good morning, and welcome to the ninth meeting in 2023 of the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee. We have apologies this morning from the committee’s deputy convener, David Torrance.

Our first agenda item is a decision on whether to take items 4 and 5 in private. Do we agree to take those items in private?

Members indicated agreement.

We will work something round that. We will keep the petition open, and we will proceed on that basis. Thank you very much, Mr Whittle.

I understand. In fact, just a couple of weeks ago, I was on a visit to the Jewish archive at Garnethill. When you are up at that height and trying to leave, you are aware that the brutal truncation of a lot of the infrastructure around there, which persists, had a detrimental effect on the heart of that area of the city. At one time, it was quite central to Glasgow, and now it is almost peripheral to it, with the centre having shifted much further in the other direction. The road really brutalised what was a significant part of the city at the time.

This is a fascinating conversation, but I will move on.

Our second item is the consideration of continued petitions. The first of those, PE1864, which was lodged by Aileen Jackson on behalf of Scotland Against Spin, is on increasing the ability of communities to influence planning decisions for onshore wind farms. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to achieve that 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. When we most recently considered the petition, on 18 January, we agreed to write to the Scottish Government setting out recommendations that are based on evidence that we have received over the past two years.

We are joined by Brian Whittle MSP. I will invite him to comment in a couple of moments. In response to our submission to the Scottish Government, the new Minister for Local Government Empowerment and Planning has accepted two of our recommendations and committed to exploring the benefits and disadvantages of altering the 50MW threshold and the scope for planning authorities to determine more applications for onshore wind farm developments. We have received a submission from the petitioner that welcomes that commitment, which is good to hear.

In relation to our recommendation on ensuring demonstration of local support as a key material consideration in the decision-making process, the minister mentions that local opinion and evidence feature strongly in planning assessments, and he highlights the provisions introduced by the Planning (Scotland) Act 2019 that are intended to strengthen the voice of communities in the planning process. Although the petitioner has welcomed the Government’s commitment on thresholds, she remains concerned that there is no definition of what ensuring that communities have “a meaningful say” looks like in practice, drawing parallels with the First Minister’s recent comments on highly protected marine areas and engagement with coastal communities. Before I ask committee colleagues to comment, does Brian Whittle have anything to contribute?

That is an entirely reasonable observation. It is a hostage to fortune in any event, as it is a term that allows everyone to be thoroughly dissatisfied in due course, because they will take the view that their say turned out not to be meaningful.

Okay. Potentially, not only is there no definition of what “a meaningful say” is, it should perhaps be clear whether people are responding in an official way on behalf of their community or more personally.

Sorry, I did not—

We established previously that there were not formally recorded actions. At an earlier stage in the consideration of the petition, we got a commitment from the Government that it would introduce formal recording of the prescribing of medicines. At that stage, we identified that, although it was asserted that those things were happening, there was no way to demonstrate subsequently that that was the case. In a previous response, the Government accepted a recommendation from the committee to change the procedures in order that a new process be put in place at that time.

Thanks again to Roisin Taylor-Young for her additional work, which has allowed us to consider matters this morning. We will move forward on that basis. Are members content with that?

Members indicated agreement.

PE1958 seeks to extend aftercare for previously looked-after young people and remove the continuing care age gap. The petition was lodged by Jasmin-Kasaya Pilling on behalf of Who Cares? Scotland. My eyesight is sometimes a little bit dodgy, but I thought that I spotted her joining us this morning, so I welcome her to the gallery.

The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to extend aftercare provision in Scotland to previously looked-after young people who left care before their 16th birthday, on the basis of individual need; to extend continuing care throughout care-experienced people’s lives, on the basis of individual need; and to ensure that care-experienced people are able to enjoy lifelong rights and achieve equality with non-care-experienced people. That includes ensuring that the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and the findings of the Promise are fully implemented in Scotland.

Colleagues will recall that we last discussed this petition at our meeting on 19 April, when we heard evidence from the petitioner, Jasmin, and from representatives of Who Cares? Scotland, CELCIS, the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland and The Promise Scotland.

Members will also recall that, ahead of our previous consideration, there was an informal discussion with care-experienced individuals and their advocates. A note of that discussion has been published on the committee’s web page for the petition. During those evidence sessions, we heard about the importance of ensuring that individuals are aware of their rights, which seems to be a major concern, and, in particular, the consequences of individuals being removed from supervision orders before their 16th birthday. We also heard about the inconsistent application of existing support, both within local authorities and across the country, and the need to ensure that provisions of the Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2014 are fully implemented.

We have all had time to reflect on the evidence that we heard, and I am pretty certain that, having done so, there is considerable additional work for us to consider. Are there any suggestions from the committee as to what we might do? At some stage down the line, I think that we will want to hear from the Minister for Children, Young People and Keeping the Promise, but I wonder whether there is anything that we might think of doing in advance of that.