Seòmar agus comataidhean

Colleagues, we will now consider a number of continuing petitions that arise out of the evidence session that we held at our previous meeting. The first of those is PE1864, to increase the ability of communities to influence planning decisions for onshore wind farms. The petition was lodged by Aileen Jackson on behalf of Scotland Against Spin. It 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, by empowering local authorities to ensure that local communities are given sufficient professional help to engage in the planning process and by appointing an independent advocate to ensure that local participants are not bullied and intimidated during public inquiries.

As I said a moment ago, we last considered this on 15 June, when we also heard from the Minister for Public Finance, Planning and Community Wealth and his officials. At that meeting, we explored the need for the engagement with the UK Government in pursuing changes to the Electricity Act, which might enable decisions on onshore wind farm developments to be taken at a local authority level. We also heard about efforts to encourage earlier engagement with communities in the planning process, with a greater emphasis on collaboration, and about attempts to shift the dial away from conflict between communities and developers.

Since that meeting, we have received a new submission from the petitioner in which she shares reflections on the evidence that we heard. Therefore, do members have any comments or suggestions in relation to the petition?

That brings us to PE1902, which was lodged by Maria Aitken on behalf of the Caithness Health Action Team. This is the petition that Rhoda Grant is joining us for. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to allow an appeal process for community participation requests under the Community Empowerment Act 2015. Despite me scurrying around in my notes, my notes now tell me that, as I said, Rhoda Grant is joining us for this petition.

Colleagues will remember that we previously considered the petition on 20 April 2022, when we had a roundtable discussion. We discovered that the Scottish Community Development Centre has been undertaking work on participation requests, and we agreed to write to it to request more information on that work programme, and specifically on how the working group will report its findings. The response indicates that a number of proposals have emerged, including models for local reviews, appeals and mediation. Its work is on-going, with the potential to deliver additional promotional work surrounding participation requests as well as supporting outcome improvement processes. That will include further community engagement in relation to reviews and appeals.

Rhoda Grant, would you like to contribute to our consideration of the petition at this point?

That seems to be an eminently sensible suggestion. Are there any other suggestions?

We have those recommendations. Are there any more?

Thank you. Do we have any other suggestions from colleagues?

Is that acceptable?

Members indicated agreement.

Fergus, are you nodding your head in agreement? Yes—I think you are. In that case, that is what we will do. We will keep the petition open.

Obviously, you were not involved in the discussion about the change of plea or anything like that.

That brings us to our final petition this morning, which is PE1938. It has been lodged by Carlie Power and calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to introduce mandatory microchipping of cats in Scotland and to assess the effectiveness of current microchip scanning processes. We are joined by the Parliament’s most famous cat owner, Christine Grahame MSP. Welcome.

The Scottish Government has indicated that it is working alongside the other UK Administrations on animal welfare issues, including consideration of the microchipping of cats. It advises that officials are following Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs proposals in the area and will give full consideration to the recent consultation results and any proposed legislation.

The petitioner welcomes the Scottish Government’s response and states that she is satisfied that the current approach will adequately address the issue of mandatory microchipping. She raises the issue of mandatory scanning and highlights that standards have been falling below best practice. The petitioner cites, as a potential reason for falling standards, a lack of understanding of and training in the use of scanning equipment, and she says that no official guidance on the issue is in place for councils.

The SPICe briefing that we have received highlights the UK Government’s consultation, which addressed scanning. Generally, it found broad support for improvements to the process but raised positive and negative impacts that might arise from compulsory microchipping. I think that it is quite likely that the Scottish Government will, having indicated that it is looking closely at the consultation in relation to microchipping and scanning, be inclined to follow whatever final course the UK Government chooses on this issue.

Christine Grahame, is there anything that you would like to say in relation to the petition?

We return to where we began, to an extent, because Mr Stewart is keen to pursue some of the issues that relate to the recommendations and press a little further.