Seòmar agus comataidhean

The final new petition is PE1885, lodged by Karen Murphy, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to make community shared ownership a mandatory requirement to be offered as part of all planning proposals for wind farm development.

In its response to the petition, the Scottish Government states:

“electricity generation is a reserved matter under the Scotland Act 1998. As such the Scottish Parliament does not have the legal competence to change the law for a purpose relating to the regulation of the control of electricity generation”,

as requested in the petition. In the absence of powers to change the law, the Scottish Government has developed best practice documents to encourage community shared ownership for onshore renewable energy developments.

The petitioner’s submission argues that without a mandate to offer community shared ownership, the Scottish Government will not meet its new target of 2GW of community and locally owned renewable energy by 2030. The petitioner suggests using existing land and buildings transaction tax powers to raise a form of tax that requires all developers who do not own the land to offer 15 per cent community shared ownership to locally impacted communities.

Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?

Do members agree to keep the petition open and make inquiries along the lines suggested by Paul Sweeney and supported by Bill Kidd?

Members indicated agreement.

Thank you, minister. I also thank David Bishop for his contribution and Terry O’Kelly for his audio participation.

I would like to reflect on what we have heard. I suggest that we take time to read the Official Report of this discussion and return to the petition at a subsequent meeting. Do members agree with that suggestion?

Members indicated agreement.

We will suspend briefly to bring in the next panel.

Perhaps, as I have come to the matter as a consequence of the petition and have followed some of the work that has gone on in the Parliament, I can ask a question that will help me understand the broader issue. Do we know how many people are diagnosed as autistic in Scotland? If so, do we know whether there are any regional variations? You have mentioned the disparity of approach between local authorities, but does that influence our understanding of the number of people diagnosed with autism or is that not a by-product of the variable approach? Do we have a fairly clear idea about this?

Thank you very much. At this point, I should tell the committee that we will be taking evidence from ministers at about 11.30.

David, you have already suggested that we write to Police Scotland, the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, the Equality and Human Rights Commission and the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service. We agree to do that. On the back of my comment, you have suggested that we also write to the Scottish Government to ask for validation of the actual prosecutions that have taken place in such circumstances. I presume that, when the Scottish Government talks about the use of prosthetics, such a crime could be committed by a male or a female. I would like to understand the reality of the analysis, rather than just the theoretical and technical aspects of the issue.

May I interrupt? Terry O’Kelly has now joined us on audio. Given that you have just addressed that point, perhaps he will elaborate on it.

I have two brief supplementary questions, after which I will go back to the minister and then to other colleagues.

First, what is the timeline for introducing the pathway for recording information? Secondly, you referred to the transformational advance that you felt was made by the introduction of mesh. Do the skills still exist for a non-mesh surgical option to be offered?

If Hugh McAloon and Jacqueline Campbell want to come in at any point, they should try to catch my eye through the perspex screen between us. I can just about see you, despite the reflections.