Seòmar agus comataidhean

Thank you, Mr Ewing. In the light of that, are colleagues content to support Mr Torrance’s proposal?

Members indicated agreement.

I am afraid that the clincher is that the Scottish Government is not prepared to move on it. That is the point.

That would be an interesting area for a future committee, if it were to receive such a petition, to take evidence on and explore in some detail.

We would commend that option to the petitioner in closing the petition, if that is what colleagues are minded to support, given where we are in this parliamentary session. Do members agree to close the petition?

Members indicated agreement.

PE2210, which was lodged by Nora Fry, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to improve access to local healthcare in rural communities by ensuring that general practitioner practices resume inclusive emergency care pathways at all hours; ensure on-call doctors are available in GP practices and emergency clinics, including after hours; remove telephone triaging, telephone appointments and remote diagnosing; and prohibit GP receptionists from requesting private health information or redirecting patients to other disciplines.

The Scottish Parliament information centre briefing explains that, since the 2018 GP contract, GPs have been expected to become less involved in more routine tasks, with those tasks being delivered by other health professionals in the wider primary care multidisciplinary team. The 2018 contract also highlighted opportunities to develop the skills of practice receptionists to support patients with information on a range of primary care multidisciplinary team services that are available.

The Scottish Government’s response to the petition states that modern general practice is based on services provided by a range of disciplines, which means that GP receptionists need to be able to signpost patients to the right clinician, which in turn means asking patients for some information. It further states that the obligation to provide out-of-hours services was removed from the GP contract in 2004 for most GP practices. The submission states that the Scottish Government does not believe that the profession would support any revision to its contracts for a proportionate cost and that any such revision would endanger progress towards recruiting more GPs. The response states that the Scottish Government is not taking action to return out-of-hours services to general practitioner delivery, nor to make all GP appointments in person.

The petitioner has provided a written submission, in which she states that GP receptionists are not qualified to triage or determine whether a patient’s circumstance is urgent. She points out that there may be situations where a patient holds back on vital information because that person only wishes the doctor to know. On the issue of access to emergency care, the submission highlights an example in which a patient tried to access care at a local hospital but was advised by the nurse in charge that it did not deal with emergency cases. The receptionist at the individual’s local practice then advised her to call an ambulance. The petitioner expresses her view that people in rural areas are greatly disadvantaged in healthcare settings. She states that, as people age, they will experience health issues and should have access to on-call duty doctors to help when an emergency occurs.

Do colleagues have any suggestions as to how we might proceed?

PE2157, which was lodged by Ben Morse on behalf of Cockenzie and Port Seton Community Council, calls on the Scottish Government to update the advice for planning authorities on the consideration of energy storage applications and to ensure that clear guidance is included in it on the locating of battery energy storage systems—BESS—by setting out a minimum baseline level of practice for location and proximity in relation to residential properties, public buildings and community amenities. We last considered the petition on 10 September 2025.

Members may recall that the Scottish Government had commissioned guidance to support planning authorities in considering BESS applications. The written response that we received from the Minister for Public Finance notes the expectation that that guidance will be published “this winter”—so the Government had better get a move on. More recent correspondence from the Cabinet Secretary for Climate Action and Energy states that that work “is well underway”—a popular euphemism. The cabinet secretary further highlights that the Scottish Government will publish a call for evidence on BESS later in 2026, in order to help inform a future policy statement on the technology. She adds that, so far, the role of BESS in Scotland’s energy system has been quite small, with only 0.5GW currently operational.

The petitioner argues in an additional submission that Scotland is over capacity for BESS, and he believes that that

“demonstrates a fundamental breakdown in the process and the commercial and grid realities are becoming the only checks and balances”,

instead of a place-based planning approach being followed.

I believe that the petitioner might be with us in the gallery this morning. I declare an interest in that my constituency and the neighbouring constituency have been bedevilled by unwanted applications of this nature in totally unsuitable locations. The absence of a proper planning framework has been a matter of huge local public concern.

All that said, I do not know that there is much more that we can do in this session of Parliament. I definitely hope that the petition will come back for fresh discussion. Even if the work is “well underway”, it is not well enough under way for us to be able to consider its outcome in this session. I very much hope that it will be considered by the next Parliament.

Do colleagues have any comments, suggestions or reactions?

In light of that, there is nothing else that we can do in the time that is left to us.

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?