Seòmar agus comataidhean

That brings us to agenda item 3, which is consideration of new petitions. For those who are joining us online this morning, perhaps to hear their petition being considered, I say that, ahead of our consideration of a new petition, we always invite the Scottish Government and the Parliament’s independent research body, the Scottish Parliament information centre—SPICe—to give the committee an initial view on the petition. We do that because, before that was our standard practice, it would be the first thing that we decided to do on considering a petition, which simply added a degree of delay.

The first of our new petitions is PE2092, which seeks to change the law to prevent children between the ages of five and 17 from drinking alcohol in their home or in other private premises. The petition has been lodged by Jamie-Lee Dougal, and it calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to do exactly what I have just said. The petitioner notes that many adults in Scotland abuse alcohol and suggests that allowing children and young people to consume alcohol in the home or in private premises does not help to tackle those issues.

The SPICe briefing provides detail of existing legislation restricting the sale and supply of alcohol to persons under 18. Although there are no specific offences relating to allowing consumption of alcohol in the home by a child, an adult could be prosecuted, depending on the circumstances, on the grounds of child cruelty, under section 12 of the Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act 1937.

In its response to the petition, the Scottish Government states that an alcohol-free childhood is the healthiest and best option and points to a downward trend in the number of young people who consume alcohol. It also notes that, where a child has misused alcohol, that could be grounds for a referral to the children’s hearings system. Given the wide range of law, duties on public bodies and national guidance in place to protect children from harm, the Government does not intend to take forward the specific ask in the petition, but it has stated that the issue will be kept under review to assess whether further legislative measures might be required in the future.

Do members have any comments or suggestions for action???

PE1966 is on formally recognising and incorporating local knowledge in Scottish Government policy. We last considered the petition, which was lodged by the Scottish Gamekeepers Association, on 20 September 2023.

The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to formally recognise local knowledge and ensure that it is given full consideration, alongside scientific knowledge, throughout consultation, decision-making processes and policy development, specifically within the conservation arena.

When we last considered the petition, we agreed to write to the Scottish Government and NatureScot. The Scottish Government’s response to the committee states that

“There are no plans to revise the Scottish Government best practice handbook on consultations”

and that it does not take a one-size-fits-all approach to consultations.

NatureScot recognises that local knowledge is vital, and it seeks to incorporate local knowledge in its work and decision making in a number of ways, details of which are provided in the papers for the meeting. The submission also states that NatureScot employs staff

“from a variety of areas and backgrounds who bring local knowledge to their roles.”

That is what it says, anyway.

Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?

It is a serious issue, but I have to say that a lot of systematic synthetic phonics appeared in our words there.

There appears to have been a degree of action, although the petitioner is not altogether sure about it all. Are colleagues prepared to act? I wonder whether we might close the petition and write to the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills to let her know that we have done so, while drawing her attention to the fact that the petitioner feels that some of the work on the matter is a little vague. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

Are colleagues content with that? I very much doubt that much can happen during this session of Parliament, even if work is being taken forward, because we have only 18 months of the session left to run. Nonetheless, the Government’s view is that it is still undertaking that work.

Are members content to close the petition?

Members indicated agreement.

Are colleagues content to proceed on that basis?

Members indicated agreement.

Good morning and welcome to the 12th meeting in 2024 of the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee. First, we have our customary item inviting colleagues to agree to take an agenda item in private. Are members content to do that for agenda item 4, under which we will consider our approach to the draft report of our inquiry into the A9 dualling project?

Members indicated agreement.

PE1885, which was lodged by Karen Murphy, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to make the offering of community shared ownership a mandatory requirement of all planning proposals for wind farm developments. We last considered the petition on 25 October, when we agreed to clarify what power the Scottish Government might have in relation to mandating CSO through the devolved power under the Electricity Act 1989.

The then Minister for Energy and Environment confirmed that, in the Scottish Government’s view, any legislation relating to how consents for electricity generation stations are granted would relate to a reserved matter, which puts the issue beyond the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament. Her submission highlights the onshore wind sector deal, which is described as

“a collaborative commitment to develop practical approaches to support and encourage CSO models”

aiming

“to assist developers, funders, local government and communities to engage in these opportunities”.

A framework is due for publication by the end of this year.

In response to the minister, the petitioner’s submission reiterates her view that industry will ignore the Scottish Government’s plans unless CSO is made mandatory. She reiterates her main call, which is for CSO to be made mandatory through use of devolved land and tax powers.

The committee also asked for an update on the work that is being undertaken by the Scottish Government, the Scottish National Investment Bank, Local Energy Scotland, communities and developers. The SNIB’s response outlines that

“work includes assessing the scale and level of interest at a community level, developer considerations, how to best cater for community engagement on complex financial transactions, and the current appetite within the private sector to fund shared ownership models.”

There are quite a lot of responses and material to consider. Do colleagues have any suggestions for action?

PE1986 is on providing testing kits for drugs in public spaces. It was lodged by Andy Paterson on behalf of the help not harm campaign. It was last considered on 23 October.

The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to provide free testing kits for drugs in public spaces, such as local pharmacies, libraries and university buildings. The Scottish Government’s response to our correspondence reiterates that self-testing drug-checking kits do not offer the same in-depth analysis and harm-reduction advice that is offered by drug-checking facilities.

The submission also details the progress that is now being made towards piloting drug-checking facilities in Aberdeen, Dundee and Glasgow. The Scottish Government received more information from the Home Office about controlled drug licence applications for each area and anticipated that applications would soon be made. Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?

In the light of the Scottish Government’s responses, and Mr Golden’s recommendation, which summarised them, are we content to close the petition?

Members indicated agreement.

We thank the petitioner for lodging the petition and hope very much that the progress that the Scottish Government has identified is realised in the months ahead.

Following the various discussions that we have had, we are persuaded by the important considerations that underlie the petition. Notwithstanding the evidence that we have heard from ministers, the committee will make a unanimous, clear and direct recommendation that the Government act in accordance with our recommendations.