Seòmar agus comataidhean

I am very grateful, convener, for the opportunity to come along to speak on the petition. As a South Scotland MSP, I have many wind farm developments in my region, and I very often receive letters from constituents complaining about onshore wind and that particular element of planning. I am grateful that Mr Ewing is here, because he will be able to clarify this: the public perception is that there is a presumption that planning permission will be given and that, even if an application is initially turned down by the local council, it will go in front of the Government and the likelihood is that it will be passed. That is the public perception of what is happening.

In my dealings with wind farm developers, my recommendation is always that they engage more with the local community, but, as it stands, the public are not giving me the feeling that that is what is happening. Many times, it has taken them a while to find out whether a wind farm development is in the offing, and, when they do, it is often too late. Furthermore, they say that engagement from wind farm developers is very poor, although developers would say otherwise.

Given where we are—we need to generate clean energy—I totally understand the need to consider more wind farms, but we have to be more considerate about where they are to be. Last term, I fought against one—it went through anyway—that completely enclosed a town. Everywhere you look now in that town, you see wind farms, which was definitely not what the community wanted. My feeling, which I want to put to the committee, is that engagement is not what it could be. Because of that, the perception—real or otherwise—is that there is a presumption that planning permission will be given for onshore wind and that the public have little influence on that.

I wanted to speak to the petition and give you my constituents’ feelings on the issue. As I said, my postbag is fairly full as a South Scotland MSP. I think that we spoke last week about this, but perhaps one of the things that we should be doing—I am flying a kite here—is giving areas where presumption will be granted that are away from commercial farming and so on. A better-thought-out process at the planning application stage would be advantageous for all. I read through the papers, and it is correct to say that the time between submitting an application and building a wind farm is up to 13 years. That cannot be good for any of the parties who are involved, so we have to find a better way to do it. Public engagement, which the petition asks for, is a positive way forward.

Good morning, Professor Morris and Professor Evans. I am the data geek.

When we look at preparedness and try to understand what that means in practical terms, it is about understanding the threat and our ability to deploy solutions to protect the public. It is also about the ability to gather, assess and deploy data. Initially, that would be international. When we look back at what happened with Covid, it seemed that we watched—almost with morbid fascination—as it moved inexorably across the world towards us, and yet when it got here, we were not ready. We also need to look at data across all our health boards and the ability to tap into that data on the front line, almost in real time.

I am interested in hearing your thoughts on where we are with both of those platforms, if you like. During the years that I have been in Parliament, a recurring theme has been that we do not yet have a healthcare platform that allows us to pick up data from around the country in real time. What are your thoughts on those points?

Working internationally means that we have to share data with other countries. Do you agree that the opportunity here is to create an environment in Scotland where, with only 6 million people, we can be agile with our data platforms?

So, what do we have to do?

We are talking about working across health boards, but there are only 6 million people in Scotland.

The other thing that struck me was that international collaboration and co-operation in a pandemic seems absolutely logical. If we are going to tackle a pandemic in the future, we need international preparedness. We can be as prepared as we like in isolation, but if the rest of the world is struggling, it is inevitable that we will struggle as well. Where are we, globally, on international preparedness?

On the back of that, I am reminded of the scramble for vaccines and how, all of a sudden, international cooperation broke down. We could say that we were the winners in that, but I do not think that anybody is a winner in situations of that kind. Where are we with international collaboration?

Do I have time for one more question?

Thank you, convener, for indulging me. Following on from Alex Rowley, I think that part of preparedness is about the ability of our healthcare system to cope with what comes down the line. If the same thing happened again, I fear for those on the front line if they were asked to step into the breach the way that they were last time. As part of the work that you are doing, will you look at how we look after our healthcare professionals?

Good morning. It is good to see you again, Mr Harris. I was considering our conversation of last week and the implications of what you had to say. I am looking at it practically. Since then, I happened to meet up with constituents of mine—an elderly couple who get their groceries delivered by the supermarket. They already recycle. They have a glass bin, a plastics bin, a general waste bin and a garden waste bin. Those are collected by the council. They will be unable to return the items that will be subject to a 20p charge, which will no longer be collected by the council. Obviously, they will be out of pocket.

Given that, as you said, you will be ramping things up from the start, a significant number of people will be in a similar situation and unable to take part in the deposit return scheme. I recognise your role as an administrator, but is it not the case that the practical realities of the scheme are such that people in that situation—which includes those who, as my colleague Mr Ewing said, are probably among the poorest in society—will have to pay for the scheme, as it ends up? They are the last people in the line.

Thank you, convener. What we are discussing here are the practicalities of the scheme—we are looking at people’s ability to get their deposits back and to recycle product. In that circumstance, neither of those things would have happened.