Chamber and committees

There is limited scope for the committee to progress the petition, so I agree.

Do members agree on those actions?

Members indicated agreement.

Our final petition today is PE2238, which was lodged on 29 July by Lynne Steel. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to automatically remove the parental rights of individuals who are convicted of child sexual or domestic abuse offences. The petition states that such rights should only be reconsidered by application.

In its response, the Government states that it has a number of concerns around how practical the petition’s specific asks would be to achieve. However, the response also states that the Government is commencing a review of the current legal position in Scotland in relation to automatic restriction or suspension of a person’s parental rights and responsibilities when they are convicted of certain serious offences.

In her response, the petitioner states that she welcomes the Government’s commitment to a review of the current legal position in Scotland but believes that the committee should press for meaningful legislative change.

Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?

Our next petition is PE2233, lodged on 21 July by Katherine Jones on behalf of Action to Protect Rural Scotland, which calls for the introduction of a moratorium to prohibit planning permission from being granted for any hyperscale data centres until the Scottish Government has carried out a thorough assessment of their impacts on Scotland’s communities, greenhouse gas emissions, land and water resources and electricity grid; regulations are modified to require all hyperscale artificial intelligence data centres to carry out an environmental impact assessment; and the Scottish Government puts in place guidance on hyperscale AI data centres and green data centres.

There has been a significant amount of public and parliamentary interest in this issue in the early months of this parliamentary session, with a number of questions and motions having been lodged on the subject and a debate having been held in Opposition time. The Scottish Parliament information centre briefing highlights the recent direction that was issued by the Scottish Government, which requires any planning application for a data centre with a power capacity in excess of 50MW to be accompanied by an environmental impact assessment. The briefing is also clear that the Scottish Government could introduce what is effectively a moratorium by adopting a “no support” policy, as it has done for new coal mines and oil and gas developments that employ fracking. The briefing goes on to explain how that principle works in practice.

In its submission, which was provided before the direction that was issued on 16 September, the Scottish Government suggests that it is not clear whether a moratorium would be lawful, noting that the Government cannot prevent applications from being submitted and that each application is considered on its merits. It further notes that planning authorities already have a responsibility to consider environmental impacts. The Government argues that there is a large opportunity to be had with attracting large-scale investment into Scotland through data centres and that

“there is a unique opportunity to design a system with controls and guidance that gets it ‘right’ from the start.”

In their submission, the petitioners indicate that they are content that points 3 and 4 of the petition have been addressed. They consider that point 3 was addressed by the Government’s direction issued on 16 September, while point 4 was addressed through the motion that was lodged by Patrick Harvie and agreed to, as amended, by the Parliament on the same date.

However, the petitioners feel that the ask for a moratorium, as set out in point 1 of the petition, and the ask for that moratorium to remain in place until a thorough assessment of the impact of data centres has been carried out, as set out in point 2, have only been partially addressed. The petitioners point to the SPICe briefing and advice that they have received from Environmental Rights Centre for Scotland that is clear that the Scottish Government could lawfully introduce a moratorium, which would address point 1 of the petition.

They also explain that they have not yet had clarity from the Scottish Government on how it will deliver part 2 of the petition, which is the call for a thorough assessment of the impact of data centres on Scotland’s communities, greenhouse gas emissions, land and water resources and electricity grid. The petitioners point to work that is being progressed by the Climate Action Committee and by the Economy, Tourism and Energy Committee. They consider, though, that

“at its heart this is a planning question”

and ask us to consider referring the petition to our colleagues on the Social Justice, Housing and Local Government Committee.

Do members have a view on where we should go next?

Okay. We have heard that that committee will consider its work programme after recess, so we will wait to see what it has to say on that. We might also consider the matter as a candidate for a committee debate, if appropriate.

The key point is whether we can evaluate that.

That is an important point, and it might be something to highlight in the correspondence with the Royal College of General Practitioners as a first step. I meet the GPs group in Glasgow regularly, and I know that they frequently highlight time pressure on continuing professional development opportunities as a major issue. It is certainly worth factoring that in and asking how we can get the balance right, and what can subsequently be done with health boards and GP contracts.

I think that those actions are worth noting, and I thank the petitioner for raising these issues.

Yes, I think that that is a good step.

Perhaps we should write to the Scottish Government in the first instance, or are we looking to institutions? I want to us be clear about who we should write to. I am open to a broad range of correspondence to clarify what is happening. It seems to be quite a complex issue.

Our next petition is PE2222, which was lodged by Sviatoslav Rozhenko and published on 24 June. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to use its powers under the Social Security (Scotland) Act 2018 to introduce an automatic Scottish top-up payment that fully mitigates the UK Government’s reduction of the universal credit limited capability for work and work-related activity—LCWRA—element for new claimants in Scotland from 6 April 2026.

The Scottish Parliament information centre briefing sets out the background to LCWRA and the changes that were introduced by the Universal Credit Act 2025. It sets out the rates for 2026-27. Prior to April 2026, the rate was £429.80 per month. For claims made on or after April this year, it is £217.26 per month, which has been frozen until 2029-30. The briefing suggests that, by the end of the decade, 84,000 people in Scotland would be receiving the lower rate. It estimates that mitigating the difference between the two rates would cost around £245 million in 2029-30. In comparison, it notes that a Scottish Government response to a recent parliamentary question indicated that it had spent £115 million this year on discretionary housing payments to mitigate the effects of the bedroom tax and the benefits cap.

The Scottish Government acknowledges that the petition’s proposals are legally possible but argues that they are not practical or readily affordable, citing the significant cost implications of developing and administering a new payment, with implementation likely to take several years. The Scottish Government states that it has committed around £1.5 billion to mitigate the impacts of the UK Government’s social security policies in the past 15 years and that it has prioritised supporting disabled people through successive budgets. It also notes that recent estimates suggest that spending on adult disability payments will exceed block grant adjustment funding by around £200 million.

The petitioner has provided a robust response. He argues that the Scottish Government’s refusal to act is purely a political decision to allow a £2,550 annual income cut to fall directly on newly disabled people. He believes that referring to potential future Department for Work and Pensions reforms in 2029-30 does not address how newly disabled people will be impacted between now and then. The petitioner considers that the Government’s reference to ADP is a diversion that is irrelevant to the asks of his petition. He further argues that the Scottish Government’s position that the proposals are not readily affordable do not withstand financial scrutiny and that there are double standards in policy mitigations. He believes that the petition should remain open and requests that his asks are fully implemented. Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?

Please do. [Laughter.]