Chamber and committees

Are committee members content to accept that proposal?

Members indicated agreement.

Yes—that is probably absolutely correct. We are reluctantly having to move in this direction, but having brought the work together through the health boards, I think that it would be useful to make the Scottish Government and the minister aware of that fact.

PE2095 seeks to improve the public consultation processes for energy infrastructure projects. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to review and seek to update section 3.2 of the energy consents unit’s “Good Practice Guidance for Applications under Section 36 and 37 of the Electricity Act 1989” document to address the concerns of communities about the lack of meaningful, responsible and robust voluntary and pre-application consultation by transmission operators on energy infrastructure projects, and to explore all available levers to strengthen community liaison and public participation for the lifecycle of energy infrastructure projects.

We last considered the petition on 11 September 2024, when we agreed to write to the Acting Minister for Climate Action, the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets and the National Energy System Operator.

I should have said that the petition was lodged by Margaret Smith, who I understand is with us in the public gallery.

In its response, Ofgem underlines that planning consultation does not lie within its remit. Development of the options, scope, design, planning and delivery of projects are the responsibility of the relevant transmission owner, NESO and other relevant authorities, prior to Ofgem’s final decision on cost efficiency. However, Ofgem’s expectation is for transmission owners to engage effectively with local communities, and it states that stakeholders who are interested in infrastructure projects are welcome to submit responses to any relevant Ofgem consultations on efficient funding for transmission projects.

The response from NESO indicates that it balances any proposed new network infrastructure against four high-level objectives, one of which is the impact on communities. While NESO puts forward a recommendation, it is the responsibility of the transmission operator, at the next stage of project development, to decide on potential route corridors and types of infrastructure to use. NESO’s expectation is that operators will consult with local communities and planning authorities on the proposals.

The response from the Acting Minister for Climate Action highlights that a joint review that was undertaken by the UK and Scottish Governments has concluded, with a consultation expected to launch. He states that proposals include a statutory pre-application community and stakeholder engagement process, which would apply to all transmission infrastructure projects. That consultation was launched, and has closed, since the minister’s response was sent in October last year, so it is now historical.

The minister also refers to some additional Scottish Government work on developing guidance for pre-application engagement with communities. The minister says that the Government aims to engage with communities on their views before the guidance is finalised. At the time of the minister’s response, which was whenever, that work had just started.

We are joined by two of our parliamentary colleagues: Tess White, who is a veteran of the committee in the early months of this parliamentary session, and Douglas Lumsden. I know that you would both like to say a few words to the committee, which would be gratefully received, although it is not a speech to the chamber. Have you tossed a coin as to which of the two of you feels that they would like to speak first?

You have nominated yourself, Ms White.

You can put that in the form of a statement rather than a question, because our colleagues are not here to act as witnesses.

No, no—it is okay. I am sure that you are, but that would lead us down the route of goodness-knows-what precedent; I would have every MSP turning up at the committee.

PE2103, which was lodged by Dr Julie Badcock, was last considered on 9 October 2024, when we agreed to write to the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills. The response highlights the decision to freeze learning hours across Scotland and the agreement of Falkirk Council to withdraw its proposal to reduce learning hours in the area for the financial year 2025-26. The response states that the Scottish ministers will work with local Government on proposals to establish a statutory minimum number of learning hours and to understand the definition of a learning hour and the impact of that ambition on councils that currently provide a lower number of learning hours.

Do members have any suggestions for how to act?

I very much agree, and the element of parental choice is important, but, as you say, the point that has been raised in relation to sport is also interesting and not one that had been thought of in this context. The minister says that the Government is open to revisiting the issue in the future, if evidence of significant harm to pupils were to emerge. However, the question is who is going to collate any such evidence on which a decision might be based. I am happy that, in closing the petition, we write to the Government to say that, although we have closed the petition, we note the fact that the Government thinks that it might be worth revisiting the matter in the event that evidence were to emerge and to ask and encourage it to consider how such evidence might be gathered.

Or have not been undertaken.

Good morning and welcome to the 10th meeting in 2025 of the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee.?

Item one is the dry decision whether to take in private item 4, which relates to consideration of the evidence heard during item 2. Are members content so to do?

Members indicated agreement.

Our first continued petition is PE2105, which was lodged by Lydia Franklin on behalf of Save Britain’s Heritage and calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to set a minimum evidence requirement to prevent the unnecessary use of emergency public safety powers to demolish listed buildings.

We last considered the petition at our meeting on 9 October 2024, when we agreed to invite relevant stakeholders to give evidence at a future meeting. I am delighted that the committee will now hear evidence from Hazel Johnson, the director of the Built Environment Forum Scotland, Professor Gordon Masterton, chair of the Institution of Civil Engineers panel for historical engineering works, and Laura Shanks, chair of Local Authority Building Standards Scotland. A warm welcome to you all.

We hope to be joined online by our former committee member and parliamentary colleague, Paul Sweeney MSP, who has taken a particular interest in the proceedings. However, I do not think that we quite have him online as yet.

Professor Masterton would like to say a few words. Feel free, and then we will move to questions, if we may.