Chamber and committees

I agree that planning takes too long at times and is not helpful in an investment environment.

Would it be fair to sum up the Scottish Government’s role in this space as being, broadly, to set the narrative—an expansion in renewables, Scotland being number one in the world for tackling climate change and so on—and to determine planning decisions, particularly those above 50MW? Would that be the Scottish Government’s role?

I welcome the cabinet secretary to the meeting.

There is probably a gap in people’s knowledge in relation to which actors are present in the process for energy infrastructure, whether it be for transmission infrastructure or more local energy infrastructure, so it might be helpful if that could be set out in public.

NESO, the National Energy System Operator, operates the system overall. Transmission owners own the infrastructure, and they are instructed by the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets, as the regulator that operates under UK Government licence conditions, to build said infrastructure, which they must justify on the basis of those licence conditions.

09:45

Then there are the DNOs—the distribution network operators—which are perhaps more local. It is as if the transmission owners are the trunk roads and the DNOs are the B roads. Then there is retail, which is what most consumers see. All those actors do things differently.

About two years ago, every party was supportive of both an expansion in said renewables, particularly offshore, and public consultation, as was ingrained in the 1998 Aarhus convention. Today, however, there is a conflict between the environmental principles of public participation and the energy infrastructure.

Given that I have outlined everyone else’s role, it might be helpful if you could outline the Scottish Government’s role in that process, cabinet secretary.

Onshore wind, battery and solar are far more localised. Some of that might be dealt with by the Scottish Government and some of it might be deal with at a council level, and community engagement around that varies.

NESO takes a UK-wide view of requirements and has made positive movements in that direction more recently. What are your thoughts on the Scottish Government’s role? You mentioned the cumulative impact. How is the Government tracking those developments at a council level and marrying that information up with what may be coming to the ECU? What is the view on land use, and on the loss of land for food production, in particular, which might be prime agricultural land?

There is sometimes a circle to be squared, particularly in this area but probably in all aspects of planning. We need to recognise that, whether for energy infrastructure or particular energy projects, there might be a community that says no. Community engagement is still important, but, ultimately, it is a difficult circle to square.

Community benefit has been talked about a lot. Whitelee wind farm in the convener’s constituency is—or, at least, was—the biggest onshore wind farm in Europe. Much of the community benefit from that might go to Eaglesham and Waterfoot. However, if you are in Castlemilk, from which the wind farm can be seen, you will perhaps not get the community benefit, because you are outwith the area. The residents of Castlemilk, which is a deprived community, require and would benefit from investment. They are paying for the infrastructure, whether that is through transmission levies or green levies, but they are not receiving the benefit. Similarly, there are not many wind farms in Dundee. Therefore, there will not be much community benefit in Dundee—or in most urban areas.

This is not about the local community that is closest to the infrastructure losing out, but is there a way to spread out the benefit, particularly to individuals who might require it more and are paying for the infrastructure in some way, shape or form?

My comments are very similar to those of Mr Torrance on the previous petition: we are at the stage where we have explored the issue as much as we can. I urge the petitioner to bring it back in the new parliamentary session, if she so wishes.

Yes.

Microchipping needs to be a wider holistic approach. It is not just about initially microchipping a cat; it is about ensuring that details are kept up to date and indeed that there is a single database that vets or other individuals can check, which we currently do not have. Given that the Scottish Government is considering recommendations, as the convener highlighted, I would hope that those are dealt with in the round and, ultimately, therefore, I believe that the committee should close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders.

I think that the committee should close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders on the basis that current BID legislation contains a dual-key mechanism to help protect against large firms forcing through a BID proposal against the wishes of small firms or vice versa. The Scottish Government’s position is that the regulatory role in relation to BIDs should be for local authorities and not Scottish ministers. The Scottish Government has no plans to review or amend existing BID legislation during this parliamentary session, due to cost, resource and time constraints.

I agree with Mr Torrance, but I think that it is worth putting on the record first that the aim of the petition is to reduce gull numbers in residential areas and that to conflate that with a wider piece around declining gull populations would perhaps be wrong. People out there see what many of us see, which is a massive increase in aggressive gull populations, particularly over the summer, when you might be dining outside, and they are all set to attack. I am astonished that a pilot is required to assist with the issue. Nonetheless, I encourage the petitioner, if they are so minded, to reintroduce the petition, with a specific focus, in the new session, because I feel that the response from the Scottish Government is utterly inadequate.

Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?