Chamber and committees

The committee has no option but to close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders, primarily on the basis that, first, the Scottish safety camera programme allows local communities to request a flexible or short-term deployment of a safety camera at areas of road safety concern; secondly, a site prioritisation process is undertaken each year to determine new safety camera sites across the road network; and finally, enforcement of speed limits is an operational matter for the police. I would urge the petitioner to pursue those routes in the first instance.

With regard to making it a mandatory legal requirement to have speed cameras in front of all schools next to major roads, I am thinking off the top of my head about where that might be applied. Most of the schools that I can think of already have traffic lights, and the danger to pupils, staff and those who pick up usually comes from some form of pavement parking or otherwise. If I think of Kirkhill primary, Mearns Castle high school and Williamwood high school, I would say that it is on the surrounding roads—Broom Road East and Waterfoot Road—where the speeds might be up. However, that would not necessarily be happening close to the schools. I suggest that, if another petition was considered that looked beyond the mechanisms that have been outlined here, it might have more applicability if it focused on specific schools that require such mediation with regard to speeding.

First, I would like to say that the goats are very cute, and I find it bizarre that we are protecting seagulls, which attack humans, and not these lovely, cute goats.

Unfortunately, I believe that the committee has no choice but to close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders on the basis that, as the convener has highlighted, amendments relating to the petition were lodged at stage 2 of the Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill and, ultimately, the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee decided that these precious little animals required no additional protection. That, along with the Scottish Government’s view that it has no plans to provide full legal protected status for feral goats, means that we have no other choice, unfortunately, but to close the petition.

I agree with all the comments that have been made. By way of advice to the petitioner on lodging a new petition, I say that, like colleagues, I have experienced broadly the same complaints from constituents, but I gently point out that remote diagnosing, for example, can be extremely beneficial in rural communities. Indeed, pioneering work is going on at the University of Dundee that will allow remote surgeries where the technology is apparent. That is wonderful for rural communities.

There is a lot in the petition and if the petitioner is considering lodging a new one, perhaps there should be some consideration of what asks are reasonable and could be pursued by the new committee in the next session.

The Official Report is a written record of what was said in public meetings of the Scottish Parliament and in committee meetings. It is a substantially verbatim report. This means that repetitions and redundancies are omitted and obvious mistakes are corrected. Official Report staff exercise editorial judgment to convey the spoken word in written text while maintaining the flavour of the speech.

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.

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.

Speaking of rogues, I think that Fergus Ewing might be next.

The risk of black and brown starts being required is far higher than it ever has been, and we require the transmission to do that.

It would be remiss of me to move off energy infrastructure without recognising the plight of the communities. The UK and Scottish Governments have set up a system in which a high amount of energy is generated far away from demand. That means that there is a requirement to transport said electricity a long way to demand. That is not the communities’ fault. By the time that they heard about those requirements, it was a bit too late. To be frank, both Governments failed in that community engagement, as did the other actors, which would have been National Grid, Ofgem and others, until it was far too late.

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?