Official Report 717KB pdf
Youth Violence (PE1947)
Rape Charges (Under-16s) (PE2064)
Agenda item 2 is consideration of continued petitions. We will first consider two youth crime petitions. At our 25 June 2025 meeting, before we went into summer recess, the committee heard evidence from the Rt Hon Dorothy Bain KC, the Lord Advocate, as well as officials from the Scottish Children’s Reporter Administration and the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service. That evidence session was followed by one with the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs, Angela Constance, and officials from the Scottish Government. The meeting covered issues raised during our consideration of two petitions: PE1947, on addressing Scotland’s culture of youth violence, and PE2064, on ensuring that under-16s who are charged with rape are treated as adults within the criminal justice system.
As we recently gathered oral evidence on those petitions together, are members content that we discuss them together?
Members indicated agreement.
PE1947 was lodged by Alex O’Kane. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to address the disturbing culture of youth violence in Scotland. PE2064, which was lodged by Julie Mitchell, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to ensure that under-16s who are charged with rape are treated as adults in the criminal justice system.
As I mentioned, we took evidence on the issues relating to these petitions in June. Since then, we have received a written submission from the Lord Advocate which provides data on cases of sexual and violent offending. The issues in these petitions have been of great concern to the committee. In respect of the petition lodged by Alex O’Kane, members will know—although I am the only member left who was present—that it was the subject of a visit to Glasgow where the committee met those who had been most badly affected, in horrendous ways, by the culture of youth violence.
These are petitions that we have taken a great deal of interest in during the course of this session of Parliament and I think that the issues within them are still relevant and live. However, the time for us to do further work in this session of Parliament is limited in the extreme and I am of the view that we have maybe taken these petitions as far forward in this session as we can.
I would like to suggest that we now summarise all the work that we have done and that, in closing the petitions, we write to the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs with that information. That summary letter would then be published on the committee web pages so that individuals could see the work that we have done. We would say to the petitioners that these issues are still live and may very well sensibly be pursued with fresh petitions at the start of the next session of Parliament. Do colleagues agree with that? Is there anything further that they would like to add by way of testament?
I agree, convener. Both are very serious petitions indeed, and both raise points that are, I am sure, of huge concern to a broader number of people in Scotland. The basic principle is that, if someone commits rape, they are committing an adult offence and should be dealt with in the adult courts, rather than the children’s system, which is seen as the soft option. I am absolutely certain that the petitioners speak for a lot of people.
I just want to make the point that the impression that I gained from the Lord Advocate’s evidence—we pressed the Lord Advocate and her colleagues very strongly on this—was that a new approach is being taken to both involve the victim more in decisions that are taken, and to make more referrals to the adult system, rather than the children’s system. The Lord Advocate did not specifically say that, though—she did not quite, as I would say, spit it oot. However, I very much hope that the Lord Advocate, who, to be fair to her, obviously treats these matters extremely seriously, will get the message that the public expect that a stronger approach should be taken. That was my takeaway, which I wanted to put on the record.
We could summarise our impression that that was the case in the letter that we send to the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs. Are committee members agreed on that?
Members indicated agreement.
National Parks (PE2089)
The next petition is PE2089, lodged by Deborah Carmichael on behalf of Lochaber National Park—NO more group, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to suspend any action to create further national parks in Scotland, instruct an independent review on the operation of the current national parks, including assessment of the economic impacts on businesses and industries within the two parks—including, but not exclusive to, farming, forestry, crofting and angling—and to conduct a consultation with representatives of rural businesses and community councils in order to help to frame the remit of said independent review.
The committee last considered the petition on 22 January 2025, when we wrote to the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs, Land Reform and Islands to highlight the issues that were raised during the committee’s consideration of the petition, including the impact of existing national parks, the consultation process and NatureScot’s role as the reporter. We also wrote to Dumfries and Galloway Council.
The cabinet secretary’s response provides information on the wider impacts of national parks, based on information provided by the two Scottish national park authorities. The submission reiterates the Scottish Government’s position that there are no current plans to conduct an independent review of the two existing national parks in Scotland, which I think is a disappointment to us as committee members. The cabinet secretary states that this is because national parks are accountable to their boards and to the Scottish Government. Delivery is monitored and reviewed at regular meetings between the Scottish Government and national park authority conveners and chief executives. Park authorities are also required to produce annual reports and accounts, which are laid before the Parliament and published.
The response provides details of the public consultation, which was launched in November last year, and highlights the fact that NatureScot has commissioned an independent review of the consultation process—whatever that means. The committee has received a written submission from the No Galloway National Park campaign, which reiterates concern about NatureScot’s role as reporter—indeed—and raises points about the impact of the Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill.
Since those submissions were received, the Scottish Government has announced that it has decided not to pursue a proposal to designate Galloway and Ayrshire as a national park. The recommendation that was made by the reporter was to not proceed with the designation but instead strengthen a range of existing arrangements, including a better resourced and more influential Galloway and Southern Ayrshire Biosphere reserve; a renewed focus on people and nature, alongside commercial forestry operations in the Galloway forest park; and a new commitment to the implementation of management strategies for the three national scenic areas.
Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?
In the light of the evidence before us, I suggest that the committee consider closing the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders, on the basis that the Scottish Government has decided not to pursue a proposal to designate Galloway and Ayrshire as a national park and been clear that it does not plan to commission an independent review of the existing national parks.
I am completely partial, because I know and am friendly with the petitioner Deborah Carmichael, but I wish to say that she and her colleagues have been spectacularly successful in aim 1—to prevent the creation of further national parks, which, frankly, at the moment, Scotland needs like a hole in the head.
The Government’s decision to decline an independent review of national parks is ridiculous. There is no accountability; board members are not allowed to speak out, and, if they do, they are disciplined. The annual report is simply what the park says. The idea that that is in any way an independent review is completely ludicrous and preposterous. There must be an independent review of national parks, because many people in my constituency—I reside in the national park—feel that it is not doing a good job. That is why, when asked, in an opinion poll, the question, “Do you think that the national park is doing a good job?”, 3 per cent said yes and 92 per cent said no, which speaks for itself.
Congratulations to Deborah Carmichael for a very successful petition with a successful outcome of persuading the Government to drop this absurd proposal.
Thank you. That is on the record. I am minded, in closing the petition—if colleagues are content to do that—to say that the committee was unpersuaded by the arguments not to hold a national review and that we believe that the Government’s decision is ill judged and something of a fudge. Are committee members content to add that to the record?
Members indicated agreement.
Gosh, I see that we have guests with us, so I shall rearrange the order of our consideration to facilitate colleagues who have turned out.
Childcare (Review of Costs and Availability) (PE2112)
PE2112, which was lodged by Carole Erskine on behalf of Pregnant Then Screwed, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to commission an independent review of publicly funded early learning and childcare in Scotland, in order to better understand and address the challenges that families face when trying to secure and afford childcare.
We last considered the petition on 30 October 2024, when we agreed to write to the National Day Nurseries Association Scotland; the Scottish Private Nursery Association; the parents group Connect; the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities; and the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills.
The Minister for Children, Young People and The Promise wrote to the committee on 29 November 2024. In her letter, she reiterated that the Scottish Government does not plan to commission an external review at this point in time and that it intends to learn from an evaluation of the 1,140 hours of funded early learning and childcare. That evaluation was due in 2025. The minister also referenced the Government’s early adopter community work, which is taking place in six local authorities and aims to help the Government to understand what it takes to deliver local childcare systems that support families with children.
The submission from the National Day Nurseries Association supports the aim of the petition and expresses concern that the delivery of the 1,140 hours policy, which, in itself, is beneficial, can lead to the closure of nurseries, due to unsustainable funding and workforce pressures. That is echoed by the submission from the Scottish Private Nursery Association, which states that the failure by some local councils to pass the full funding for the 1,140 hours on to childcare providers leads to nurseries increasing their fees in order to cover the shortfall.
The submission from Connect highlights the results of its 2021 survey on experiences of the 1,140 hours entitlement. Among its conclusions is the lack of variety and flexibility in the range and type of childcare provision, which sometimes leads to many funded hours going unused—because the arrangements make no practical sense for families and their needs.
On the other hand, COSLA’s response points us to its publication, “Getting in Early—Local Government’s role in Delivering Early Learning and Childcare”, which highlights increases in the numbers of children accessing funded ELC and in the proportion of children who are accessing the full 1,140 hours entitlement.
Finally, the committee has received written submissions from our colleagues Liam McArthur and Monica Lennon. They both say that the current approach to childcare provision does not work for families and support the petition’s call for an independent review of publicly funded ELC in Scotland.
We are joined by our colleague Meghan Gallacher. I wonder whether she would like to say a few words to the committee before we determine how we might best proceed.
Thank you, convener, and good morning, committee. Before I make my opening remarks, I declare an interest as I sit on the advisory board for Pregnant Then Screwed. It will therefore come as no surprise that I am here to support the petition in the name of Carole Erskine and the fantastic work that Pregnant Then Screwed does to highlight the challenges that many families right across Scotland face with childcare.
The challenges are very evident from the petition that has been submitted and the 2,600 submissions from parents who are struggling to grapple with the current 1,140 hours offering. If I may, I will use my personal experience of applying for childcare for my daughter, who is three. I have just embarked on the application process for the 1,140 hours of childcare, and even filling out the forms is not an easy process.
09:45The process is usually quite lengthy. You have to number the nursery or childcare provision that you wish your child to undertake 1, 2, 3 and so on, and then you are beholden to local government as to whether you obtain one of those nursery slots or are directed to other nursery provision elsewhere. When the latter ends up being the case, parents have to travel considerable distances just to drop their child off at their childcare provision.
We have not even begun to look at the costs associated with the 1,140 hours provision. The hours will cover roughly two full days and another half-day; if you are a full-time working parent, you will have to cough up the costs for another two full days of provision. That shows the significant financial challenges of not only trying to access a nursery close to home, but the additional costs associated with the current funding model that we have in Scotland.
In the Pregnant Then Screwed survey of 2,600 parents whose submissions I have just mentioned, 83.7 per cent of parents said that their childcare costs were the same as or more than their income. Moreover, anyone listening to the radio this morning will have heard a parent explaining that their childcare costs could amount to £1,600 a month. That shows the stark costs of childcare in Scotland.
You have received useful responses from the SPNA and the NDNA about the petition’s request, setting out their concerns about local government, which has overall control of the budgets, and the requirement to provide funded hours. The fact is that nurseries in local authority areas cannot normally accommodate working parents who, for example, have 9-to-5 jobs. They might have to drop their child off at about 8 o’clock in the morning and might not be able to pick them up until 6 o’clock, and not all local authorities are able to provide that offering. As a result, those parents have to rely on the private sector, which is usually the poor man in the relationship with local authorities when it comes to the 1,140 hours provision.
I believe that it is time for an independent review, because we need to fully understand the costs facing parents and what they are having to front up in addition to the 1,140 hours. In other areas of the United Kingdom, the free funded childcare offering has been expanded from nine months to three years old, and I believe that that should be considered, too. We should be putting childcare back at the top of the Government’s agenda.
My request to the committee, therefore, is not to close the petition, but to look at referring it to another committee. I understand that we have roughly 20 weeks left before the end of the parliamentary session, but I would suggest that there are legacy reports. Even if the committee in question could not find time to consider the petition between now and the end of the parliamentary session, the matter could be covered in a legacy report, and it would show that the Parliament is taking seriously the issues that parents across the country are experiencing daily when it comes to providing their children with the best possible start in life.
Thank you, and I hope that we can do a bit more than that. Colleagues, do you have any suggestions for action?
In the light of the evidence that is before us, I wonder whether the committee would consider writing to the Minister for Children, Young People and The Promise, asking when the evaluation report for the 1,140 hours entitlement will be published; what actions the Scottish Government intends to take in the light of the report’s recommendations; what preliminary conclusions the Scottish Government has drawn from the early adopter communities work; and what actions it will take based on that.
If there are no other comments from colleagues, are we content to keep the petition open and to make that further representation to the Scottish Government?
Members indicated agreement.
I thank Meghan Gallacher very much. We will keep the petition open and act on that basis.
Onshore Wind Farms (Planning Decisions) (PE1864)
I will now leap forward on the agenda to PE1864, which was lodged by Aileen Jackson on behalf of Scotland Against Spin. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to increase the ability of communities to influence planning decisions for onshore wind farms by adopting English planning legislation for the determination of onshore wind farm developments, by empowering local authorities to ensure that local communities are given sufficient professional help to engage in the planning process and by appointing an independent advocate to ensure that local participants are not bullied and intimidated during public inquiries.
We last considered this petition on 13 November 2024, when we agreed to write to the Minister for Public Finance. The committee first requested an update on the publication of the guidance, “Effective community engagement in local development planning”, which was published on 20 December last year. The committee then asked for an update on the work to progress proposals for raising the current 50MW threshold, to allow planning authorities to determine more applications for onshore wind farms. The response from the then Acting Minister for Climate Action referenced the consultation, “Investing in planning—resourcing Scotland’s planning system”, but was otherwise vague about further action, stating that the Government continues
“to consider the process and timeline for making any changes to the Electricity Act 1989 threshold”.
Finally, the committee also asked what consideration the Scottish Government gave to ensuring that support was available to members of the public who wished to participate in public inquiries. The minister’s response indicates continued engagement between the planning and environmental appeals division—the DPEA—the petitioner and other stakeholders in relation to their experiences at inquiries. The minister also mentions the planned publication of DPEA guidance in relation to the use of community sessions, which would allow members of the community who might not wish to participate in an inquiry to state their case to a reporter in a less formal environment.?
The committee has also received additional written submissions from the petitioner. Ms Jackson mentions that the “Effective community engagement in local development planning” guidance fails to address the issue of local support becoming a key material consideration in the decision-making process, which has been repeatedly asked for.
The petitioner also states that DPEA has not, in fact, engaged with Scotland Against Spin regarding the concerns raised in relation to support for participation in inquiries. Additionally, she notes that, a year after the publication of the “Investing in planning” consultation, no decision has been made by the Scottish Government on the matter of the 50MW threshold, despite the proposals being supported by the majority of respondents.
As colleagues will know, a joint UK Government and Scottish Government review of electricity infrastructure consenting has concluded. In a submission on a related petition, the Cabinet Secretary for Climate Action and Energy has indicated that reform arising from the consultation is being implemented through the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, which is progressing through the UK Parliament. The cabinet secretary has also committed to publishing guidance for measures to take effect two months after the bill receives royal assent and to consult on any additional measures enabled by Scottish ministers’ new regulation-making powers.
I am aware of the petitioner’s call for a whole-Parliament debate on the matter, which is supported by some of our MSP colleagues. I highlight to members the limited time that we have left until the end of the parliamentary session and the number of other petitions that the committee has already agreed or indicated that it would seek time for a chamber debate on.
We have received submissions in support of the petition from several MSP colleagues, and there was a veritable posse of parliamentarians of my colour, who were very excited at the prospect of coming along to address the committee this morning. I have generously invited two of them to represent that extensive desire to perform today. They are Alexander Burnett and Brian Whittle. I wonder who will shout first—it is at their behest who will sing for their supper first and address the committee before we determine how we might proceed.
In that spirit of excitement, I thank the convener and the committee for the opportunity to speak today.
I speak in support of PE1864, which calls for communities to have a stronger role in planning decisions on onshore wind farms. As the MSP for Aberdeenshire West, I have received more contact on energy infrastructure than on any other issue. Rural communities are powerless when large-scale energy projects are proposed, and areas such as the Cabrach have been devastated by developments that have been imposed on them, despite strong and reasoned objections.
The petition seeks to democratise the planning system by preventing the energy consents unit from overruling local decisions, providing professional support to help communities to make submissions and appointing an independent advocate to ensure that inquiries are fair.
Currently, projects over 50MW bypass local authorities and go to the energy consents unit, which removes much-needed local influence from the decision-making process. That leaves underresourced rural communities with limited support struggling to navigate complex processes against well-resourced renewables companies.
By contrast, in England, developers must align with local plans and secure genuine community backing. In Scotland, engagement is often superficial and even successful local opposition is frequently overturned. Since 2023, despite strong local objections, a number of wind turbines have been approved by the energy consents unit against local community wishes—10 in Caithness, 26 in Aberdeenshire and 97 in Dumfries and Galloway.
The Hill of Fare proposal, which is currently the subject of a public inquiry, at which I spoke on Monday, illustrates the problem. A community survey that was carried out back in 2023 shows that only 11 per cent of residents supported the proposal, and a local group has spent three years preparing a gold-standard case with more than 1,500 objections. All six community councils have resoundingly rejected the proposal, as has Aberdeenshire Council on four separate occasions. At every level of elected representation, the project has been opposed and the community’s anger could not be clearer. Although we remain hopeful, the outcome of the inquiry is still uncertain at this point.
Communities should not feel powerless. They deserve to have a planning system in which they have a statutory voice. I urge the Scottish Government to adopt the proposed reforms and restore balance to the planning process. I ask for the support of the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee in advancing the petition.
Thank you, Mr Burnett. That was commendably concise.
Thank you, convener. I will also try to be commendably concise.
That would be appreciated.
I begin by commending the petitioners and everyone else who has contributed as the petition has progressed. I am a South Scotland MSP, and, like Mr Burnett, my mailbag and surgeries are full of people who are concerned about the level of development that is happening in their communities. Ultimately, the petition is about how we balance the national imperative to reduce our vulnerability to volatile and finite fossil fuel resources against ensuring that communities who will have to live in the shadow of that infrastructure are not overwhelmed by it.
It is clear to me that we do not have that balance right. As the petitioners have highlighted in their submissions, all too often communities feel that they are fighting an uphill battle to be heard during the planning process. The complex and bureaucratic planning process for such infrastructure is not something that any group of individuals can take on easily. The costs are high, both in time and money, and the return on all that investment can end up being little more than an automated acknowledgement of receipt email from a Government department.
Some developers go above and beyond to engage with communities and alter their plans to try to accommodate local concerns, but that is often the exception rather than the rule. In many cases, people challenge development not because of a blanket opposition to it, but because they want to understand how it will affect them and to be confident that their concerns are understood. The current approach to planning is simply not equipped to offer any of that certainty, and there is no question in my mind about the fact that the planning process could and should be improved. The best day to improve it, of course, was yesterday.
I gently urge the committee to consider holding a debate in the chamber on the petition, which would allow members of all parties who are dealing with these issues to stand up for their constituents.
10:00
Thank you, Mr Whittle. I commend Tim Eagle, Rachael Hamilton, Douglas Lumsden and Tess White, who all hoped to be able to address the committee. Tim Eagle has tabled a written submission, as have Russell Findlay, Finlay Carson and Emma Harper. There is a considerable degree of interest from colleagues in the matter. It has been suggested that a debate be held in the chamber on the subject, but I wonder whether members have other suggestions for action.
The evidence that we have heard from other MSPs but, above all, from people throughout Scotland is that communities feel swamped and overwhelmed. Community councils—although they are statutory consultees—feel that they are ignored, that their voice is not heard and that decisions will be taken by the Scottish Government regardless. That was the predominant view at a meeting in the Highlands in the summer, which was attended by 10 elected parliamentarians and 300 people representing 60 of the more than 100 community councils; many that were not represented are moribund—not functioning. I have no hesitation in saying that the minister must come to the committee to give evidence and explain herself.
I add that, until such time as there is in Scotland an energy policy—at the moment, we lack such a policy—to set out what we need when it comes to a properly balanced grid, including an analysis of the baseload and back-up that are required, it is like trying to wrap a Christmas present without having enough paper. You simply cannot function when the wind does not blow or the sun does not shine. Storage is hopelessly inadequate. The interconnector failed and there was nearly a blackout in Britain on 8 January.
The situation is parlous. There is no energy policy in Scotland. The questions of how much wind energy is enough and how much is too much scarcely ever seem to be asked in this place. We therefore need the energy minister to come here and answer a variety of questions, in what I think would be a very long session.
Fergus Ewing has proposed that we invite the Cabinet Secretary for Climate Action and Energy to attend a meeting of the committee. Are colleagues content to support that suggestion?
Members indicated agreement.
We will keep the petition open, seek a meeting with the cabinet secretary and make sure that all members who have expressed an interest in the petition are aware of when that session will take place. At my discretion, one or two may be able to put some questions to the cabinet secretary at that time.
Pump Storage Hydro Schemes (Impact on Salmon) (PE2109)
We will now revert to the original order. PE2109, which has been lodged by Brian Shaw on behalf of the Ness District Salmon Fishery Board, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to impose a moratorium on any further development of pumped storage hydro operations on Scottish lochs that hold wild Atlantic salmon until the impact of such developments on wild Atlantic salmon migrations is understood.
I apologise for the rather long introductory note that I must read out.
We last considered the petition on 27 November 2024, when we agreed to write to the Scottish Government, major developers of pumped storage schemes, including Scottish and Southern Electricity Networks, and the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization centre for water law, policy and science.
In its response, the Scottish Government states that the environmental impact assessment regulations envisage that, for large infrastructure projects, significant environmental effects are more likely to occur, but that the regulations require that ministers must determine the application in the knowledge of what significant effects are likely to occur, taking into consideration any mitigation measures that might form part of the development or be secured by the conditions of any consent. At the conclusion of the EIA process, consideration of any likely significant effects forms part of the planning balance.
In its response, the UNESCO centre for water law, policy and science states:
“While there are some very good reasons to support”
pumped storage hydro,
“there are also grounds to pause and consider alternatives.”
It describes the benefits of PSH, which include grid balancing, reducing the need for carbon emissions, energy security and job creation, but states that
“the proposals ... represent huge interventions in our landscapes and”
rivers, and it considers that
“If any or all of these threaten the dwindling populations of ... Atlantic salmon, the impacts will be cumulative year by year, and could ultimately lead to species losses.”
The centre also states:
“Protected species and habitats will inevitably be adversely impacted by the various PSH proposals under consideration.”
The submission from SSE Renewables provides information about its experience with pumped storage hydro technology through the Foyers power station at Loch Ness. It also highlights research and monitoring that found “no observed impact” on the flow of smolts at Foyers.
In its response, Glen Earrach Energy—I am getting an admonishing look from Mr Ewing in relation to my pronunciation of “Earrach”—shares that it is undertaking relevant work with the petitioners group, the Ness District Salmon Fishery Board; NatureScot; the Scottish Environment Protection Agency; and the Highland Council. That work has included a smolt tracking study to understand smolt behaviour in Loch Ness.
Similarly, in its response, Statkraft highlights work that it is undertaking with the Ness District Salmon Fishery Board on smolt tracking.
I do apologise—this is quite a long introduction. The petitioner has provided a written submission that highlights the findings of the computational fluid dynamics study on Loch Ness, which was set up to examine the cumulative impact of pumped storage on the hydrology and temperature regime. The submission states:
“The effect on Loch Ness is profound with cold water currents crossing the loch, changes to the temperature profile, including at depth, and the formation of a vortex in Dores Bay.”
Edward Mountain MSP has provided a written submission noting his entry in the register of members’ interests, which shows that he owns part of a wild salmon fishery. Well, I have to say that we have never seen the benefit of that here. [Laughter.] I shall have to pursue that separately. He also wishes to put on record the fact that he managed fisheries on the Ness and Loch Ness until 2006.
In his submission, Mr Mountain states that
“Wild Atlantic salmon in Scotland are in serious decline”,
and he believes that
“pump storage at Loch Ness has proven that there are real threats to the environment that have not yet been fully evaluated.”
He suggests that,
“as a precaution”
pumped storage hydro schemes
“should not be allowed unless it can be proved that the overall temperature of the loch and indeed the surface temperature does not increase, or affect migratory fish.”
With apologies for that very long preamble, I wonder whether colleagues have any comments or suggestions as to what we do next.
In the light of the evidence, I wonder whether the committee would consider writing to SEPA and NatureScot to ask what information they hold on the impact of pumped storage hydro on wild Atlantic salmon and how that is considered when they provide comment on planning applications in their role as statutory consultees.
I also wonder whether the committee would consider writing to the Cabinet Secretary for Climate Action and Energy to note the committee’s disappointment with the Scottish Government’s recent response, as it fails to address the committee’s concerns about how the cumulative impact of pumped storage hydro is monitored and assessed, and to ask for further information on that point.
Thank you, Mr Torrance. That was very helpful. Do members have any other comments?
This is not new. Pumped storage schemes have been going for 70 years now, especially in the Highlands, Norway and other such countries, so there must be enough data to show whether they are having a damaging impact on the environment and the affected species. As it is not a new issue, there must be enough information there. I am at odds as to why there does not seem to be, given that, as I said, hydro schemes have been around for 70 years, in various shapes and forms.
Mr Russell makes a fair point—these things are certainly not new. What is perhaps a bit different about the situation facing those with an interest in Loch Ness is the cumulative impact of several proposals. If we were talking about just one or two, that would be one thing, but there are several. The companies that have replied have defended their own proposals, but that is not really what the main concern is—it is the cumulative impact of numerous proposals.
I support Mr Torrance’s recommendation, but I make the additional request that, as well as the impact on wild salmon, the minister also considers the other potential impacts, including on water levels and on users of the loch and the Caledonian canal.
At the weekend, I heard concerns in the constituency that I represent that water levels could be seriously depleted during certain periods of the operation of the intended pumped storage scheme. I do not know whether that is the case, but if that happens, an awful lot of the existing businesses that survive by providing boat trips in Loch Ness, or fishing and leisure craft, will be affected, as will those who use the Caledonian canal. They were there first, so they are entitled to have their interests considered.
I added that because the petitioners have raised a particular concern, but there are other issues, too. I should declare that I know Mr Shaw. I have engaged with him, and I know that he adopts a very forensic approach.
How would we accommodate that along with Mr Torrance’s recommendation?
We could perhaps just add it to the letter to the minister.
Are members content with that?
Members indicated agreement.
Wild Wrasse (Protection of Stocks) (PE2110)
PE2110, which was lodged by Charles Millar, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to develop and introduce a statutory fisheries management plan that is focused on protecting wild wrasse stocks in Scottish waters, beginning with a data collection exercise and the introduction of precautionary fisheries management measures ahead of the next fishing season, which commences in May 2025—obviously, the petition was lodged some time ago.
We previously considered the petition on 30 October 2024, when we agreed to write to the Scottish Government. In particular, the committee was keen to find out what consideration the Scottish Government had given to the total allowable catch limits on commercial wrasse fishing and what discussions it had had with the UK Government on the development of its wrasse complex fisheries management plan, including the potential to develop similar measures in Scottish waters.
In its response of 24 December 2024, the Scottish Government indicates that it has no plans to introduce a total allowable catch limit for each of the five species of wrasse. It points to overall catch limits being applied in Norway, but it considers that, since that approach is based on a fixed point in time, it is not a valid measure of sustainability. Additionally, the Government highlights an unintended consequence of Norway’s catch limits, whereby fishers seek to land as many fish as possible before the overall limit has been reached.
The petitioner considers that a daily or weekly catch limit could be set to prevent all the fishing effort taking place at the start of the fishing season. The Scottish Government’s response also mentions that it is co-funding a PhD research studentship to investigate the appropriate principles of possible catch rules for wrasse species.
Regarding engagement with the UK Government, the Scottish Government states that it set out the selection criteria that were used for the first fisheries management plans in the joint fisheries statement. Additionally, the Government has commissioned the Seafish industry authority to undertake initial scoping work to help inform Scotland’s approach to FMPs for non-quota species, including wrasse. That work involves engagement with the UK Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.
As recently as June, the Scottish Government published the “Regulated commercial use of traps/pots to catch wrasse in Scottish inshore waters: Fisheries Assessment”. In response to that assessment, the petitioner welcomes the fact that wrasse fishery is now closed in special areas of conservation and in some nature conservation marine protected areas. However, he is disappointed that the assessment still does not include a total allowable catch stock assessment or anything relating to managing the fishery outwith those areas.
We have received a very late submission from the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs, Land Reform and Islands—it arrived yesterday. That is quite difficult, as we have not had time to properly consider it ahead of the petition, but it touches on some of the matters that I detailed in my preamble. Do colleagues have any suggestions as to how we might proceed?
In the light of the evidence and the Government’s response, can we consider closing the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders, because the Scottish Government has stated that it has commissioned initial work to inform Scotland’s approach to fisheries management plans for non-quota species, including wrasse? The wrasse fishery is now closed in special areas of conservation and in some nature conservation marine protected areas. Although the Scottish Government currently has no plans to introduce a total allowable catch limit for wrasse, it supports research into appropriate principles for possible catch rules for wrasse species.
I agree with the proposal. Perhaps unusually, the Scottish Government’s responses have been pretty thorough and well argued. The marine directorate has provided a great deal of information and contradicted some of the claims that the petitioners had made in recent submissions. In particular, the Government’s statement has clarified that new management measures that were introduced in 2021 apply across Scottish waters, not only to SACs and MPAs. To be fair, the petitioners have had a thorough kick of the ball, and it is open to them to come back in the next parliamentary session if they feel that matters need to be considered again.
Are colleagues content to close the petition?
Members indicated agreement.
We thank the petitioners for their work. We close the petition, but the on-going situation can be monitored and returned to in the seventh parliamentary session.
ScotRail (Peak Fare Pricing) (PE2120)
PE2120, which was lodged by Tam Wilson on behalf of the Scottish Trades Union Congress, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to permanently remove peak fare pricing from ScotRail services. I express appreciation to all those who have contributed further evidence to the committee on the matter. The committee will be aware of the action that the Scottish Government has subsequently announced. In the light of that, and given that the petition’s objective has been achieved, are colleagues content to close the petition?
Members indicated agreement.
We congratulate those who have been associated with the petition’s aims and note its achievement.
Air ais
InterestsAir adhart
New Petitions