Seòmar agus comataidhean

I was struck by the arguments that are contained in the petitioners’ written submission of 10 November, submitted by Mr Jim Mackie, who points out:

“Communities are not aware of any public consultations on flooding”.

Communities and community councils seem to be excluded from the process.

In its response, the Scottish Government said:

“We are committed to further strengthening these efforts, with a focus on community engagement”.

What does that mean? Does it mean consulting community councils, for example, which take an active role?

Over the years, the problems in my constituency have been serious. They have perhaps not been quite as serious as those of people in Angus but, nonetheless, they have been very serious. There seems to be complete control by SEPA. Mr Mackie points out that the

“Cost of flood damage in Potentially Vulnerable Areas … is calculated centrally using the Multicoloured Manual, a book first published in 2003”,

which

“contains flood statistics from three river basins in England. The figures produced are fictional. No research is done at a community level”—

none. What is that about? That sounds extraordinary.

Secondly, he says that, as Mr Golden pointed out,

“Councils have no legal responsibility”.

Who has responsibility? That buck is constantly being passed around.

He also says—this is the meat of it:

“Rivers and streams carry sediments, trees, and bushes downstream. More so in floods. These catch in the riverbed and/or banks. Sediments build up and raise riverbeds and banks. ... Riverbank erosion is seen as a ‘natural process’”

NatureScot and SEPA prevent practical solutions by landowners and community councils that know what the problem is. You cannot take soil or gravel from one area and put it into another area because of rules that SEPA and NatureScot apply. Therefore, obstructions build up, thus exacerbating or causing flooding problems. I have encountered that many times in my constituency. Every occasion ends up with SEPA saying no. Often, SEPA’s officials do not bother to come to visit anybody anyway. That is part of their modus operandi. It is not to get out of their office but to issue edicts from the warmth of their office, wherever it may be.

I feel strongly that Mr Mackie and Mr Christie, through their efforts and very detailed knowledge—they have really impressed me—have brought to us a set of serious issues. In due course, we might wish to obtain evidence from them so that the Parliament can hear directly from them about those concerns.

I support Mr Torrance’s suggestion. I was also struck by the petitioner’s most recent submission, of 12 November, which I hope the cabinet secretary will respond to at any such evidence session, and in particular, what might be regarded as a bull point, or the bull point, that

“We are amazed that anyone would try to build a road on the existing route under constant threat of landslides from 200,000 tonnes of unstable material. Work will constantly be stopped every time there is movement on the hillside, increasing building costs, and delay delivery of a solution.”

The submission goes on from there. Incidentally, the petitioner’s original submission, in December 2021, referred to a figure of 100,000 tonnes, which seems to have grown to 200,000.

No matter what the tonnage is, there is an awful lot of material. I am familiar with that particular area from the Munro-bagging days of my long-distant past and we all know that there is a constant threat of landslides in that area. I am mystified as to why that route could be chosen, particularly after it has gone through the process of preferred route selection. I am not as experienced, or as long in the tooth, as the convener and deputy convener when it comes to this petition—I am just a junior—but I find it baffling that we would spend £400 million or more on a solution that seems patently flawed. I wanted to make that point ad longum, as m’luds might say, because that has not been explained to me and I would like to know the answer.

My final point is that the argument will not disappear. Jackie Baillie and I have been around for quite a long time and we know that serious arguments, which can seem to the ordinary punter to be unassailable, do not go away. They just fester and that festering process results in disillusion with Governments and Parliaments. I wanted to make that point as best I could.

Yes. I am not familiar with the circumstances in the central belt of Scotland, but certainly in the north of Scotland, many rural communities have no bus services whatsoever. With the bus services in Inverness, which are provided by Stagecoach, the problem has not been one of regulation or otherwise; it has been a lack of drivers. Indeed, it is a very serious problem. The very detailed exchange that my constituency office has had with Stagecoach indicates that it has gone to great lengths to sort the problem, and it has recruited more drivers. I thought that I would make that point, convener, because I am genuinely unfamiliar with the issues that the members have raised, and I defer to their experience.

I certainly concur.

Regretfully, I agree that the committee cannot do much more. If there is a gap—I do not doubt that there is one—it will not be filled by the particular recommendation that the petitioners make, which is to have a kind of separate system. If there is a gap, the ask will not fill it.

or benefit the aims of it.

I endorse what the convener and Jackie Baillie have said. Plainly, thanks to the courage and campaigning efforts of Sir Chris Hoy, this has been very much a matter of public debate and concern. It affects a huge number of people, including men in the west of Scotland and furth of the west of Scotland.

In addition to what has been said, I note that the submission from the screening committee is dated 20 February 2024, and we are now some distance away from then. The NSC commissioned an analysis of screening in response to submissions of six proposals for screening of various categories of people who might be thought to be at particular risk—I will not go through them all now. Given the urgency of the matter, I would very much like to know the timescale for the completion of those studies. When will they conclude? Will they drift on for ever while more people die, or is a time limit being placed on those efforts by the UK Government and the Scottish Government, I hope, working together?

I second David Torrance’s suggestion and support further examination of the consequences of pump storage, as Edward Mountain has eloquently set out, not least because of the potential for disturbance of the habitat of my most famous, albeit elusive, constituent, Nessie.

There is a great deal of support for pump storage schemes in principle, and I am among the most enthusiastic of supporters. I should say for transparency that I am due to speak to Mr Shaw later and have been in correspondence with him about the issue.

The concern about the impact of pump storage schemes is an enduring one, and the right time to bottom out the issues is now, not when it is too late. I do not know what the answers are. Mr Mountain has expertise in this area, and so do many other people. I have had many discussions, over many years, with the Ness District Salmon Fishery Board and others who are interested in the success of our wild salmon sector. The petition addresses an enduring concern that will not go away. We must bottom things out. This is the time for the Government to get to grips with the issue.

I have a supplementary suggestion to make. I would like to find out what work has been done by the developers. Plainly, all the developers will have commissioned their own research. In the interests of openness and transparency, I suggest that we write to the developers, including the developers of the project in question, and to SSE. I suspect that they will have already commissioned reports on the impacts on wild salmon. In order that we can have a proper debate, we should ask them to make those reports public, to avoid any suggestion that any unwelcome or inconvenient truths that might have emerged from those reports are being kept secret. We need to get to grips with the issue. If we do not, others in decades to come might well question what we were doing.

Are you ruling out a local referendum, cabinet secretary?

Mr MacGregor put the case very well. I noted that 453 signatures have been obtained, which is a fairly substantial number. I support the recommendations that have been made by Mr Torrance and yourself, convener.

I was curious as to how many instances of absolute discharge there have been in cases in which there has been a conviction for rape or attempted rape or, indeed, for sexual assault. I have been advised that the figures show that there were two absolute discharges for rape and attempted rape and nine for sexual assault in 2021-22.

I mention that as I am curious to know whether it is possible to get any explanation, without breaking any rule about confidentiality, as to why an absolute discharge was granted in those cases. To any onlooker, it must seem pretty inexplicable that an absolute discharge would be granted, especially for a crime of rape. It is very difficult to understand what circumstances could be so exceptional as to justify such an outcome when someone is convicted of something as serious as rape. I find it very hard to imagine any circumstances in which that would be fair. However, on the other hand, the whole point of discretion of the court is that, if there are truly exceptional circumstances, it has that discretion. That would be the argument.

I am labouring the point a little bit, but I am curious as to what the justification was for that outcome in those cases. I do not know whether it is possible to find that out, convener, but I think that we should certainly try to do so.