Seòmar agus comataidhean

I think that there is no other alternative, given that we are nearly at the end of this session of Parliament.

I used to be involved in legal practice in such areas, so I know that it is extremely sensitive, and that it is very difficult to make generalised judgments because every case is different. The welfare of the child is, of course, paramount.

However, I have an example from a recent case involving the new judicial continuity rules that came in in 2023. The rules have not been alluded to, but are nonetheless relevant. In residence or contact cases, it often happens that a number of different sheriffs deal with the same case. The idea of the rules is that one sheriff who is familiar with the case should deal with it at all the substantive hearings, including when victims provide any proof. That means that that sheriff is familiar with the case and can build up knowledge of the whole case, rather than somebody new coming along who needs information about alleged abuse that might have been discussed during a previous hearing.

I have a case related to that at the moment, and the evidence from a voluntary body suggests that, even though those rules have come in, they are more honoured in the breach than in the observance. In other words, only in a very small percentage of cases are those rules being applied.

That is a practical aspect that could help with what the petitioner wishes to achieve. Therefore, I place it on the record. I thank the petitioner for bringing the matter before us. Again, I suspect that the matter will come back to the successor committee during the next session.

I had the opportunity to study the petitioner’s response to the minister’s submission of 1 February. He makes several highly relevant points, some of which I had not previously considered, despite the fact that I spent a couple of decades involved in that kind of work fairly regularly.

The points that he highlighted are worth mentioning. Although there are mechanisms to avoid delays, they do not seem to work in practice. His suggestion is to decouple the custody, residence and contact issue from other issues in dispute. I made the point in the previous evidence session that sometimes a financial disagreement can prolong proceedings and therefore cause a period of turbulence, conflict and division because the parties have not reached an agreement about how to split the matrimonial assets. Therefore, his suggestion is to decouple the issue of custody and residence from finance.

There may be practical difficulties about that, because you would need to work out whether the matrimonial home is going to continue to be used for housing the children of the family. There are practical considerations, but I must admit that I had not thought of decoupling as a potential solution, so I thought, out of fairness to the petitioner, that it is worth highlighting that he has made a very reasoned and thorough response to the minister. The points that he makes should certainly be considered by the next Administration.

I am. I do not think that we can do justice to the numerous issues that Nora Fry raises. She gives a long and interesting account of particular problems that have arisen, all of which have the ring of truth about them—I say that as an MSP who represents a rural area as well as the city of Inverness. There are many frustrations in rural Scotland about the availability of services; the centralisation of services; and, particularly in the Highlands, the GP contract, not least its removal of the obligation to deliver some vaccinations, which led to a botch-up and the death of an infant because her mother did not get the notice of a whooping cough vaccination. That is just one illustration. On the other hand, the days of GPs like Dr Finlay providing out-of-hours service are probably long past. However, more services should be provided locally, and it is less expensive do so.

Raigmore hospital has a huge problem with delayed discharge. Senior citizens may remain in hospital for weeks or months because there is not sufficient care in the community or capacity in residential establishments. I do not know whether that problem is pervasive throughout Scotland, but it underlies many of the pressures at Raigmore. Occasionally, people suffer hugely, sitting in ambulances and waiting for a bed that is not available.

To be fair to the petitioner, from her experience as a nurse over a long period she raises some important issues for rural Scotland. Although I agree with Mr Torrance that we cannot pursue the matter further, I am sure that it will come back to us again.

Exactly.

I concur with Mr Golden’s recommendation and analysis. Mr Shaw has done a service by raising the issue, because it is extremely important. As he said in his initial submission back in June 2024, there has been a “tsunami of interest” in pump storage schemes—a plethora of schemes—particularly around Loch Ness. The Ness District Salmon Fishery Board submission supplemented the petitioner’s concerns by stating that although there have been pump storage schemes in Scotland before—Cruachan, Foyers and so on—there has not been one for a long time. Therefore, there is a lack of research on their impact on wild salmon. That is a concern, as the Ness board has expressed. I do not know the current situation, but I stress that, although SEPA has a role, which is possibly to be welcomed, the board has not had any communication with SEPA about its particular interests.

Although we are closing the petition, all the developers need to take a co-ordinated approach. Highland Council needs to be more empowered, rather than leaving the matter solely to SEPA, which has its own particular interests. The Glen Earrach project commissioned a study into the issue, which involved tagging 200 wild Ness smolts. According to the Ness board, that research was not made public, which does not sound particularly transparent or, in any way, adequate. In giving voice to the interests of the wild salmon sector—it is one of many sectors that are involved, but it is the one that we have focused on and that the petitioner raised—I have absolutely no doubt that the issue will run and run.

Ah hae ma doots as to whether SEPA can really be wholly entrusted with such matters, because it is not accountable to anybody; it is not a democratic body, as Highland Council is. It would be far better if the councillors were given proper powers to demand a cumulative impact study of all the proposals for Loch Ness. More and more, that is the argument that I hear from local constituents and those with a particular interest and knowledge of the topic. Most of the people with the knowledge tend to be in the Highlands.

We do not have any option but to close the petition, so I concur with the recommendation. We heard compelling evidence from Edward Mountain, who has particular knowledge on the issue, and I think that it is common knowledge that water has been in scarce supply in many parts of Scotland—so much so that some distilleries in the north-east have had to stop operating.

There was a little sub-plot in which Mr Mountain’s figures were challenged by the minister. I will not seek to be a referee on the outcome of that, but there are very well-founded concerns that there are many existing water uses—including for agriculture, distilleries and potable water for humans—and that supplies are getting very low all too frequently.

The petitioner, in responding to the Government’s reply on 13 November, made a number of strong points, all of which point to a certain complacency by SEPA on the issue and a lack of closeness to some of the local issues. I will not go into those, but they are referred to by the petitioner and relate to the particular crunch points where there is a lack of supply.

Yet again, the lack of a strategy on the place of hydrogen in the overall picture means that local authorities and communities feel a bit powerless in the face of such applications and think that they will go ahead regardless. This is another of those issues that will run and run, rather like “The Mousetrap” play in the west end of London, but without the jokes.

I concur with Mr Torrance’s proposal. As far as I can glean, the issue is important to a great many people, particularly in the Highlands, the south of Scotland and the north-east. I know from attending a convention of community councils on 12 August last year that feelings are running high and that some people who were formerly very much in favour of renewables have become disenchanted because they feel that their voices are not being heard or listened to and that anything their community council says will be ignored and overturned by the Scottish Government. That is how I see the situation. It is unfortunate.

My only other point is that, in the absence of an energy policy, we are left with basic questions such as how much wind is enough, how much is too much and what a balanced electricity grid should be comprised of in order to secure continuity of supply and to avoid blackouts or overreliance on foreign imports from interconnectors or on the importation of fracked gas from the USA or Qatar.

None of those questions can be answered until there is an energy policy and there is therefore an overriding need for the next Government, whoever is in government, to bring such a policy forward. As I understand it, the energy policy was promised in 2022, but Gillian Martin, who is sincere and diligent in the work that she is doing, now says that it will be 2027 before that policy will exist. Why will that take five years? I do not feel that that can readily be justified to people out there, no matter how complex it is and no matter how many factors and problems there are along the way. It is for Governments to govern and lead, but that does not seem to me to have been happening.

Exactly.

Yes. In many cases, there is an interim order for residence and contact, and in many cases, that interim order is eventually confirmed. You could say that the issue of custody—or residence, as it is now called, I believe—is not hanging and unresolved in every case by any means, but it is in some cases, and they tend to be very difficult cases.

If the petitioner wished to reframe the petition and focus on the notion of an option to decouple, which would have to be done on a case-by-case basis, with the sheriff having fairly wide discretion as to whether it would be appropriate, that might take the heat and the sting and the pain—or some of it—out of what can be a very difficult situation.

I join you, convener, in expressing concern about the large number of applications in this area along with a lack of guidance and lack of an energy policy. We have no idea what the Scottish Government thinks is the role—if any—of battery energy storage. There is a mini-Klondike going on at the moment—a sort of free-for-all. In the absence of guidance, it is very difficult for councillors; many councillors in Highland Council have pled for there to be guidance—not just in the last wee while but over a long period.

Winter is nearly over and spring seemed to be in the air yesterday, so where is the guidance? Are we going to get it before the recess? I would be very interested to know that, and perhaps we can ask Gillian Martin for the answer. After all, if we do not get the guidance, the uncertainty will carry on for another year. My recollection is that the Klondike gold rush in north-west Canada lasted for only a relatively few years until natural events brought it to a close and the gold was exhausted.

Therefore, I agree with the recommendation to close the petition, but perhaps we can also clarify with the cabinet secretary whether the guidance will be issued before recess. I certainly think that it should be.

10:00