Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

Also, I do not think that they provide many jobs. I could be wrong, but that is what I have heard anecdotally. Therefore, the benefits are unclear—apart, possibly, from those with regard to storage capacity.

I do not think that there is any alternative, given the time that we have remaining in the parliamentary session. I just point out that the petitioner’s daughter was scalded, badly injured and scarred for life as a result of eating soup in a nursery. I would think that children in kindergartens and nurseries are particularly vulnerable, because they are not able to assess risks in the way that older children can. Therefore, in supporting Mr Torrance, I wonder whether we might also write to the minister to ask that reminders be issued, through the appropriate authorities, to those in charge of nurseries and kindergartens in particular with regard to this risk.

That particular family was denied any redress because there was a lack of guidelines. I think that the Care Inspectorate, rather disingenuously, pointed to the lack of guidance as indicating that it could not do anything for the family. In itself, that seems pretty pathetic and absurd, but, be that as it may, you cannot help but feel sympathy for the predicament that those parents found themselves in. As Mr Torrance says, the recommendation is that food be left to cool, but, plainly, that recommendation was not followed in that case, and maybe there are other cases, too. Therefore, reminders to those who run these establishments would not go amiss, if the minister wants to be proactive about it.

The judicial review point was raised by the Scottish Government on page 8 of the annex to the submissions—that is what I was referring to. You are quite correct that there is a process, but it is the Scottish Government that is pointing to an absurd course of action that nobody in their right mind would dream of taking.

We could perhaps just add it to the letter to the minister.

I support Mr Torrance’s recommendation, and I add that guidelines to assist local authorities would be of clear benefit, because they presently do not have them. There is a degree of concern about the fire risks, but in the absence of the Government providing any guidelines or analysis of the work that is being done, which is to be completed in the autumn, local authorities have one hand tied behind their back and are in a very unenviable position.

I hope that the Scottish Government acts more swiftly than it normally does. You said that the work that Ironside Farrar is doing is to be completed this autumn, which is around about now, given that the leaves are falling from the trees. Let us see the guidelines and get on with it, because they are required for many reasons that the petitioners have identified.

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.

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.

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.

To follow on the theme of commenting on NatureScot, it seems that all species are equal, but some are more equal than others. Goats seem to be the species that does not merit any care or attention from NatureScot. Why that is the case is completely baffling, but NatureScot could no doubt explain it. I suggest that we ask NatureScot to explain why goats are apparently not worth anything as a species, and on what value judgment basis it has come to that apparent conclusion.

I want to pick up on a point that Lynda Graham made in her submission on 27 August, which is that, unless there is grazing of moorland upland by cattle, sheep or feral goats—I am told that the cattle and sheep have gone, which just leaves the goats—a fire load of tinder will be created. We have seen that in my constituency with the largest recorded wildfire in Scotland’s history—in Dava, Carrbridge and Lochindorb—and also, I gather, with fires in the Borders during the Easter period.

I am told that in the local press—perhaps the august journal that Mr Hoy mentioned as well as others; I do not know—the fire service has expressed concern that, unless there is grazing, vegetation will increase the propensity for fires to become even more serious than they have been in the past.

Therefore, I would be grateful if we could write to the chief of the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service to ask whether the service has a view on the desirability of moorland being subject to grazing. After all, it seems to be a pretty obvious and sound management practice, although, again, it is a practice that seems to have gone by the attention of NatureScot.