Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

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.

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)

I thank our colleagues for coming along. You will be pleased to hear that we are keeping the petition open and are acting robustly in light of the evidence that you, the petitioners and all those who have supported the petition have brought to the committee.

We thank the petitioner, but she will understand that there is little that we can do in light of the very direct view expressed by the Scottish Government.

They are also not lovely to look at. We will keep the petition open and we will seek to expedite Government guidance on all this on the basis that there are many live applications and that we are concerned that, in the absence of guidance, consideration of local concerns and unknown consequences arising from battery storage plants are not being properly accommodated or reflected.

Thank you. The Scottish Government states that it has carefully considered the issues raised in the petition with key partners and considers that current guidance in this area is appropriate.?In October 2024, the Scottish Government published “Setting the Table: Nutritional standards and practical guidance for early learning and childcare providers in Scotland”, which was produced by a working group consisting of national statutory bodies, clinical and nutritional experts, and ELC sector representatives. The guidance states that food should not be served to children at the temperature at which it needs to be cooked. Instead, it should be left to cool a little in a safe area, away from children, and it should be tested by tasting before serving.

The Care Inspectorate, with which the Government has engaged, has reinforced the message in the public guidance, indicating that ELC staff should not assume that food that comes from the kitchen is ready to be served immediately. The Scottish Government has made it clear that it expects all ELC providers to adhere to all duties and guidance relating to food provision, in order to ensure the safety of children in their care. Do members have any comments?

Thank you, Mr Torrance. Are colleagues content with that suggestion?

Are there any other comments? If not, given the direction from the Government in relation to the use of existing powers, as opposed to creating a specific additional offence, are we content to close the petition? Otherwise, it might be quite a large piece of work for the committee to adequately pursue at this stage in its life. I am therefore minded to accept David Torrance’s suggestion but perhaps also to suggest to the petitioners that the Parliament in the next session might have an opportunity to look at the issue in a little more detail. Given the Government’s assessment of existing powers, are we content to close the petition?

Members indicated agreement.

To be fair to the SPSO, I do not think that it says that cases should go to judicial review; it says that its decisions can be looked at again, and that it affords complainants the opportunity to supply new information.