Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

I think exactly that, and I am grateful for that suggestion. It was very much on my mind, too.

First, we would ask what the guidance is, because I do not think that it is public. Secondly, we would ask how many times the time limit has been waived in each of the past five years and, on an anonymised basis, what the circumstances were that led to any waivers.