Seòmar agus comataidhean

I have a final question. I do not think that it is helpful to vilify individuals or to look at the report before it is published. However, I am interested in the aspect that, in the post-Covid landscape, the unique selling point for institutions such as Dundee university was the thriving student experience on campus. That experience has drastically reduced and therefore a unique selling point to attract students to the university has been severely diminished. Will the report encapsulate that, and will it provide guidance and assistance to other institutions that rely on a similar student experience?

On your final point regarding intervention, are you comfortable with the level of oversight that the Scottish Funding Council has in relation to our university institutions?

I am concerned that the situation at Dundee university could be the tip of the iceberg and that our university sector could be in a financial bubble. I welcome your comments, Mr Dey, but, in principle, in order to mitigate that scenario, would the Scottish Government provide a bailout for individual institutions? If it did, what would be the criteria?

Yes—in general.

I think that we should close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders, on the basis that the Scottish advisory group on relationships and behaviour in schools, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and the Scottish Government have published a joint action plan on relationships and behaviour in schools, which covers the period from 2024 up to 2027.

NFU Scotland has raised concerns about existing national parks, and we have so far been unable to get any evidence to assuage those concerns. Is there anything that you could provide to NFUS in that respect today?

The Scottish Government has said that any

“new National Parks should be designated in response to local community demand.”

What level of local buy-in do you consider necessary for a designation in order to progress?

There is a genuine difficulty for local communities in Galloway regarding the difference between the principle and the blueprint—you made a point about that. In Angus, if you were to ask the people of Forfar whether they want a train line from Forfar to Dundee, most of them would say yes. However, when we consider the costs of it, the elevation and the alternatives, people might come to a different point of view.

NatureScot has said:

“We do not know what the proposed national park in Galloway would look like”.—[Official Report, Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee, 13 November 2024; c 7.]

How, then, is it possible for local communities to make a decision on whether they want one?

I have a few. First, given the Scottish Government’s policy of compliance with current European Union legislation, I would like to clarify whether its policy is compliant with the EU floods directive and water framework directive.

I find the response from the Scottish Government incredibly disappointing. It just about strategies and working groups. I do not know Speyside well but, in Angus, 60 homes are being demolished as a result of inadequate flood defences. Planning was consented for homes, which led to flooding last year and, a year on, there has been no action whatsoever. As we heard from the Scottish Government, no one is responsible for providing leadership over riparian basin management, so I would appreciate hearing the Scottish Government’s views on a single body being appointed to be responsible in that regard.

In Scotland, local authorities are taking one view in respect of planning. SEPA is notionally in charge of flood management plans but is not able to implement them if there is disagreement with other interested parties. There is a lack of foresight over flood basin management with landowners and food producers and there are consultations with people who feel that their voices are not heard.

Leadership is necessary. It does not matter whether it is SEPA or another body, but the people of Scotland deserve to know who and which organisation is responsible. If it is the Scottish Government, that is great. If it is SEPA, that is fine, but we need to know who manages our flood risk management approach and, as the petitioner seeks to do, consider whether that approach is correct. However, we do not know who is responsible at the moment. There may be some other points, convener.

I agree with Mr Torrance and Mr Ewing. I am concerned about the cumulative effect of such schemes, of which there are a number. In that regard, I have two suggestions to make. One is that we need to understand the context. Globally—whether in relation to the Hoover dam in the USA, the three gorges dam in China or the Gabcíkovo-Nagymaros dam between Hungary and Slovakia—there is a massive body of evidence on the environmental impact of dam building. If a particular pump storage scheme is looked at in isolation, that might lead to unintended consequences in the long term. Academia—I am thinking, in particular, of the UNESCO centre for water law, policy and science, which is based at the University of Dundee—might be where we should go to look at the wider context.

Secondly, we need to get an understanding from the Scottish Government of whether the planning system can adequately cope with and assess the cumulative impact of a number of such schemes.