Seòmar agus comataidhean

As part of this whole idea of tech and putting power in the hands of patients, it is absolutely critical that we put the power into the hands of children. I remind the cabinet secretary that PE2031 is about insulin pumps for kids, which they need, because not having them stops them developing.

In NHS Highland, we get only eight pumps a year, which means that the waiting list in the Highlands is three years for an insulin pump for a child, whereas, in the central belt, there might be no wait at all. I wondered whether the cabinet secretary would consider that issue carefully. I am not asking him to give an answer, but kids do need to have the power in their hands.

I am trying not to. [Laughter.]

I, too, welcome the national treatment centre in Highland. It proves to me that people can travel for healthcare if they need to do so. In the Highlands, we know that. We have lost our vascular surgeon and our interventional radiologist. The reason, we are told, is that we do not have the population density that leads to enough demand to justify having those services—despite, in the case of the vascular surgeon, having two operating theatres that are equipped for such operations, and 12 beds, which is more than any other board in Scotland.

I am therefore interested in how you work out that populations in the Highlands will not always be the ones to lose out on services, despite the fact that they might have the equipment to deliver the healthcare. At the moment, the feeling is that we in the Highlands are going to have to travel. No-one really travels to us for those specialisms. Given that just getting to Raigmore may take two and a half hours from Wick, or even longer from more remote areas, we have a huge journey ahead of us. I am interested in knowing how you balance population density with services, because NHS Highland tells us that that is why we are losing all our services.

The problem is not just vascular surgery. It is that we will never have the population density and, therefore, the demand to outstrip need in Aberdeen or Tayside, so we will always lose our services until NHS Highland is hollowed out. That is what we are told and we just have to lump it. Do you agree with that, or do you think that you must put some specialist services in the Highlands and force people to travel to the Highlands in the same way that Highlanders have to travel to get their services?

As the petitioner lives in Speyside, I remind the committee that I have an interest as I have a freshwater fishery on the River Spey. I have responded to a particular application related to Storegga’s proposed project at Marypark, which is in Speyside.

I will draw the committee’s attention to one or two matters that I think are critical in relation to the petition.

I was, indeed. I hear these calls and I have heard them in the committee before. I cannot answer at the moment whether the net zero committee can look into the issue, but I cannot see there being any capacity for that in the committee’s programme between now and the end of the parliamentary session. You may wish to write to the committee, and the committee will consider doing that. However, I am gently saying that there is a climate change plan that is behind schedule, there are carbon budgets still to agree and there is an ecocide bill that is already with the committee. I do not want to discourage people from doing things, but, realistically, the problems that this committee faces on petitions are multiplied in the net zero committee because of the lateness of the climate change plan.

I have never known what that means, convener.

I am not sure that politicians know what that means.

I understand how important water is across the River Spey and every other catchment. The water levels in the River Spey have not been so low since 1975. It is phenomenal—there has been no increase in the water level since February. All other abstractions on the river have been halted except for the one to Lochaber. SEPA is allowing water to be taken from the top of the catchment, but it is preventing it from being taken from anywhere else. The abstraction that is being proposed is massive: some 500,000 cubic metres would be taken out of the river daily, which would be hugely detrimental to any river. As a Parliament, we need to consider how those applications are considered.

I understand that the committee is running out of time in the current parliamentary session. However, what happens is that SEPA says that it is doing river basin management planning, but it is absolutely not. It is considering each application as it arises, and the cumulative effect of all those applications will be hugely detrimental to every watercourse. That is especially true in this case in Speyside, because it will increase the temperature of the water, and the water will be taken from substrate that has a high mineral content, which will be discharged back into the river. That is bad for mussels and it creates algae.

I do not think that the petitioner wants to halt all production for ever, but they want some sensible consideration to be taken. I urge the committee, rather than just closing the petition, to consider writing to SEPA to ask how it will consider this application in light of all the other applications that have already been consented to. Adding one more might be the final straw that breaks the camel’s back.

Good morning and welcome to the 28th meeting in 2025 of the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee. I welcome to the committee Sarah Boyack, who is the Labour Party substitute member. Under rule 9.1.3A of our standing orders, Monica Lennon is not entitled to exercise the rights of a committee member in relation to agenda items 1, 2 and 3, because she is the member in charge of the bill that the committee will be considering under those items. Under those circumstances, the Labour Party substitute member Sarah Boyack is entitled to take her place.

Monica Lennon is, however, attending our meeting and, as all members of the Scottish Parliament are, she is entitled to attend the public evidence session. In accordance with how I have always run committees, I will give her a chance to ask some questions of each panel at the end of the discussions.

When we get to item 4, which does not concern the Ecocide (Scotland) Bill, rule 9.1.3A no longer applies to Monica Lennon and I understand that she will take part in the item in her capacity as a committee member; Sarah Boyack will not take part in that item. I hope that that is all clear.

Item 3 is consideration of the evidence heard on the Ecocide (Scotland) Bill; item 4 is consideration of a draft report on the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009 (Scottish Carbon Budgets) Amendment Regulations 2025. Do we agree to take those items in private?

Members indicated agreement.

I am going to ask a couple of specific questions. My first question is for Jamie Whittle. That will give you a chance to prepare, Jamie. Is the definition of ecocide in the bill sufficient?