Seòmar agus comataidhean

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?

I will suspend the meeting again, because we have an unstable connection. Sorry, Kevin, to cut you off in mid-flow.

Before we go too far with that, I am keen to have an open discussion, but I am not keen to point fingers at somebody who might or might not have done something, because they might turn around and say that an act of defamation has been carried out in the committee because somebody has accused them of doing something. As convener, I would be more comfortable if we talked about the principle or the idea rather than saying that an individual has done something. I am sorry for interrupting, Michael, but I want to protect myself and you and the other committee members.

Abstained, right. Shivali?

I cannot hear you, sorry—you dropped off, for some reason. Try it again.

I think that that is a yes in principle. That was a very long answer to a yes or no question.

Valerie, see if you can give me a yes or no answer, please.

It does a wee bit, but it also feeds into Kevin Stewart’s point that, if the permits had been properly issued in the first place, or reviewed in line with current changes, that situation would not have arisen.

I will move straight on because many other committee members want to come in.

They are all looking away.

Okay. I come back to Sarah Boyack.

I note that our time is technically up, and we have another panel after this one, so you will have to be really sharp and snappy in your answers. I am sorry if that does not give you a chance to explain everything—that is just the timescale that we have. We have a stage 3 debate in the chamber this afternoon, so I do not want to run on too late.