Official Report 824KB pdf
Item 4 is consideration of new petitions. Unusually, we are running 40 minutes later than planned.
The new petitions that we will consider today are some of the final new petitions that we will be able to introduce in the current parliamentary session. I say to those who have joined us for the consideration of new petitions that we undertake work in advance of our preliminarily consideration of a petition. We ask the Parliament’s independent research body, the Scottish Parliament information centre, for its view, and we also ask the Scottish Government for its preliminary view. We do that because, previously, those were often the first actions that the committee agreed to take, which simply delayed more substantive consideration of petitions.
Hydrogen from Fresh Water (PE2159)
The first new petition is PE2159, which was lodged by David Mackay on behalf of Innes community council. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to place a moratorium on the production of hydrogen from fresh water until scientific studies are undertaken to understand the impact on the environment, local economies and society.
The SPICe briefing explains that all hydrogen production technologies require water as an input. Green hydrogen production is the process of separating the hydrogen atoms from the oxygen atom in water via electrolysis. Blue hydrogen production involves steam methane reformation and, thus, also includes H2O as a fundamental part of the process. The briefing notes that there are different conclusions about how much water is required for different methods of hydrogen production, meaning that there is no single view on which method has the lower water footprint.
The Scottish Government’s response to the petition states that regulations are already in place for any activity that may affect Scotland’s water environment including the use of water for hydrogen developments, which require authorisation from SEPA. The submission also highlights the mechanisms in the planning process, stating that it will be for the relevant authority to interpret and implement relevant planning legislation and guidance in each case as it deems appropriate.
The petitioner’s written submission notes that SEPA is reporting that there are longer, hotter and drier periods in Scotland. The petitioner believes that it will take longer and more rain will be required for groundwater levels to recover. He states:
“any process that abstracts additional groundwater will exacerbate the situation and will have major impacts on the ecology, the environment and the economy.”
The submission goes on to say that the Scottish Government’s response demonstrates a lack of understanding and knowledge of the production requirements for hydrogen and that neither the Government nor the hydrogen industry has calculated the total volume of water that will be required to produce the hydrogen that will be needed for domestic and export markets, nor how groundwater will be replenished.
Do members have any comments or suggestions for action? Mr Mountain is waving at me. I did not know that he had an interest in the petition, but in for a penny, in for a pound.
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.
If you can do that adroitly, it would be helpful.
I have never known what that means, convener.
It means as quickly as possible.
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.
11:45I 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.
I did not know that we were talking about just closing the petition, Mr Mountain, but thank you.
Do colleagues have any suggestions for action?
We are grateful for Ed Mountain’s factual input. I represent part of the River Spey, which is in my constituency, and I concur that water levels are at an all-time low. I add that many existing users have already been prejudiced by that, notably distilleries. I do not have a personal interest in the matter, unlike Mr Mountain, other than through being an avid consumer of those distilleries’ products. However, it seems reasonable to say that the existing users and businesses that have traditionally relied on access to the water supply should have their interests considered by all those whose job it is to oversee decisions in this regard.
There is an analogy with the pump storage situation, in which there is a plethora of pump storage applications and a lack of joint consideration of the overall impact that those will have on Loch Ness.
We should ask SEPA to comment specifically with regard to Mr Mountain’s evidence, which was interesting and, on the face of it, quite compelling. It would certainly be worrying if a massive extraction of water was permitted without consideration of the overall impact. I suggest that we write to SEPA, as Mr Mountain suggested, and that we include the petition as part of the thematic evidence session with the Cabinet Secretary for Climate Action and Energy. I also suggest that, beforehand, we invite the cabinet secretary to respond to what Mr Mountain has said.
The lack of consideration of the cumulative impact of developments across the board—notably renewable developments in the Highlands—is a huge concern at the moment. Mr Mountain and I know that from attending a packed public meeting with Douglas Lumsden—he attended it as well, not as a participant but as a spectator from outwith the Highlands and Islands area.
Without labouring the point—I would never wish to do that, convener—I hope that the cabinet secretary and SEPA will opine on the issue before we hear oral evidence from the cabinet secretary.
Is that what you were going to suggest, Mr Golden? I see that you are nodding.
The only point that I will add is that I would not want the date on which we will be able to see the cabinet secretary to be conditional on her having responded in advance. We can seek to get that response, or perhaps the cabinet secretary will be in a position to speak to the response that might be made at the point when we have a meeting with her. Do members agree that we should do what has been suggested?
Members indicated agreement.
Energy Strategy (PE2160)
PE2160, lodged by Tina Dawn Marshall, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to publish its energy strategy and just transition plan to address environmental, infrastructure and land use issues. Our parliamentary colleague Douglas Lumsden joins us to speak to the petition. I think that this is a return ticket. Having only just walked out the door, Mr Lumsden has beaten a path back to join us. Good morning—well, almost good afternoon—to you.
The SPICe briefing reminds us that the Scottish Government’s first energy strategy was published in 2017. That was followed by a draft energy strategy and just transition plan, which was published for consultation in 2023. The finalised version is still awaiting publication.
In its response, the Scottish Government states that the issues in its draft energy strategy and just transition plan are affected by on-going developments in the UK Government’s energy policy, including consultations for which responses have not yet been published, as well as various court cases. It stresses that it is taking sufficient time to analyse those developments and their impact on Scotland.
In terms of alternative action, the Government highlights its 2024 green industrial strategy, as well as its investment in skills development through its just transition fund. It also flags the publication over the course of this year of a bioenergy policy statement, the solar vision for Scotland, the sectoral marine plan 2 and an offshore wind policy statement. It also states that, most important of all, it expects to publish its draft climate change plan later this year, which will be accompanied by a consultation.
We have also received submissions from the petitioner, who mentions a range of on-going concerns in the absence of an energy strategy and just transition plan.
Mr Lumsden, the floor is yours.
Thank you, convener. It is good to be back.
I fully support the petitioner’s call for the Scottish Government to publish its energy strategy and I hope that the committee has more luck than me in that regard. I checked in the Official Report and found that, in the past 18 months, I have asked the Government about this issue 16 times and have received no answer—perhaps that is a reflection on me.
So, you did not ask 1,000 times.
No, just the 16 times, convener.
I read the Government’s response to the committee with interest. It claims that it is taking time to analyse and reflect on developments, but it has been two and a half years since it published its draft policy. How long does it need? We have had two and a half years of uncertainty, of a presumption against oil and gas and of no just transition plan, while thousands of jobs are being lost in the North Sea.
In all that time, in the absence of a strategy, we have had a vacuum. Perhaps that was the Government’s aim, because that vacuum is being filled by a presumption in favour of unlimited and expensive onshore and offshore wind and all the infrastructure that comes with it. We must also acknowledge that generation and demand happen in different regions, so the future will be mega pylons and substations, which will damage much of our beautiful rural areas.
As we heard in relation to the previous petition about hydrogen, there is no plan regarding how much hydrogen will be produced. Further, battery storage is out of control. The sector is often referred to as the wild west, as it seems to be a money-making scheme in which companies buy up cheap electricity in periods when our intermittent supply builds up a surplus and sell it back when prices are high.
We know that the Scottish Government is blocking new nuclear power stations, but we do not know what its stance is on new gas-powered stations, for example. We must presume that, in the future, when the wind does not blow, base load will be met by imports. We should be concerned about grid stability as the inertia from traditional power stations is withdrawn—Fergus Ewing often brings that up in the chamber. All of that matters because we need to plan properly if we are to avoid blackouts such as we have seen in Spain.
I am coming to the conclusion that the reason why the Government is not coming forward with an energy strategy is because that would mean that it would have to be honest with people about its vision, which, I presume, is to have rural communities covered in battery storage, onshore wind farms, substations and mega pylons.
Our rural communities are mobilising against that. We heard earlier about the meeting in Inverness, where the Highlands community councils came together. We have a similar meeting coming up soon in Aberdeenshire, and the same thing is happening in Perthshire and the Borders, where people have the exact same fears. People feel that they are being ignored, and they just want some clarity and honesty from the Government.
For the sake of our rural communities, and for the sake of our oil and gas workers, I urge the committee to again ask the Scottish Government to set out some timescales so that we can have some clarity.
Thank you, Mr Lumsden. You asked how long the Government needs to reflect on the matter. If you had been with us earlier, during our session with the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care, you would have heard that we have been reflecting on private ambulance regulation since 2012, so two and a half years might not seem so long after all. However, you have raised important issues. Do members have suggestions on how to proceed?
I am concerned that the Scottish Government has indicated that, due to “on-going developments”, it has been unable to produce its energy strategy. In my entire time working in the energy sector, I do not think that there has ever been a time when there have not been “on-going developments” in some part of the sector. I do not see that as any reason for what has been a two-and-a-half-year stall on the strategy.
I stand to be corrected. If, over the past 15 years, there has been a point when there has been no on-going development in the sector, the Scottish Government will surely write to the committee about that.
Given that two and a half years have passed, with agencies and dozens of civil service staff poring over the strategy, the Scottish Government could, at the very least, provide information on where it is with the strategy, producing an “energy strategy 1.0”, rather than risking further delay, even though the strategy will need to be updated. I would certainly offer my help to the Government in delivering that.
The issue should be added as part of the thematic session with the Cabinet Secretary for Climate Action and Energy, which is looking a lot more interesting after today’s discussion.
It is certainly looking a lot busier.
Mr Lumsden has raised some salient points, many of which I agree with. Those include the threat to the stability of the grid from the impending closure of nuclear stations and the uncertainty surrounding Peterhead. Without base load and back-up, it is more difficult to provide stability and synchronicity—and, therefore, inertia—to the grid. This is a technical topic, where more facts, more scientific analysis and less politics would be extremely useful in Britain.
Aside from that, the Robert Gordon University report, which I think was written by Paul de Leeuw, whom I know, warned that the oil and gas industry in the UK could lose 400 jobs every fortnight, which is a staggering figure. There is a lot more that could be said, in particular that Britain cannot have industry unless energy costs are on a par with those of our European neighbours, at least—which they are not. Therefore, industry is likely to cease to exist in Britain, where it is energy intensive, within the next five years. That is a point that one does not hear very much.
I have raised a few issues, and my suggestion as to what we do with the petition is this. I hesitate to recommend closing the petition, although I know that the pressure is there. Instead, we should write to the Government, suggesting that there should be a full debate on the matter in the Parliament. I suggest that we have two full days on energy, or at least one day, which would allow us to have a proper debate, with lengthy contributions from people—from all parties—who have an interest in the topic. It is a complicated, wide-ranging debate.
The idea that we cannot have an energy policy because of developments, as Mr Lumsden has described, is absurd. There are developments all the time. That is not a reason for not having a policy; it is a pretext.
It is reasonable for us to suggest that the degree of interest in the matter is such that there should be a parliamentary debate on it. I note that the petitioner is a student studying the economics of renewable energy at Heriot-Watt University, and she has made a lot of useful points to us. We should raise the issues with the Cabinet Secretary for Climate Action and Energy at the thematic evidence session that we will be having soon. That will probably have to be quite a long session. I am sure that many members would wish to participate, and rightly so.
Two colleagues have suggested that we add the matter to the thematic session. In advance of that, we should write a letter asking where we currently stand with the energy strategy. There is also Mr Ewing’s additional suggestion to the cabinet secretary that, in addition to our addressing the subject in a thematic committee session, it would be useful for the Parliament to consider the issues in a chamber debate. We can suggest that accordingly. We will keep the petition open.
Members indicated agreement.
Thank you, Mr Lumsden.
Thank you.
Child Contact Domestic Abuse (Guidance) (PE2163)
PE2163, which was lodged by Alistair Scott, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to work with partners to develop guidance on the interaction between child contact dispute processes and the Domestic Abuse (Scotland) Act 2018.
The Scottish Government’s response to the petition indicates that it did not understand the main ask of the petition, stating that it is not clear towards whom such guidance would be directed, nor what it would be intended to achieve. The submission then details the routes that can be taken during child contact disputes.
The petitioner has provided a written submission outlining the concerns that led him to lodge the petition. He points out that mediation is not suitable for abusive relationships, stating that the parent seeking contact is then left with no other option but to progress matters through the courts. He also explains that contact dispute cases can be used to further abuse those parents.
The petitioner acknowledges that family courts will always be concerned with protecting a child from abuse, or possible abuse, from the person seeking contact. However, he believes that that results in a disregard of the impact that false and malicious allegations have on the parent seeking contact, and he shares the view that false and malicious allegations have a profound impact on the mental health of the abused parent.
Do members have any suggestions as to how we might proceed?
I suggest that we write to the Scottish Government to clarify that the petitioner is asking for the Scottish Government to lead the development of guidance on the application of the Domestic Abuse (Scotland) Act 2018 in circumstances in which it is claimed that the child contact dispute processes are being used to abuse a parent, with the aim of helping all those involved in child contact disputes understand how best to protect the rights of those involved, and to ask whether it would undertake such exercise.
That seems a sensible recommendation, in light of the petitioner’s further explanation of his concerns. Are colleagues content with that suggestion?
Members indicated agreement.
Single-use Plastics (Ban) (PE2164)
PE2164, which was lodged by Tabitha Fletcher, calls for a ban on all non-essential single-use plastics. The SPICe briefing on the petition explains that single-use plastic products are used once, or for a short period of time, before being thrown away, and highlights the scale of the issue and its negative impact on the environment and on health, quoting the OECD’s description of it as one of
“the great environmental challenges of”
this
“century”.
In summarising the Government’s actions to date, the briefing mentions that some new product restrictions might require either a United Kingdom-wide approach or an agreed exclusion from the principles of the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020.
The Scottish Government points to past and on-going action that it has taken on many of the asks within the petition’s broad scope. For example, the circular economy and waste route map sets out actions for accelerating progress towards a circular economy, including on problematic single-use items. As for more targeted approaches, the Government points to legislation to ban plastic-stemmed cotton buds; the proposal for a minimum charge on single-use cups; minimising plastic pellets in the environment; and the ban on single-use vapes. It also refers to the four-nation work that is under way on tackling packaging waste, plastic wet wipes and aquaculture gear, while reiterating its commitment to the deposit return scheme.
The Government also states that further detailed evidence gathering, consultation and impact assessments would be required to assess the petition’s asks on any actions not yet being taken. In an additional submission, the petitioner, too, acknowledges the complexity of the action being called for, while underlining that the existing pieces of legislation that target specific items only go to show the petition’s viability.
Do members have any suggestions as to how we might proceed?
I appreciate where the petitioner is coming from, but I certainly feel that the ask might be counterintuitive in some respects with regard to the application of the waste hierarchy and the circular economy.
Looking at the legislative programme, I note that the circular economy legislation was passed in 2024, and the Scottish Government is currently developing a strategy that would consider the petitioner’s ask in the round. I would say to the petitioner, though, that I am very frustrated at the progress that has been made in that respect. A circular economy strategy was produced in 2016; since then, the Scottish Parliament has passed legislation, the sum total of which is to produce another strategy a decade after the previous one.
Nonetheless, we are where we are, and I hope that the Scottish Government, in producing and delivering the strategy, will be able to meet the petitioner’s general asks. On that basis, I recommend closing the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders.
If colleagues have no other suggestions, are we content to proceed as Mr Golden has suggested?
Members indicated agreement.
We thank the petitioner, but, for the reasons identified, we feel unable to take her petition forward in the time available to us.
Functional Neurological Disorder (PE2165)
Finally, PE2165, which was lodged by Michelle Moir, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to help improve awareness of functional neurological disorder by providing funding for training and educational resources for medical professionals, including general practitioners, paramedics, call handlers, employers and wider society, on the symptoms and impacts of FND.
From the SPICe briefing, we find that functional disorders include dissociative seizures, functional movement disorders such as tremors or spasms, and functional limb weakness. The briefing helpfully points to the introduction of a national FND pathway in Scotland in 2024, but suggests that it is not clear what training is available to primary care medical and nursing staff to assist with diagnosis in primary care.
The Scottish Government considers the asks of the petition not to be achievable, as
“Developing and disseminating new resources to provide training and education to medical professionals requires additional budget not currently available”.
The Government also considers that the concerns raised in the petition are addressed in current work such as the FND pathway; a project for a dedicated clinical network in NHS Lothian that is due to conclude this autumn; and a pilot study in NHS Grampian that looks to enhance knowledge and diagnosis of FND. The additional submission from the petitioner, however, contains a series of questions stemming from the Government’s response, including on the need for mandatory rather than just voluntary training, on the public sharing of data from the two regional projects that are under way, and on the Government’s next steps.
Are there any comments or suggestions as to how we might proceed?
I certainly welcome the news about the pathway, but to assist the petitioner, we should write to the Minister for Public Health and Women’s Health and ask for a response to questions that the petitioner has raised in her additional submission, which you have already mentioned, and what preliminary assessment has been made of the pilot projects in NHS Lothian and NHS Grampian, including the potential for them to be expanded at a national level.
The suggestion is that we keep the petition open and seek further information on that basis. Are we agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
That brings us to the end of our meeting. Our next meeting will be on Wednesday 8 October. Thank you for joining us.
12:08 Meeting continued in private until 12:23.Previous
Continued Petitions