Chamber and committees

We do not have any option but to close the petition, so I concur with the recommendation. We heard compelling evidence from Edward Mountain, who has particular knowledge on the issue, and I think that it is common knowledge that water has been in scarce supply in many parts of Scotland—so much so that some distilleries in the north-east have had to stop operating.

There was a little sub-plot in which Mr Mountain’s figures were challenged by the minister. I will not seek to be a referee on the outcome of that, but there are very well-founded concerns that there are many existing water uses—including for agriculture, distilleries and potable water for humans—and that supplies are getting very low all too frequently.

The petitioner, in responding to the Government’s reply on 13 November, made a number of strong points, all of which point to a certain complacency by SEPA on the issue and a lack of closeness to some of the local issues. I will not go into those, but they are referred to by the petitioner and relate to the particular crunch points where there is a lack of supply.

Yet again, the lack of a strategy on the place of hydrogen in the overall picture means that local authorities and communities feel a bit powerless in the face of such applications and think that they will go ahead regardless. This is another of those issues that will run and run, rather like “The Mousetrap” play in the west end of London, but without the jokes.

I concur with Mr Torrance’s proposal. As far as I can glean, the issue is important to a great many people, particularly in the Highlands, the south of Scotland and the north-east. I know from attending a convention of community councils on 12 August last year that feelings are running high and that some people who were formerly very much in favour of renewables have become disenchanted because they feel that their voices are not being heard or listened to and that anything their community council says will be ignored and overturned by the Scottish Government. That is how I see the situation. It is unfortunate.

My only other point is that, in the absence of an energy policy, we are left with basic questions such as how much wind is enough, how much is too much and what a balanced electricity grid should be comprised of in order to secure continuity of supply and to avoid blackouts or overreliance on foreign imports from interconnectors or on the importation of fracked gas from the USA or Qatar.

None of those questions can be answered until there is an energy policy and there is therefore an overriding need for the next Government, whoever is in government, to bring such a policy forward. As I understand it, the energy policy was promised in 2022, but Gillian Martin, who is sincere and diligent in the work that she is doing, now says that it will be 2027 before that policy will exist. Why will that take five years? I do not feel that that can readily be justified to people out there, no matter how complex it is and no matter how many factors and problems there are along the way. It is for Governments to govern and lead, but that does not seem to me to have been happening.

Exactly.

Yes. In many cases, there is an interim order for residence and contact, and in many cases, that interim order is eventually confirmed. You could say that the issue of custody—or residence, as it is now called, I believe—is not hanging and unresolved in every case by any means, but it is in some cases, and they tend to be very difficult cases.

If the petitioner wished to reframe the petition and focus on the notion of an option to decouple, which would have to be done on a case-by-case basis, with the sheriff having fairly wide discretion as to whether it would be appropriate, that might take the heat and the sting and the pain—or some of it—out of what can be a very difficult situation.

I join you, convener, in expressing concern about the large number of applications in this area along with a lack of guidance and lack of an energy policy. We have no idea what the Scottish Government thinks is the role—if any—of battery energy storage. There is a mini-Klondike going on at the moment—a sort of free-for-all. In the absence of guidance, it is very difficult for councillors; many councillors in Highland Council have pled for there to be guidance—not just in the last wee while but over a long period.

Winter is nearly over and spring seemed to be in the air yesterday, so where is the guidance? Are we going to get it before the recess? I would be very interested to know that, and perhaps we can ask Gillian Martin for the answer. After all, if we do not get the guidance, the uncertainty will carry on for another year. My recollection is that the Klondike gold rush in north-west Canada lasted for only a relatively few years until natural events brought it to a close and the gold was exhausted.

Therefore, I agree with the recommendation to close the petition, but perhaps we can also clarify with the cabinet secretary whether the guidance will be issued before recess. I certainly think that it should be.

10:00

I am. I do not think that we can do justice to the numerous issues that Nora Fry raises. She gives a long and interesting account of particular problems that have arisen, all of which have the ring of truth about them—I say that as an MSP who represents a rural area as well as the city of Inverness. There are many frustrations in rural Scotland about the availability of services; the centralisation of services; and, particularly in the Highlands, the GP contract, not least its removal of the obligation to deliver some vaccinations, which led to a botch-up and the death of an infant because her mother did not get the notice of a whooping cough vaccination. That is just one illustration. On the other hand, the days of GPs like Dr Finlay providing out-of-hours service are probably long past. However, more services should be provided locally, and it is less expensive do so.

Raigmore hospital has a huge problem with delayed discharge. Senior citizens may remain in hospital for weeks or months because there is not sufficient care in the community or capacity in residential establishments. I do not know whether that problem is pervasive throughout Scotland, but it underlies many of the pressures at Raigmore. Occasionally, people suffer hugely, sitting in ambulances and waiting for a bed that is not available.

To be fair to the petitioner, from her experience as a nurse over a long period she raises some important issues for rural Scotland. Although I agree with Mr Torrance that we cannot pursue the matter further, I am sure that it will come back to us again.

I think that I have already made my points about the petition. Given that we have only two meetings to go, I think that there is no option but to close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders, on the basis that the Scottish Government has continued to publish strategies and policy statements for specific policy areas; that the Cabinet Secretary for Climate Action and Energy has stated her hope that a final energy strategy will be published by the autumn of 2027; and that the committee raised relevant issues as part of its thematic evidence session with the cabinet secretary.

However, in saying all that, I do not accept as a reason for not having an energy strategy the fact that the issues regarding oil and gas licensing are not entirely resolved. The framework for oil and gas licensing is a reserved matter, and it is fairly clear that there is a climate compatibility test. Indeed, the Government says that it supports that. For the life of me, therefore, I cannot understand how that can possibly be adduced as an argument to justify the non-production of an energy policy.

Be all that as it may, we have had five years of excuses—whatever the excuses may be—and we have no energy strategy. Not to lambast the Government too much, but the absence of that is the source of all the other problems that cannot be addressed, such as the place of battery storage and pumped storage, how many schemes there should be and how local authorities are supposed to deal with hydrogen. All the problems that we have discussed this morning come back to the fact that there is no overarching strategy for Scotland. I hope that the new Administration—whoever it may be—shows a bit more diligence in getting to a proper, balanced energy strategy for Scotland, because that is absolutely fundamental to our economy and to people’s lives throughout the country.

Yes, that is correct. I do not want to hark back to archaeology, but, when I was energy minister, we used voluntary powers to ensure that communities could obtain a stake in ownership, not just an annual cheque. We did that through the renewable energy investment fund, which levered in private capital through various lenders. The loans were repaid from the income stream of the operation of wind farms and also hydro and some other schemes.

That scheme was voluntary and, although the Scottish Government does not have the power to mandate it, we were nonetheless hitherto able to operate a voluntary scheme. Despite the good will of Gillian Martin, which I do not doubt in any way, it seems to me that we have had five wasted years. Moreover, had there been a continuation of the scheme that I set up during my time, some of the objections—not all, but some—would have been less trenchant and there would have been more support, because people would have been able to see that there would be a legacy for their children and grandchildren to help with their education and development from the money from the wind farms.

That has happened in the Western Isles more than anywhere else, and perhaps also in Fintry but, by and large, opportunities have passed by and I am afraid to say that these have been five wasted years.

I think that there is no other alternative, given that we are nearly at the end of this session of Parliament.

I used to be involved in legal practice in such areas, so I know that it is extremely sensitive, and that it is very difficult to make generalised judgments because every case is different. The welfare of the child is, of course, paramount.

However, I have an example from a recent case involving the new judicial continuity rules that came in in 2023. The rules have not been alluded to, but are nonetheless relevant. In residence or contact cases, it often happens that a number of different sheriffs deal with the same case. The idea of the rules is that one sheriff who is familiar with the case should deal with it at all the substantive hearings, including when victims provide any proof. That means that that sheriff is familiar with the case and can build up knowledge of the whole case, rather than somebody new coming along who needs information about alleged abuse that might have been discussed during a previous hearing.

I have a case related to that at the moment, and the evidence from a voluntary body suggests that, even though those rules have come in, they are more honoured in the breach than in the observance. In other words, only in a very small percentage of cases are those rules being applied.

That is a practical aspect that could help with what the petitioner wishes to achieve. Therefore, I place it on the record. I thank the petitioner for bringing the matter before us. Again, I suspect that the matter will come back to the successor committee during the next session.

I had the opportunity to study the petitioner’s response to the minister’s submission of 1 February. He makes several highly relevant points, some of which I had not previously considered, despite the fact that I spent a couple of decades involved in that kind of work fairly regularly.

The points that he highlighted are worth mentioning. Although there are mechanisms to avoid delays, they do not seem to work in practice. His suggestion is to decouple the custody, residence and contact issue from other issues in dispute. I made the point in the previous evidence session that sometimes a financial disagreement can prolong proceedings and therefore cause a period of turbulence, conflict and division because the parties have not reached an agreement about how to split the matrimonial assets. Therefore, his suggestion is to decouple the issue of custody and residence from finance.

There may be practical difficulties about that, because you would need to work out whether the matrimonial home is going to continue to be used for housing the children of the family. There are practical considerations, but I must admit that I had not thought of decoupling as a potential solution, so I thought, out of fairness to the petitioner, that it is worth highlighting that he has made a very reasoned and thorough response to the minister. The points that he makes should certainly be considered by the next Administration.