Chamber and committees

PE2109, which was lodged by Brian Shaw on behalf of the Ness District Salmon Fishery Board, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to create a moratorium on any further development of pump storage hydro operations on Scottish lochs that hold wild Atlantic salmon until the impact of such developments on wild Atlantic salmon migrations is understood.

We have been joined for consideration of the petition by our colleague Edward Mountain. Good morning, Edward.

The petitioner feels that the economic case has been made for pump storage hydro but that the environmental impacts have been glossed over, denied or ignored. The SPICe briefing explains that operating a pump storage project requires planning permission or a section 36 energy consent from, respectively, the local authority or Scottish ministers. The Scottish Environment Protection Agency and NatureScot, as statutory consultees, would also be expected to comment on any planning or energy consent application in respect of impacts on hydrology, the water environment and nature conservation. The briefing states that the Scottish wild salmon strategy notes pressures on wild Atlantic salmon, including obstacles to fish passage that can be created by infrastructure or changes to the water.

The Scottish Government’s response states:

“The legal position of the Scottish Government is that processes under planning would examine the relevant environmental impacts and reach a conclusion, on the basis of evidence and facts relating to the particular development.”

Edward Mountain, do you wish to address the committee?

Please do.

Well, I am a pensioner.

We will have a brief suspension, because a veritable galaxy of parliamentary collegial talent is about to join us for the next petition.

We will keep the petition open and seek that information.

That concludes the public part of our meeting. The next public meeting of the committee will take place in a fortnight’s time on Wednesday 11 December. We move into private for agenda item 4.

I see that colleagues have no follow-up questions. Do you have anything further to add, cabinet secretary?

What are the trigger mechanisms here? According to the consultation, the core funding provided by the Scottish Government for national parks was £20.9 million, and the core budget of the Galloway national park might not be as large as that required by the other two parks. However, given the context of finite resources, what will be the trigger mechanism that will determine for you whether a national park is the best course of action, compared with alternative ways or routes by which, as Maurice Golden and others have suggested, some of the benefits that it might generate could be achieved?

Are we agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

The last of our new petitions, PE2118, lodged by Tobias Christie on behalf of the Speymouth Environmental Partnership, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to review the Flood Risk Management (Scotland) Act 2009 and improve flood alleviation and management processes by appointing an independent panel of engineers, economists and geomorphologists to support the design of flood risk management plans.

Douglas Ross MSP had hoped to be able to join us for our consideration of the petition, but he is unfortunately detained in another committee.

In the background to the petition, concerns are raised that those responsible for designing the flood risk management systems are often distant from and unaffected by the risks and that the system is designed around flood warnings rather than flood prevention, management or alleviation. Responding to the petition, the Scottish Government tells us that it has implemented a comprehensive framework under the Flood Risk Management (Scotland) Act 2009, which places flood risk management at the core of its environmental policies.

The response also refers to a joint Scottish Government and Convention of Scottish Local Authorities flood risk management working group, which is considering funding and governance arrangements for flood protection schemes. The Scottish Government is also developing the country’s first flood risk strategy, which it says is focused on enhancing community flood resilience by integrating people, places and processes. It also notes that it is the responsibility of local authorities to develop specific actions to address flood risk and improve resilience.

We have also received a submission from the petitioners, which highlights the point that local communities are not aware of the public consultations on flooding and that, when SEPA has issued questionnaires, the questions appear to have been designed to reinforce its perspective—that brings us back to the arguments that we had on consultations at the beginning of the meeting. The petitioners also raised concerns about the processes that SEPA uses to model future flooding and the challenges that communities face in trying to share views and ideas for flood management with SEPA and relevant local authorities.

Do members have any suggestions on how we might proceed?

Essentially, you are arguing that this is as far as we can take the petition, given the Scottish Government’s position. Do colleagues have any other comments? It is an important area but, given the Scottish Government’s response, it is difficult to see what more we can actually do to take the issue forward. On that basis, are colleagues content, however reluctantly, to close the petition?

It is an interesting issue, and it might well be that the prevalence of drones will lead to this being a more relevant matter subsequently. However, given the evidence that we have received, I think that that is the correct course of action. Do members agree to close the petition?

Members indicated agreement.