Chamber and committees

Good morning to the witnesses. On that exact point of transmission and the grid, policy 6(b) concerns forestry, woodland and trees. It states:

“Development proposals will not be supported where they will result in ... Any loss of ancient woodlands, ancient and veteran trees, or adverse impact on their ecological condition”.

During the consultation, various stakeholders, including Scottish and Southern Electricity Networks Transmission, pointed out that such a black and white position means that transmission infrastructure, perhaps linking new wind farms to the grid, reinforcing the network to transport that clean power to areas of demand or strengthening grid resilience for rural communities—in other words, minister, meeting the strategic challenges that you talked about—would not be done on a case-by-case basis and would not be able to go ahead, at least not without things like public inquiries. That policy has not changed in the revised draft. What was the thinking that led to the rejection of those representations and to there being no change?

I understand the points that the minister makes about the ancient woodlands, which could probably be similarly applied to peatland. Of course, policy 5 specifically concerns peatland. It also was not changed, but it is worded in slightly different terms. Policy 5(c) says:

“Development proposals on peatland, carbon-rich soils and priority peatland habitat will only be supported for ... Essential infrastructure and there is a specific locational need and no other suitable site”.

That is an appropriately stringent but, nevertheless, arguably more sensible position that recognises the importance of peatland, particularly in the drive to net zero, but allows for nuance where there are infrastructure projects, such as transmission, that are required. Given that, minister, would you consider reviewing policy 6(b) so that it would be more akin to or mirror policy 5(c) on peatland?

Yes, convener. Good morning to the committee. It is a real pleasure to join you to present the proposal for the cross-party group on ice sports. As the convener pointed out, I am the proposed deputy convener of the group. Unfortunately, my colleague David Torrance, the proposed convener, is unable to attend the meeting and sends his apologies.

The underlying reason for creating the CPG is that, as I am sure you know, ice sports in Scotland have seen considerable growth in participation and viewing numbers in recent years. Sports such as ice hockey, curling and ice skating are making an ever-increasing contribution to the aims that we have set out in the CPG registration form, including with regard to cohering communities, improving individual health and fitness levels—supporting the active Scotland delivery plan—and contributing to local economies.

As you might also have seen, it is a very exciting time for Scottish ice sports. By way of example, members will have seen the recent success in curling and will know about the women’s team winning medals at the Olympics, as well as gold, silver and bronze medals at the world championships. The 2022 Olympic silver medal for curling went to the United Kingdom’s men’s team. Scottish ice hockey teams made the Elite Ice Hockey League play-offs last year. At this point, I will give a quick shout out to Aberdeen Lynx in my region, which regularly attracts more than 1,000 spectators to the arena at the beach. There have also been continued success and medals in ice skating, including for Lewis Gibson and Lilah Fear.

However, there can be no doubt that these sports face significant challenges, including, for example, the cost of energy. Members will know that that is having an awful impact on so many areas, but it has a significant impact on the cost of running ice rinks and ice arenas. Local authorities, which principally—although not exclusively—own these facilities, have their own significant and ever-increasing funding challenges, which leaves them having to make difficult funding decisions about opening facilities and about accessibility to communities with regard to both cost and the physical facilities. The implications of our collective and—let us be under no illusions—absolutely critical drive towards net zero will provide challenges for these facilities. Finally, there is the cost to the clubs, leagues, officers and coaches of the equipment, and the operating costs, including the cost of ensuring that facilities are inclusive and accessible.

All those factors—the positives and the challenges—are set out in the purposes of the cross-party group in the registration form. That public good and those challenges make it clear that it is in the public interest that this CPG comes into being.

We want to start the CPG to celebrate what Scotland has to offer when it comes to ice sports, to shine the spotlight on best practice in the different sports, to promote and highlight the impact of clubs and groups on the health and wellbeing of our communities and society, and to highlight the challenges, while bringing groups together to seek, agree and promote solutions. When I say “we”, I mean the group. We have six official MSP members from three parties, so the Parliament’s criteria are more than satisfied. We have had expressions of interest from many other MSPs, who, perhaps due to other CPG commitments, have not yet been able to sign up as members. We anticipate that further interest will be stimulated following our decision to shift the CPG’s focus from only ice hockey to ice sports more generally.

There has been significant interest in the CPG from sports bodies, clubs and other stakeholders. For example, the Dundee Stars, the Fife Flyers, the Glasgow Clan, Scottish Ice Hockey, the Elite Ice Hockey League, Ice Hockey UK, sportscotland, Scottish Curling and the Scottish Ice Rinks Association have all signed up. We also have interest from British Ice Skating, which we expect—or hope—to confirm as a member next week.

There are no other CPGs like this in Parliament, which is incredible when we think about the contributions that these sports have made, which I listed earlier. I therefore ask the committee to approve the CPG in order that the Parliament can promote, protect and celebrate ice sports. I am happy to take questions from members.

I presume that one challenge that arises in relation to the climate change mitigations that you have to put in place will arise when you come to replace some of your ageing infrastructure. I will ask about capital expenditure in my next question, but when you do that replacement, how do you ensure that what you replace the current infrastructure with is future proofed against what appear to be increasing impacts from climate change?

Douglas Millican talked about 97 per cent of Scotland getting high-quality water, but we have also heard about the very challenging cost of delivering that. It has been argued that, because domestic water is not metered, the true cost and value of the product to the end user is not sufficiently appreciated. We have also heard about the importance of encouraging people to use less water, but the argument would go that, if it is not metered, people will not do that. The flipside, which we heard from Johanna Dow, is the costs of metering, which include the costs of installation, maintenance and meter reading. What is Scottish Water’s current view on meters for domestic customers?

That is fascinating. Thank you.

Good morning. Moving from demand to supply, climate change appears to be having an increasing impact on the provision and, indeed, the cost of all utilities. This summer, we had record temperatures. What impact has that had on your reservoirs? Earlier, Dame Susan Rice said that some had fallen to record low levels. Have they recovered? In those circumstances, what can you do to manage and mitigate the situation? How can you proactively help them to recover?

I understand. Does Johanna Dow have anything to add?

My final question is for Douglas Millican; I will put the same question to Johanna Dow. Earlier, you talked about capital investment. As I understand it, your income is comprised of Government loans and the income from the bills that you put out. Your costs for things such as electricity will go up significantly—notwithstanding the fact that that is hedged, we heard that it will cost you £70 million extra. We have also heard about the cost of new treatments for manganese, drought supply vehicles and so on, all of which put extra costs on you.

What are the implications of those extra operating costs for the capital expenditure that you have presumably planned in for upgrades for the move to net zero, which we heard about earlier?

Thank you. Peter Farrer has something to add.