Official Report 808KB pdf
Item 3 is consideration of new petitions. As always, I say to those who might be tuning in or joining us for the first consideration of their petition that, ahead of so doing, we invite the Parliament’s independent research body, the Scottish Parliament information centre, to offer the committee a briefing on the issues raised. We also ask for a preliminary view from the Scottish Government. We do those two things because, historically, when we considered petitions, those were the first two things that we did and we then had to wait until the next meeting before we took any further action. The current approach allows us to progress with a little bit more speed.
Pump Storage Hydro Schemes (Impact on Salmon) (PE2109)
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?
I would like to, convener, if there is time.
Please do.
Thank you, convener. I remind members of my entry in the register of members’ interests, which shows that I own part of a wild salmon fishery. I should also point out that I managed fisheries on the Ness and Loch Ness until 2006. My family has a strong connection with Loch Ness, having funded various expeditions to try to find the monster in the 1950s.
The petition has come about because of the work that is being proposed for pump storage in Loch Ness. I accept the importance of pump storage to our net zero demands in Scotland. It provides us with green energy and the ability to have a black start, should there be a complete failure in the national grid.
However, the pump storage at Loch Ness has proven that there are real threats to the environment that we do not yet fully understand. Pump storage will increase the temperature of the water that goes back into the loch. It will invariably require the feeder loch to have its height increased, which is what is being suggested for Loch Ness. That will damage the edge of the loch and cause problems for flora and fauna. The very edge of the loch is probably the most oxygenated area. NatureScot has objected to the proposal.
I know that it would be difficult for the committee to make a recommendation to stop everything when it comes to pump storage, because it is important to Scotland. However, we need to understand what we are doing when it comes to generating electricity.
As a member of the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee, I say this with a bit of trepidation, because other members might not thank me for it, but this committee might think it appropriate to refer the petition to the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee so that it can undertake work to ascertain whether there is a problem. I am not volunteering that committee’s services, because I might be killed when I return to it, but it might be an idea.
It is generous of you to spoil all our fun. I am sure that we might want to consider some of the issues raised in the petition in the first instance while you go on your next trip to area 51 and your various monster quests.
Are there any suggestions on how we might proceed?
I wonder whether the committee would consider writing to the Scottish Government to seek a further response to the petition, particularly on whether it is sure that a pump storage hydro scheme would not have a significant impact on wild Atlantic salmon, and on how its policy on pump storage hydro schemes is informed by the Scottish wild salmon strategy, which recognise the impact of infrastructure and changes to water on the fish.
I second David Torrance’s suggestion and support further examination of the consequences of pump storage, as Edward Mountain has eloquently set out, not least because of the potential for disturbance of the habitat of my most famous, albeit elusive, constituent, Nessie.
There is a great deal of support for pump storage schemes in principle, and I am among the most enthusiastic of supporters. I should say for transparency that I am due to speak to Mr Shaw later and have been in correspondence with him about the issue.
11:00The concern about the impact of pump storage schemes is an enduring one, and the right time to bottom out the issues is now, not when it is too late. I do not know what the answers are. Mr Mountain has expertise in this area, and so do many other people. I have had many discussions, over many years, with the Ness District Salmon Fishery Board and others who are interested in the success of our wild salmon sector. The petition addresses an enduring concern that will not go away. We must bottom things out. This is the time for the Government to get to grips with the issue.
I have a supplementary suggestion to make. I would like to find out what work has been done by the developers. Plainly, all the developers will have commissioned their own research. In the interests of openness and transparency, I suggest that we write to the developers, including the developers of the project in question, and to SSE. I suspect that they will have already commissioned reports on the impacts on wild salmon. In order that we can have a proper debate, we should ask them to make those reports public, to avoid any suggestion that any unwelcome or inconvenient truths that might have emerged from those reports are being kept secret. We need to get to grips with the issue. If we do not, others in decades to come might well question what we were doing.
I agree with Mr Torrance and Mr Ewing. I am concerned about the cumulative effect of such schemes, of which there are a number. In that regard, I have two suggestions to make. One is that we need to understand the context. Globally—whether in relation to the Hoover dam in the USA, the three gorges dam in China or the Gabcíkovo-Nagymaros dam between Hungary and Slovakia—there is a massive body of evidence on the environmental impact of dam building. If a particular pump storage scheme is looked at in isolation, that might lead to unintended consequences in the long term. Academia—I am thinking, in particular, of the UNESCO centre for water law, policy and science, which is based at the University of Dundee—might be where we should go to look at the wider context.
Secondly, we need to get an understanding from the Scottish Government of whether the planning system can adequately cope with and assess the cumulative impact of a number of such schemes.
A considerable number of suggestions have been made. If Mr Golden is ever on “Pointless”, I think that he might win the money if his question involves naming dams. [Laughter.]
Are colleagues content for the committee to keep the petition open and to take up those suggestions?
Members indicated agreement.
I am glad to hear that you watch daytime television.
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.
11:03 Meeting suspended.Bus Franchising Powers (PE2116)
Our next petition is PE2116, lodged by Ellie Harrison on behalf of Better Buses for Strathclyde, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to improve the process for implementing the bus franchising powers that are contained in the Transport (Scotland) Act 2019 by introducing, without delay, the regulations and statutory guidance that are required to give bus franchising powers full effect; amending the 2019 act to remove the requirement for proposed franchising frameworks to be approved by a panel appointed by the traffic commissioner, and instead empowering regional transport partnerships to have the final say on approving proposals; and providing additional funding to help support regional transport partnerships in preparing franchising frameworks and assisting them with the initial set-up costs once frameworks are approved.
We have assembled a galaxy of parliamentary talent this morning. I welcome to the meeting Neil Bibby, Patrick Harvie, Mark Ruskell, Graham Simpson and Paul Sweeney. We had also hoped to have Katy Clark with us, but unfortunately she is unable to attend.
For some of you—I am looking at Mr Sweeney—it is a return to familiar territory. I think that we have also had Mr Ruskell at the committee before, but it is Mr Harvie’s first appearance—during my tenure, at any rate.
Yes, during your tenure, convener.
I welcome you all.
Members will be aware that, although section 38 of the Transport (Scotland) Act 2019, which makes provisions for local bus service franchising, came into effect in December 2023, the full suite of secondary legislation and guidance for the introduction of local service franchising is not yet in place. Transport Scotland, in its initial response to the petition, indicates that a number of substantive regulations have been laid, stating that
“The remaining regulations and statutory guidance to bring the franchising provisions into effect will be provided before the end of this year.”
The initial response also states that the Scottish Government has no plans to revisit the primary legislation to remove the requirement for an independent panel to be convened to approve or reject a local transport authority’s franchising proposal.
As has been highlighted in the submissions that we have received from the petitioner, although the delay in enacting provisions is, in their view, “inexcusable”, events have now slightly overtaken us. As members will likely be aware, the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee, at its meeting on 29 October, considered a Scottish statutory instrument relating to the traffic commissioner’s role in appointing the independent panel and recommended that the SSI be annulled. A motion to annul the SSI was subsequently lodged in the chamber, and was not agreed to. That means that the regulations are in place, and, indeed, they came into effect on 1 November.
During the NZET Committee’s consideration of the recent SSI, it has become apparent that the remaining regulations and associated guidance will now be published in the new year. There is a lot of information to consider, which is detailed in our papers for today’s meeting, and it includes developments relating to bus franchising in other parts of the UK. We have also received a written submission from Paul Sweeney, which is included in our papers, too.
I invite all colleagues who have expressed an interest in the matter—as I welcome the interest of parliamentary colleagues in relation to petitions—to address the committee. We thought of having an opinion poll to see in which order we should hear from you all, but, ultimately, we opted simply to invite you to speak in alphabetical order. I know that the clerks have asked you, if you can, to complement, rather than repeat, one another’s evidence. The committee would very much appreciate that.
We will begin with Neil Bibby.
Good morning, convener. I understand that you want us to be brief—and I will happily be brief.
Although I am delighted to be at the committee, I am, to be frank, fed up with talking about this particular issue. However, I am not nearly as fed up as my constituents in West Scotland are about being failed by an utterly broken bus market.
I commend Ellie Harrison and the Better Buses for Strathclyde campaign for lodging the petition. As members will know, I represent the West Scotland region, including Renfrewshire, which last year saw a 13 per cent cut in bus services. That drastic cut that has had real consequences for people in West Scotland. Young people in Erskine are struggling to get to college; disabled residents in Gallowhill are being abandoned; there are veterans in Erskine without a nearby bus stop; national health service workers from Barrhead and Neilston are facing challenges in making it to their shifts at the Royal Alexandra hospital; and working mothers in Johnstone are finding it impossible to drop their kids off at school and get to work on time. In Foxbar, a dialysis patient is now having to make a daily taxi journey, because of early morning bus cuts. All the while, people in Glasgow and the west are paying among the highest bus fares anywhere in the UK.
Frankly, people have had enough, which is why you have so many MSPs in front of you this morning. Young people and older people alike are now asking what the point of a free bus pass is if there is no bus to get on. I focused on Renfrewshire, because I can offer that particular perspective, but the same stories are being replicated across Glasgow and the west.
Private bus operators clearly want to keep the status quo, but that is not an option; reform is long overdue and needs to be accelerated in the ways that the petitioner has put forward. Bus passengers in the west need and deserve change. The same franchising powers have been implemented in places such as Manchester, Liverpool and Leeds—and if it is good enough for those areas, it is certainly good enough for Greater Glasgow and Clyde.
The process for putting local buses under local control should be accelerated, and transport authorities should be provided with the necessary resources and information to make that happen urgently. I welcome the petition.
Thank you, Mr Bibby. You have illustrated your evidence with examples from communities adjacent to my constituency in Eastwood, where there are similar concerns. Given that I regularly—indeed, almost daily—receive representations on the inadequacy of bus services, particularly in what is a growing community that feels that it is not at all well served by those services, I understand the points that you have made.
I invite Patrick Harvie to contribute.
Thank you, convener. I am grateful to you and the committee for making time for so many colleagues to address you. The fact that so many of us are here should be the first demonstration to you of the clear breadth of political support for greater urgency in this area.
I have seen very positive engagement by the campaigners—certainly those based in Glasgow, who are working with all political parties that represent the city. There is clear consensus that there needs to be fundamental change. In fact, the passing of the 2019 act demonstrates that there is already clear consensus on the need to move in the direction of franchising and to support local areas that choose to do so. The passing of the 2019 act was intended not only to make that possible but to make significant progress in that direction.
Even when the Parliament was considering that legislation, the committee that was doing so took a litany of evidence at stage 1 that the process, including the panel, would simply take too long. Many organisations—the Society of Chief Officers of Transportation in Scotland, Glasgow City Council, the Strathclyde Partnership for Transport, the Scottish Association for Public Transport and the Urban Transport Group—raised concerns about the timescale involved and the level of bureaucracy and lack of democratic accountability in that process.
Since the bill went through the Parliament and became an act, faster progress has been made elsewhere than is being made in Scotland, despite the political consensus that this should be the direction of travel. It is very clear that, if we are going to see communities such as the one that Neil Bibby described and, indeed, right across Scotland benefit from the required change, we need to accelerate the process. If that means the Scottish Government making relatively minor changes to primary legislation, that is what should happen.
I am a member of the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee that recently scrutinised the regulations that were approved—if very narrowly—by the Parliament.
It is important that bus services, which are public services, are run in the public interest. Franchising is an important part of the public control that is needed, and that is reflected in the 2019 act. As Patrick Harvie has said, the issue is that, in the years since the act was passed, franchising has progressed very rapidly in England, while we have yet to see that kind of progress in Scotland.
Some of the reasons for that are down to the fact that we have not had the legislation in place to enable us to proceed. However, the petitioners also have concerns about whether the decision-making process for a franchise for bus services could be influenced by vested interests.
At the moment, the process that was agreed by the Parliament focuses on the role of the traffic commissioner, who is appointed by the UK Government, not by the Scottish Government. It is the traffic commissioner who appoints the panel that ultimately makes the decision. That is a problem, because one of the traffic commissioner’s stated objectives is to minimise the regulatory burden on operators. If operators who are actively frustrating bus franchising go to court to challenge the bus franchising process, their interests could effectively be represented in a roundabout way through a decision-making panel. That would put the panel in direct opposition to what the 2019 act was trying to achieve, which is to encourage more public control through franchising.
The initial consultation on the act indicated that ministers would make the decisions on franchising, but now, it is the traffic commissioner and a panel that will do that. That requires more examination. The NZET committee has yet to approve the final piece of legislation in the jigsaw that would allow franchising to go forward. This committee could look at the issue again, take evidence from the petitioners and look critically at the issue of a potential conflict of interest between the traffic commissioner and the panel.
11:15
This is also my first time at the committee, and it has been fascinating and entertaining. I must come back.
Others have laid out the case for franchising. As you know, convener, too many areas of Scotland are not well served by buses. I describe some of those areas as bus deserts. I live in a place where the bus service is not good enough, and it leads to many people using their cars, because they do not have a choice. Franchising, if implemented, has the potential to provide a solution, but the frustration that colleagues have already expressed is that, in Scotland, it is taking far too long. I think that that is where the petitioners are coming from, too.
I invite the committee to look at the process. It might also wish to look at some of the suggested legislation from the new UK Government. There is the proposed buses bill, which will speed up the process of franchising down south. I think that we need something similar in Scotland, because of the frustration that things are taking far too long. Mr Ruskell mentioned, quite rightly, the Parliament’s recent tied vote on bus franchising, in which the final vote went to the Presiding Officer. The concern in that respect related to the undemocratic nature of the panel, which could quash any work that had already been done on franchising.
The only game in town at the moment is the Strathclyde Partnership for Transport, which covers the convener’s constituency and is looking at franchising. If it did go down that road, it would spend a lot of time and money only to, ultimately, come up against a three-person panel that could stop it from going ahead. I do not think that that is a very good system at all.
I call Paul Sweeney to speak on his written submission.
Thank you, convener. I appreciate your kindness in allowing me to speak in addition to my written submission.
In addition to what colleagues have already outlined in relation to the dysfunctional nature of the bus network in the west of Scotland and greater Glasgow area, I highlight that the control of the fare box is a critical factor in a franchising structure. It is not about nationalising the assets of bus companies—going down that route would be a red herring. It is about centralising and having public control of the fare box, which would allow for rational, coherent management of an integrated bus system and enable its integration with other transport modes, such as rail, subway and so on.
The concern relates to the lack of progress with the implementation of the provisions in the 2019 act. We feel that it is bizarre that UK legislation within a similar timescale has been implemented but implementation has not happened nearly as quickly in Scotland. One could surmise that it might be that the Government was reluctant in the first place to entertain the amendments to the 2019 act, which introduced provisions for franchising and that, therefore, it was not as eager to enact the provisions. However, we are where we are.
There is contention over the act’s provision on the traffic commissioner’s panel having veto power over democratic decisions made by regional transport authorities on the implementation of their preferred structures. Therefore, I wonder whether the committee could take further evidence from, say, the Law Society of Scotland on the differences between the UK and Scottish legislation and what can be done to improve it. It could also ask for evidence from SPT and, indeed, seek evidence from the Better Buses for Strathclyde campaign, which initiated the petition, about the nature of its concerns with regard to the legislation. After all, it has studied it in great detail and understands the issues with it in great depth.
The committee could also consider inviting the Secretary of State for Transport and, perhaps, the UK Minister for Buses—Louise Haigh and Simon Lightwood—to offer their views on the appointment of a new traffic commissioner for Scotland. That role is currently vacant; it was advertised earlier in the year, but the appointment process was disrupted by the general election. Given their policy position, it might be interesting to get their perspectives with regard to their support for franchising in Scotland and how they might be able to assist colleagues in Scotland with its implementation, through the appointment of a bus traffic commissioner who would be minded to support such measures.
Thank you. A number of suggestions have been made that I think that we might want to pursue, and I would note those made by Mr Sweeney and Mr Simpson, particularly in relation to legislation and other such matters. Do colleagues have any suggestions for action?
I was considering suggesting that the petition be referred to the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee, but, gentlemen, you have been so convincing that I would like the committee to continue with the petition. Can we write to the seven statutory regional transport partnerships, seeking their views on the ask in the petition? I wonder whether we should also consider writing to the Confederation of Passenger Transport, Bus Users Scotland and the traffic commissioner for Scotland. I would also like the committee to write to the Bee Network in Greater Manchester, the West Yorkshire Combined Authority and Transport for Wales, seeking information on their experience of developing and introducing bus franchising in their areas.
Perhaps we could also ask SPICe to have a look at the proposed better buses bill at Westminster and to give us a little bit of information on that.
Do you want to comment, Mr Ewing?
Yes. I am not familiar with the circumstances in the central belt of Scotland, but certainly in the north of Scotland, many rural communities have no bus services whatsoever. With the bus services in Inverness, which are provided by Stagecoach, the problem has not been one of regulation or otherwise; it has been a lack of drivers. Indeed, it is a very serious problem. The very detailed exchange that my constituency office has had with Stagecoach indicates that it has gone to great lengths to sort the problem, and it has recruited more drivers. I thought that I would make that point, convener, because I am genuinely unfamiliar with the issues that the members have raised, and I defer to their experience.
Is that a potential future career option for you, Mr Ewing?
I suspect not—actually, definitely not.
I suggest, just for the sake of balance, that we ask the key operators in the relevant areas for their views, because we on this committee have a duty to listen to all sides of the argument. I would be interested to know what the operators’ view is, particularly with regard to the costs of franchising. I recall how, 20 years ago, when this issue was raised with the Local Government and Transport Committee, of which I was a member, we found cost to be a significant factor in the equation, because the costs of running a process are costs that could, some might argue, be better deployed in delivering a better transport system.
I think that it is perfectly reasonable to invite others to contribute evidence to the committee, and I think that we are going to hold the petition open.
As a final thought, I might not usually do this but, if any of those who have addressed us this morning have any other suggestions of other things that they might like us to take evidence on, they should speak up quickly now. I am quite happy for them to do so. Mr Bibby?
I have nothing to add.
So you are quite content. Mr Sweeney?
I just want to emphasise the point about UK ministers having input to the committee—
I heard you make that point, yes—it was not lost on me. As you know, the Parliament has been very successful at acquiring the contributions of UK ministers. [Laughter.] We can put in a long-term request and see what success we have in due course; maybe something will be made available to us before Parliament dissolves.
I note that a number of supporters of the petition are in the gallery this morning—thank you for joining us. We will keep the petition open and advance the interests as has been suggested. As we move on to our next and final new petition this morning, I thank everyone very much for their participation.
Flood Risk Management (PE2118)
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?
I have a few. First, given the Scottish Government’s policy of compliance with current European Union legislation, I would like to clarify whether its policy is compliant with the EU floods directive and water framework directive.
I find the response from the Scottish Government incredibly disappointing. It just about strategies and working groups. I do not know Speyside well but, in Angus, 60 homes are being demolished as a result of inadequate flood defences. Planning was consented for homes, which led to flooding last year and, a year on, there has been no action whatsoever. As we heard from the Scottish Government, no one is responsible for providing leadership over riparian basin management, so I would appreciate hearing the Scottish Government’s views on a single body being appointed to be responsible in that regard.
In Scotland, local authorities are taking one view in respect of planning. SEPA is notionally in charge of flood management plans but is not able to implement them if there is disagreement with other interested parties. There is a lack of foresight over flood basin management with landowners and food producers and there are consultations with people who feel that their voices are not heard.
Leadership is necessary. It does not matter whether it is SEPA or another body, but the people of Scotland deserve to know who and which organisation is responsible. If it is the Scottish Government, that is great. If it is SEPA, that is fine, but we need to know who manages our flood risk management approach and, as the petitioner seeks to do, consider whether that approach is correct. However, we do not know who is responsible at the moment. There may be some other points, convener.
I was struck by the arguments that are contained in the petitioners’ written submission of 10 November, submitted by Mr Jim Mackie, who points out:
“Communities are not aware of any public consultations on flooding”.
Communities and community councils seem to be excluded from the process.
In its response, the Scottish Government said:
“We are committed to further strengthening these efforts, with a focus on community engagement”.
What does that mean? Does it mean consulting community councils, for example, which take an active role?
Over the years, the problems in my constituency have been serious. They have perhaps not been quite as serious as those of people in Angus but, nonetheless, they have been very serious. There seems to be complete control by SEPA. Mr Mackie points out that the
“Cost of flood damage in Potentially Vulnerable Areas … is calculated centrally using the Multicoloured Manual, a book first published in 2003”,
which
“contains flood statistics from three river basins in England. The figures produced are fictional. No research is done at a community level”—
none. What is that about? That sounds extraordinary.
Secondly, he says that, as Mr Golden pointed out,
“Councils have no legal responsibility”.
Who has responsibility? That buck is constantly being passed around.
He also says—this is the meat of it:
“Rivers and streams carry sediments, trees, and bushes downstream. More so in floods. These catch in the riverbed and/or banks. Sediments build up and raise riverbeds and banks. ... Riverbank erosion is seen as a ‘natural process’”
NatureScot and SEPA prevent practical solutions by landowners and community councils that know what the problem is. You cannot take soil or gravel from one area and put it into another area because of rules that SEPA and NatureScot apply. Therefore, obstructions build up, thus exacerbating or causing flooding problems. I have encountered that many times in my constituency. Every occasion ends up with SEPA saying no. Often, SEPA’s officials do not bother to come to visit anybody anyway. That is part of their modus operandi. It is not to get out of their office but to issue edicts from the warmth of their office, wherever it may be.
I feel strongly that Mr Mackie and Mr Christie, through their efforts and very detailed knowledge—they have really impressed me—have brought to us a set of serious issues. In due course, we might wish to obtain evidence from them so that the Parliament can hear directly from them about those concerns.
Are you suggesting, Mr Ewing, that we contact the Scottish Government to highlight the petitioner’s concerns about the lack of a consultation process and to get some sort of reaction to that?
Absolutely. Preferably not the general, vague answers that we are familiar with, but specific answers to the points that the petitioners have made. After all, that is our job. If we do not get specific answers, they can be sure that the committee will do its job.
We have suggestions from Mr Golden and that suggestion. Perhaps we should write to SEPA asking for the make-up of the local information advisory groups. We might want to hear a bit more about that. We might also want to hear what action SEPA is taking to ensure that the knowledge of local communities is properly included, given the issues that have been raised in other petitions as well. Are members content that we proceed on that basis?
Members indicated agreement.
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.
11:34 Meeting continued in private until 11:40.Previous
Continued Petitions