Seòmar agus comataidhean

I never thought that I would hear myself saying this, but I agree with Douglas Lumsden. It is quite difficult for certain communities to navigate their way through the processes before us. It must be extremely difficult to benefit from these schemes in areas where people are less privileged.

I note that the issue is, of course, reserved. However, we are talking about having something whereby there is some sort of muscle, by giving communities the power to have ownership and enabling local authorities to exercise planning conditions.

I have to say that some companies seem to be in more of a negotiating mode with communities. For example, through the Longmuir renewable energy and biodiversity project in my constituency, Galileo Empower is developing proposals for a renewable energy and biodiversity project on land approximately 4.5km north of the village of Stow. That is only in the initial stages, but the proposals are for up to 10 turbines, with co-location of solar photovoltaics and a battery energy storage system. The developer also proposes a renewable electricity discount scheme, known as REDS, which will result in cheaper electricity generated by the project being distributed to locally designated areas. In addition, a 10 per cent community ownership stake will be provided. The project is in the early days, and I am unclear whether that 10 per cent has to be bought by the community or is just part of the contract.

That brings me to CARES, the community and renewable energy scheme. I note that, since its inception, it has advised more than 1,300 organisations and provided £67 million in funding to communities throughout Scotland. However, now that the scheme is reopening again and various communities can bid for support from the £8 million Government fund, which closes in September and is capped, I recommend that my constituent communities do not waste time but apply PDQ. That fund could help communities to install wind turbines and solar panels or develop other types of renewable energy generation, such as hydro, which would meet local needs.

I will end on the wider benefits of community ownership. I think that Patrick Harvie referenced the fact that the local economic return from a community-owned wind turbine is 34 times greater than that from a privately owned one. That is much better even than the current community benefit arrangement. Such schemes would, of course, get higher public support, as 62 per cent of people back community-owned energy projects in their areas.

A report referenced by Social Enterprise Scotland said:

“in terms of sheer size, the benefit payments from community owned wind farms far exceed the payments from private wind farms.”

I hope that today’s debate opens up opportunities for communities in my constituency, and I will certainly be publicising those.

The minister used the phrase “a necessary evil”, but I said in my speech that it was not a necessary evil, but a welfare issue. A lot of the conflict between those with animal welfare concerns and those who wish to do the culling has been resolved by seeing that it is also in the beasts’ interest that they do not overpopulate.

I admit that I find this area—communities finding varied routes to benefit from green energy projects such as turbines, solar panels, battery storage and hydro—quite confusing. Maybe that is just me. However, I have a suspicion that the communities that could benefit will not, as I have said before, be in deprived areas, where folk could do with cheaper energy or funding for their area through the community benefit system.

With the exception of community benefits from wind farm developments that have been negotiated by communities with developers, I do not know of any communities that have utilised those routes. I will continue my investigation. Projects in my constituency that have come from community benefit funding, such as the Oxton Community Shop and the redevelopment of the Crook Inn and associated buildings high in the hills at Tweedsmuir, are examples that come immediately to mind, but they have been going for some time now, and involve very skilled members of those communities.

Therefore, I am pleased to read that under CARES, the Scottish Government is committed to updating the good practice principles for negotiating community benefit. I would be interested in hearing from the Government what the updating will be, why, and whether the principles will be simplified.

Lesson learned, cabinet secretary—thank you very much for that.

Returning to the issue, there is the rare opportunity for a community to have the option of buying shares in a wind farm development. However, I think that that is more of a wish-list item, because the capital required to do that would be substantial, and, frankly—although I am probably going to get told off again—I do not know of any community in my constituency that has bought shares in a private development. I note, though, that the cabinet secretary made reference to Government support. Perhaps in her summing up that can be clarified.

I have what might be a daft question, but I will ask it anyway. Would it be possible for a local authority, or in this case the Scottish Government, to give planning authorities the flexibility to introduce either community benefit or share options as—and I emphasise this—a condition of planning consent? At the moment, it is voluntary and negotiated. I do not know the answer to that, but I think that the cabinet secretary is about to rise and tell it to me.

I thank Patrick Harvie for raising the question, because it is important that the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body, for whom I speak, has the opportunity to set out the rationale for this collective and cross-party decision and to provide assurance that it is committed to offering an inclusive experience for all those who work at and visit Holyrood.

Although we have been made aware of the open letter’s existence via media reports, we have, in fact, only just received it this afternoon, so the SPCB has not yet had a chance to consider it. We will, of course, consider the letter and will be happy to provide a response. In the meantime, our having considered this sensitive issue, I would like to make the following general points on the SPCB’s behalf, if I may, in response to Mr Harvie’s question.

The SPCB remains deeply committed to providing a welcoming and inclusive environment for all those who work at and visit Holyrood. That includes people in the trans and non-binary community, as well as those with other protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010. In fulfilling its various roles and responsibilities, the SPCB must balance the needs and requirements of all those with a range of protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010 and must also take all necessary steps to ensure that Parliament complies with its legal responsibilities in a timely manner.

As stated by the Equality and Human Rights Commission, the law, as set out by the Supreme Court, is “effective immediately” and those who have duties under the Equality Act 2010 should be following the law and looking at what changes, if any, need to be made to their policies and practices. The SPCB has, for many years, provided a wide range of inclusive facilities at Holyrood, including gender-neutral facilities.

In the light of the Supreme Court ruling, our advisers have considered an interim stance—and I emphasise the term “interim”—that supports the SPCB in continuing to meet its legal responsibilities and to do so in a way that provides clarity and is inclusive for all those using our facilities. A detailed equality impact assessment was undertaken to assess the impact on people with each of the protected characteristics, and that was published, together with the SPCB paper, as part of the interim stance. That shows how we are balancing requirements across all groups, based on the facilities currently available at Holyrood, to create the optimal range of facilities for all users, again balancing the different protected characteristics.

Members will be aware that the next phase of work, which will look at changes in the medium to long term, includes a wide consultation with staff, members, members’ staff and other stakeholders. That will include consultation with external groups and organisations that work regularly and closely with people with all the protected characteristics set out in the Equality Act 2010. That will include stakeholders with insight into, and experience of, gender reassignment as well as other groups with protected characteristics, because the SPCB is required to balance the rights of all those with a protected characteristic.

I am just about to come to the end of my answer, Deputy Presiding Officer.

That further phase will also enable us to take account of the new EHRC code of practice when that is published, later this year.

I hope that that is helpful.

I certainly hope and expect that it will not put anyone in the Parliament into a hostile environment. That is not the culture in this building, and it has not been so in my 20-odd years here. As I have said, this is simply an interim decision—an interim practical choice—being made to comply with the Supreme Court ruling. A full consultation is now going ahead, and I fully expect that, at the end of that, members will see that the important balance between the rights of individuals, whatever their position, is dealt with appropriately and with sensitivity.

As, I am sure, all members do, I expect that members and the public will treat each other with respect throughout their engagement—casual or formal—in the building. That would include the situation set out in the remarks that the member just made.

Some of the language that Mr Harvie has used is rather unfortunate, because I hope that the corporate body has acted in a tolerant, sensitive, delicate and balanced manner.

The Scottish Parliament has always sought to reflect its founding principles, to be an open and accessible institution and to promote participation and equal opportunities, and we remain deeply committed to those principles and to providing—I know that Mr Harvie does not like the word—an inclusive environment where all, including those in the trans and non-binary communities, feel supported and welcome to work and to visit. The Parliament has, for many years, provided a wide and varied range of facilities across the building, including a number of single-occupancy spaces that are available for, and used by, everyone.

I am sorry if that issue is being raised. As a service provider and an employer, when we make facilities available there is an expectation that people will choose a facility respecting what we have done to balance different rights in line with our legal responsibilities. Our staff are always able to provide advice on the facilities that are available at Holyrood. I assure the member that this is not going to be policed by the corporate body. Like other public sector bodies, we have a complaints process, which staff can advise on and which is set out on our website, for those who wish to complain, and we will consider any complaints. However, we are certainly not monitoring the use of public facilities as a corporate body.