Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

That is simply not a question for the corporate body. The urgent question was accepted and I am obliged to respond to it.

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.

I congratulate Beatrice Wishart on securing this debate on the motion, to which I was a signatory. Much has been said about smart meters—often about their unreliability—but, as has been said, at the end of June, the radio teleswitch service that connects to some people’s meters is being switched off.

Now I take myself and my head into the uncomfortable area, for me, of technology. Here we go. The difference between the position in Scotland and the north of England and that in the south of England is that in the midlands, Wales and southern England all smart meters use cellular technology, similar to mobile phones, to send data to energy providers. In the north of England and Scotland, the situation is different—I say to Tim Eagle that it is the same in the north of England. Here, as in the north of England, there is a long-range radio signal. What I do not understand is why, when the radio teleswitch service is switched off at the end of June, it will be replaced with another long-range radio signal. In Scotland, smart meters will run on that new radio signal and not on the public internet or wi-fi. I hope that that is so far so good, because my head is already birling.

What is the impact? Currently, more than 6,000 households in the Borders and more than 700 in Midlothian have yet to switch. That is bad enough. Besides that, the impact on too many of my constituents is that, even if they want to, they will not be able to connect to a smart meter system, because they cannot receive the new radio signal in their location. I have many constituents in that position. Scottish Power, for example, has advised that it will install instead a white meter. Meters must change because, without a new meter, people’s heating and hot water will be affected. They may find that their heating and hot water are always on or off, or that charging happens at the wrong time of day. Their electricity supplier will not be able to confirm how much electricity they have used for heating and other uses, which means that electricity costs could be much higher for them than before.

If someone’s area has a poor signal, their supplier must still replace their RTS meter to ensure that their heating is not disrupted. I am back in the technical maze again. If someone does not have a smart meter and currently has an RTS meter, they may be on a tariff that charges them a different price for the electricity that they use for their heating and hot water than it does for the rest of their electricity, such as for lighting and appliances. Some tariffs also offer lower rates at specific times of the day. That is a good thing, but it all changes after June.

After June, without a new meter, people’s heating and hot water will be affected. A smart meter would ensure that their heating was not disrupted but, if that is not possible, the provider—Scottish Power, for example—can install a white meter with the tariff pre-programmed. I emphasise that it is pre-programmed. People will have to send in manual readings and will not get the full benefits of a smart meter or any other kind of meter, but at least their heating will continue to work.

The trouble is that most white meters charge a slightly higher daytime price compared with a standard tariff, so it is very likely that people will end up paying a lot more. That brings us beyond the technology to the fact that Scotland is doing badly out of this different system. In the event that it is not possible to install a smart meter, people will perhaps be paying more on the pre-programmed tariff. They have to be the kind of person who does not mind cooler water in the evenings. The system will heat most of their water at night and store it in a storage heater, so their hot water will be hot in the morning and coolest in the evening. However, as I said, most white meters charge a higher tariff for daytime usage, which will apply to many older people and disabled people.

We end up with this technology, with too many of my constituents having to opt for a metering system that is more expensive. That is a bitter pill when the wind turbines around them are producing four times more electricity than the south of Scotland uses. They endure a landscape of pylons, but they pay more for the electricity that is generated on their doorstep.

Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?

In taking all reasonable steps to ensure that customers are no worse off, should there be a discount on the bill if, to use my example, white metering means that customers will pay more than they paid under the old metering system? Should there be a discount on their bill, once it has been compared with previous bills?

The target arises.

I will begin with Brexit, but I am not lingering there, because Stephen Kerr is too easy a target and, indeed, delights in being a target. Not only did 62 per cent of Scots reject Brexit at the EU referendum almost 10 years ago, but the percentage who reject it has risen throughout the rest of the UK, so that 55 per cent now think that Brexit was a mistake and only 30 per cent think that it was a good idea. Members do not need a PhD to know why that is the case. We face higher costs and more red tape, and we do not have £375 million extra a week to redirect to the NHS, as was blazoned on the side of a bus—and that is just for starters.

We lost freedom of workforce movement across Europe, which has had an impact across the Scottish economy and particularly in the hospitality, care and horticultural sectors, and is now exacerbated by the UK hike in the cost of employer national insurance, which is a tax on jobs if ever there was one, and by ill-considered comments and policies on legal migration from Sir Keir Starmer. We need migrants here because we know that we have an ageing population and a decreasing available workforce, so we cannot separate Scotland’s domestic needs from what the UK and Europe do or from the world’s wider conflicts.