Seòmar agus comataidhean

Sorry, in that case, no.

The biodiversity COP starting this week underlines how the climate and nature crises are two sides of the same coin. In Scotland, rising temperatures have threatened some of our most iconic species. The very habitats, such as peatlands, that can help us to naturally capture and store carbon from the atmosphere are now under threat, causing them to release the carbon that they hold. I look forward to the forthcoming Scottish biodiversity strategy starting to address those twin crises head on.

Much in the Scottish Government’s programme for government has put us on a faster route to net zero. There is an ambitious heat in buildings strategy; free bus travel for the under-22s, which we learned today is now benefiting more than half a million young Scots; a surge in tree planting; and a new deal for wind power. However, no Government is yet going far enough and the UKCCC and Scotland’s Climate Assembly have both highlighted areas for faster and more radical change, especially in the areas of aviation, peatland restoration and diet change. Like other members, I am sure that there will be further challenges when the UKCCC releases its Scotland update report tomorrow.

The challenging and necessary targets set by this Parliament mean that a far more ambitious climate plan must be developed early next year. The current plan is already way out of date and does not reflect the ambitions of the Bute house agreement. No options should be off the table in developing the new climate plan. The leadership shown by the French Government, which this week banned domestic flights where there is a rail alternative, signals the kind of options that must be considered if we are truly to deliver. Whether we currently have the powers is a different question, but we must spell out what is necessary.

It is clear that an outdated business-as-usual model will lead us down a road of no return. I will continue working as a member of the NZET Committee and with Greens in the Government to ensure that Scotland delivers transformative action on climate and nature.

I am struggling to think through how all this law can be retained in a fast-tracked way. Is there a competent way to fast-track retention of law? I think that David Bowles said earlier that we could put it all in an appendix and have thousands and thousands of laws.

Is there a danger that if laws were fast-tracked, that might be seen as being inadequate and could be legally challenged because proper impact assessments were not done for every single one of the thousands of laws? I am trying to understand what the complexities might be and whether there is a genuinely simple way, should ministers wish to use it, to retain that law.

Okay, but the main point here is that we have not adopted the acquis that the principles are part of, so we are no longer part of that. The principles might be in the treaty of Lisbon or whatever, but we are no longer part of that—we are not in that context any more—so where they get put is important.

I want to pick up on a point that Professor Reid raised at the beginning of the meeting—it would be good to get others’ reflections on it as well—about EU case law and its status, which has been built up over many decades. There is a phrase in the bill about EU case law restricting

“the proper development of domestic law.”

The committee has been struggling to understand what constitutes “proper development”, so I wonder whether Professor Reid could offer some thoughts on that. It would be useful to hear whether others have concerns or questions about how they think that that might play out with regard to the habitats regulations or other EU case law.

I was also interested in the interrelationship with the environmental principles. Lloyd Austin said that the environmental principles are not yet embedded, although they have been stated. Do the principles run through case law? For example, is the precautionary principle embedded in case law, but not embedded enough in legislation to ensure that it would remain in place?

I should declare an interest in that I am an associate member of the British Veterinary Association, although not a doctor.

I want to pick up on the third theme, which is about practical considerations, although I think that we have covered some of that already in the answers. We know that it is only 13 months to the guillotine, as it has been described. Could the witnesses give us their reflections on what that means for their organisations and how they anticipate working directly with Government departments, particularly DEFRA?

You are having to review 570 laws. We have heard general concerns about resource and staff implications, but how are you practically trying to work with that challenge in engaging with your members and Government departments, setting up working groups and so on? What does that stakeholder engagement look like for you? These decisions will need to be made if there is a sunset timescale of 13 months, rather than a phased approach being taken or a much more distant deadline being put in place.

That was a useful reflection on the impact. I am interested also in what practical measures you are putting in place, because the clock is really ticking on this.

I am getting the sense that there is not a plan—no one has said to you, “These are the dates by which you need to respond”. Sarah Millar, do you have a view?

If there is time for another question, I would like to ask what your preferred sunset clause is, if you would like there to be a sunset clause at all.

I think that Gareth Hateley said that he wanted the laws to be in place for as long as possible, and I think that Jonnie Hall said 2026. We have had evidence to suggest that that is quite an arbitrary date—it is 10 years after Brexit. Do you have any specific thoughts on when a sunset clause, if there should be a sunset clause at all, should be implemented, or do you think that a phased approach is the best way forward, which means that it is hard to pick a date?

I thank Paul McLennan for giving us all the opportunity not only to celebrate the progress that we have made so far with renewables in Scotland but to look at what is in store for the next chapter.

The report that we are debating is a useful baseline. It captures the jobs and economic benefit delivered in Scotland to date, but, in the years to come, we will look back at today’s figures and see just how small they were in comparison to what will be achieved. I will focus my contribution on the onshore wind sector and the need to not forget about onshore wind but double down on its progress in the years ahead.

Onshore wind continues to deliver the lion’s share of the economic benefit of renewables in Scotland. It remains the lowest-cost renewable energy and, dispersed across Scotland, onshore wind farms continue to provide predictable supply at a time when electricity demand for heating and transport continues to rise.

Year on year, the carbon content of our electricity generation is falling, largely due to onshore wind. With that, in turn, the climate impact of every electric vehicle and heat pump falls. Step by step, turbine by turbine, we are decarbonising electricity, largely with onshore wind and almost without noticing.

Meanwhile, from Shetland to the Borders, wind farms continue to provide community financial benefit and, with new projects, there will be new opportunities for that benefit to spread more widely and to grow in value. Outside our national scenic areas, wind farms also provide the opportunity for investment in nature restoration, public access and economic diversification at scale in our uplands.

Public support for onshore wind remains consistently high and grows locally once communities have had the experience of hosting turbines. After nearly three decades, we now have a flourishing ecosystem of Scotland-based developers, subcontractors and specialists who are ready to support the next stage of growth in onshore wind. The real challenge will be to match that sector with an equally strong domestic supply chain for wind farm component manufacturing.

The renewed commitment to onshore wind in the Bute house agreement will help to provide certainty to manufacturers and others that there is a strong market and a supportive environment for investment in Scotland. A target of 12GW of additional onshore wind by 2030 backed up by planning reforms and a strong policy statement is the start of a sector deal that will drive investment. Let us remind ourselves that the sector is incredible. It has smashed every energy target that has been set at Holyrood since devolution. It is ready to meet the hardest challenge that it has been set to date.

That growth needs to take place at a scale that has never been seen before in Scotland. The pace of new development will need to speed up. We cannot afford to have wind farm projects languishing in the planning system for seven years, as has been the case recently. We are in a climate emergency. Good wind farm proposals in the right places need to be fast tracked through a streamlined planning process. We no longer have time to wait. The planning system must allow those machines to fight climate change.

However, it is not just new sites and new projects that are needed. Existing wind farms need to be repowered quickly with newer, more productive turbines. Repowering alone means another 600MW to 800MW every year for the next 15 to 20 years, so it is a huge mission. It will be our children who work on those wind farms, just as the hydro schemes from our grandparents’ generations are still spinning and creating employment today.

Endless renewable technologies supporting enduring jobs for generations to come: that will be the renewables story told by future reports. We just need to focus and realise that vision.