Seòmar agus comataidhean

I was just reflecting on the point that Ian Forrester made about the European Union’s approach to developing policy, which involves in-depth working with scientific advisers, industry bodies, environmental non-governmental organisations and other stakeholders. Do you and the other witnesses see a mismatch or growing divergence between that well-established EU approach, which the UK was very much part of over many years, and the way in which policy is now being developed in the UK? Professor Barnard’s example of gene editing might be an interesting one to use to reflect on the robustness of the conversation that might be happening in the EU compared with what is being proposed here. Another example might relate to fisheries.

We perhaps underestimate how much work goes into hammering out agreements across the EU. There are lessons there for us across the UK.

Does Christina Eckes wish to come in?

Would Fabian Zuleeg like to come in?

I echo those points. It is one thing to flag up where there has been active alignment in relation to the Government’s legal duties, but it is clear that alignment goes much wider than that. An example is the Scottish Government’s future catching policy for fisheries, which is currently out for consultation. From reading through that, it appears that there is alignment with the principles of the common fisheries policy but, on looking at the detail of what is proposed, it could be argued that it is divergent on the landing obligation.

It is not clear in such consultations whether the Government seeks active divergence, and we and all committees of the Parliament absolutely need to continue to have a handle on that. That goes way beyond the reporting mechanisms that we currently have. Like other members, I hope that the Government will reflect on that, so that we do not sleepwalk in one direction or another. Such matters need to be given active consideration. Stakeholders need to be clear on where there is alignment and where it is proposed that there be divergence, and I do not think that we have clarity on that at the moment.

I apologise to the chamber if I need to leave before the end of the debate as I am hosting a reception in the Parliament.

I, too, offer warm thanks to Fergus Ewing for introducing the debate. I cannot believe that this is the first time since devolution that the Scottish Parliament has debated solar, but that perhaps emphasises the fact that it has been something of a Cinderella technology for many years.

The reduction in costs that we are starting to see should now usher in a new solar revolution and the Scottish Government should make solar a strong building block of its forthcoming energy strategy this autumn. The installed Scottish solar capacity of 380MW is clearly just a fraction of the 4GW to 6GW that is possible, but that potential will not be realised without, in effect, a new deal for solar, including changes to planning, building standards, non-domestic rates, grid access and agricultural subsidies that Mr Ewing and others have already outlined.

Targets have worked for energy generation in Scotland since the early days of devolution, sending clear signals to investors. Setting a solar target should be considered in the forthcoming energy strategy. I also hope that Ofgem will facilitate the investment in the grid that is needed to allow all of Scotland’s renewables to make their contribution to UK climate and energy targets. We cannot afford to be pitting one technology against another.

While the national planning framework 4 elevates the consideration of climate change to the top of planners’ minds, it is not yet consistent on the detail, with policy 19 on renewables being a problem that the planning minister has committed to fixing. Permitted development policy, which has already been mentioned, is a case in point. There are some artificial limits in Scotland on what solar can be installed on a roof space without requiring a planning application. There are challenges here and there is much policy that needs to be tidied up.

With electricity costs set to rise even further, for many households solar will be the most important technology that could be installed to directly reduce electricity bills. The most effective way to empower householders is to turn consumers into generators. At a time when all decarbonisation pathways, from transport to heating, rely heavily on electricity, solar gives householders the opportunity to be masters of an entire domestic electricity system in their homes, incorporating smart meters, smart car chargers, water heating and household batteries to enable people to balance supply and demand, ultimately reducing dependency on the national grid.

Thus far, though, solar installations have by and large been piecemeal and individual householder led. Installers tell me that the Home Energy Scotland system for accessing finance can be bureaucratic and time-consuming. We need to see a change here and the street by street, community by community roll-out of solar would help to meet the scale of the opportunity. I hope that the forthcoming local heat and energy efficiency strategies will be able to plan for how this could be achieved in each council area.

There is good precedent. During the early days of the feed-in tariff, Stirling Council installed solar on most of its socially rented housing stock, to the point that you could easily count the number of council houses in any street by their solar rooftops. However, the fact that most owner-occupied houses in those streets remain without solar, shows that the roll-out has been far from universal so far. Families need support right now; they need that roll-out street by street rather than by the individual application process that we have seen so far.

Solar has the brightest of futures, but it will take tweaks, reforms and renewed leadership at both local and national levels to ensure that every part of Scotland benefits.

Does the member not acknowledge that, if the Romans had had nuclear power, we would still be looking after the waste? Is he prepared to factor in the costs of the several millennia of work needed to deal with nuclear waste?

We have taken evidence on the national planning framework, and there is a major tilt towards the climate and nature emergencies at that high level. I am thinking about how that translates into local development plans, which already exist and will go through a period of review and updating. How fit for purpose are the 32 local development plans across Scotland? Is there enough space and enough policy within those plans to facilitate 12GW of onshore wind or 4GW of solar energy? Are the plans fit for purpose? Is there a gap between what NPF4 says and what is actually in the 32 LDPs?

I ask Morag Watson to start. If you have examples of LDPs that are particularly facilitative of renewable energy, or of ones on which you think there is not enough action, that would be useful.

I presume that these would be fairly simple matters, given the size of the site and the nature of the project. For example, would the requirement for the project developer to speak to SEPA really require a huge amount of work to be done?

I will ask about two aspects of the bill that are a bit contentious. One is about the water environment: in effect, the controlled activities regulations are not being applied through the bill, which seems a bit odd. Surely there are not lots of rivers passing through what is quite a small site. The other aspect that I want to ask about is building standards. Are there any risks to the environment or to building users as a result of not adopting those regulations through the bill?