Seòmar agus comataidhean

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?

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 want to pick up on the final topic, because I have been thinking about Professor Nicola McEwen’s comments about there being an age of former glory in relation to use of the Sewel convention, obviously in very different political times and, as Chris McCorkindale has said, perhaps at a time when it was not being stress tested quite so much.

I am interested in parliamentary scrutiny and in getting thoughts from around the table about whether there is more parliamentary scrutiny now or whether there was more in the past and less today, and about what the opportunities for parliamentary scrutiny might be in future. I see that Professor Page is nodding—you have invited yourself to make the first comment.

That is very useful.

You have all spoken about LHEES a fair bit, and I have a couple of follow-up questions on those. We are now passing regulations requiring councils to produce their strategies and delivery plans by the end of 2023. Is everything in place to enable that to happen? Do you have concerns?

I would also like to ask about the scope of LHEES and the inclusion of public and commercial buildings in the mix. Earlier, you said that every building should be included, but does that include historic buildings and public and commercial buildings? Can we get all the heat sources linked into those strategies? With commercial heat sources, could people say, “No thanks—we’re not interested in this”? Could people resist connection to district heating or whatever?

I ask for your final reflections on LHEES and where we might be going in that respect.

On the possibility of a windfall tax, it now looks as though it is a matter of when rather than if. What would your priorities be for spending that money? Would they include, say, a deficit fund or funding for front-line energy efficiency advice? How should any reinvestment in this area be deployed in order to benefit people who are struggling?

As you will be aware, Greg Hands came before the committee last week, and he gave quite wide-ranging evidence on all sorts of things, including our nuclear energy. He described the Scottish Government’s opposition to nuclear as “ideological”. How do you respond to that? Is there a role for nuclear in reducing energy bills?

I want to go back to Janette Webb’s comments about street-by-street or area-by-area schemes. It feels as though we have been talking about such schemes for a long time. There was the example from 15 years ago of Kirklees Council being successful in that regard. What is getting in the way of delivery? I have seen some area-by-area schemes being rolled out as a result of the energy company obligation, but those have not been extended to occupiers in communities. What is the barrier to moving at pace and at scale on a street-by-street basis? How will the local heat and energy efficiency strategies deal with that?

My final question is about domestic consumers, particularly in rural areas, where the price of oil and liquefied petroleum gas is very volatile. Indeed, the price has been spiking recently, which is causing great concern. Do you support better regulation of the oil and LPG markets, including the introduction of a price cap on those supplies?

You mentioned the 20 per cent uplift in funding for Home Energy Scotland, but is that model of individual advice—telephone advice, detailed renewables reports, on-going engagement and so on—really cutting it? Is it getting through to the maximum number of people or do we need to think differently about how that advice is delivered? Could that be done through other agencies? Could it be done through, say, the national health service or other areas that engage with people who are struggling with the cost of living crisis?