Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

Next week, I will host an online summit with my constituents to discuss the future of bus services, and I would be happy to share the results of that with the minister. Does the minister believe that the regulator currently has enough powers to hold the bus companies to account over minimum standards of services?

Of the discharges that you know are happening, and which you recognise are problematic and are therefore monitoring, what proportion are deliberate and what proportion are accidental discharges?