Seòmar agus comataidhean

Do you see there being a role in a more sustainable supply chain for wood fuel biomass for heating, or is that a diminishing part of the energy mix?

It is really interesting to hear your evidence, Franziska. I will pick up on your last point about how engaged citizens are in Freiburg. Will you talk me through the formal mechanisms for engaging citizens? Is there a danger of what we call consultation fatigue, as a result of people being constantly asked about public policy? What sort of mechanisms do you have for engaging citizens? Are there citizens assemblies or particular referendums or discussions on particular issues? How does such engagement manifest itself?

I join other members in thanking Colin Smyth for his cross-party leadership on animal welfare at Holyrood, and also join him in thanking our animal welfare charities for their relentless work in this area.

I think that the ethical principles that we are discussing hold a mirror up to our relationship with the natural world. They highlight where wildlife management has moved on to a better footing but they also point to where traditional and often anti-scientific practices are unfortunately still the norm. They also reveal that the way that we treat our domestic animals can be dramatically different to the way that we treat some wild animals that are still, sadly, viewed as pests and vermin to be eradicated. The study from the League Against Cruel Sports, showing an estimated 250,000 wild animals killed each year on sporting estates, demonstrates how far there is still to go. The estimates that half of those animals are non-target species, such as hedgehogs or domestic cats, shows how cruel and indiscriminate practices such as snaring can be.

In recent years, we have seen numerous wildlife reviews led by eminent chairs—Poustie on wildlife crime and sentencing; Werritty on driven grouse moors; Bonomy on hunting with wild dogs—as well the critical report from the deer working group that is now being acted on through the Green-SNP agreement. Each of those reviews has moved the dial a little, but there is still a need for a consistent approach in relation to how we manage wildlife.

The position statement on wildlife management from Scottish Natural Heritage in 2014 and the later concordat that was signed were a really good first step. The SGA signed up to that concordat, as well, but, eight years on, I think that we are all agreed that there is a need for further reform. I welcome the debate on the principles, and the fact that the framework has already been adopted by Parks Canada tells me that it can probably work here too.

As Colin Smyth outlined, the seven principles are largely common sense. Take the first principle that we should look into the root causes of conflict of wildlife. It is obvious that, for example, many of the problems that we have gulls in town are due to rubbish and food waste collection issues. The gulls are really trying to tell us something about the need for a much more circular economy. The mentality of seeing certain species as pests is deep-seated and needs challenge. I was saddened to hear calls from the National Farmers Union Scotland recently for lethal controls on protected white-tailed eagles.

Although sea eagles can scavenge for dead lambs, it is a small proportion of their diet, and it is quite clear from the research that incidents of eagles taking live lambs are rare and that better husbandry, including lambing taking place under shelter, would address the real causes of the quite horrific levels of black loss that we see in sheep farming. Of course, many of the techniques to minimise that black loss are being trialled by farmers and crofters under the excellent sea eagle management scheme that is run by NatureScot, which is delivering welfare benefits to sheep as well as eagles. However, there is no need or justification for the culling of sea eagles, and those who persecute them illegally are quite clearly criminals.

The framework acknowledges that the culling of some species might, in some circumstances, be justified but it rightly demands systematic plans with clear objectives to be considered rather than the habitual culling of animals such as foxes that often results in populations just bouncing back again. Clear objectives are important and I think that OneKind is right to point out in its briefing for this debate that the badger cull in England failed to meet its objectives to curb bovine tuberculosis.

The debate on these principles is welcome and timely, and I very much look forward to hearing from the minister later about how the Scottish Government can embed them further into policy, practice and, ultimately, the law.

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?