Chamber and committees

Yes, thank you, convener.

It has been a very interesting and enlightening evidence session, and I have just a couple of quick questions. First, one situation highlighted in the report is of greyhounds living and being trained in Scotland but going to race in England, where there is more of a greyhound racing industry. In that scenario, you have recommended independent regulation. Can you explain the Scottish Government’s powers in relation to that aspect of regulation? We have not touched on that yet.

I think that what we struggle with as a committee is understanding what the real issues are that have yet to be addressed. There are issues around communication, which you raised earlier, and there are perhaps issues that have already been addressed but have not been communicated. I am really interested to know which issues you are still working on.

Okay. I want to focus on a couple of specific areas. What might the challenges be with the cut-over period, when scheme items and non-scheme items will be in circulation? Can you also offer some thoughts on how a grace period for small producers might work? It feels as if having items that are in the scheme and items that are outwith it would be complex.

However, the example that I pointed to is a live one. Forty-seven groups of chemicals are going through the process of being phased out in the EU, but only three groups are going through that process in the UK system. Therefore, how does the alternative model of UK REACH ensure that we do not have that divergence going forward? That seems to be a live case of divergence that is already creeping in to the system. How will the model ensure that, as we understand more about chemicals and their health and environmental impacts, decisions can be made more quickly to get them on the path to being phased out?

There has been a lot of focus on trying to decouple the gas price from the renewable electricity price. What are your thoughts on the review of electricity market arrangements, or REMA—the market access review? Are the proposals workable? Do the current market access arrangements have particular pros and cons? It will be helpful if you can explore that a bit.

Okay, I will roll the questions together. A decision was made not to go for the preferred option that was put forward by the UK Government, which was a delay of three years, two years and one year for different categories. Instead, another option was taken: to go for three years for all three categories. What was the Scottish Government’s input to that decision?

Therefore, with regard to the network operator’s business plan, how would, say, targets for onshore wind generation of 12GW and targets for solar generation impact on that? What will change on the ground, in practical terms?

Good morning, and thank you for joining us.

The draft energy strategy discusses a range of targets for onshore wind. There is also the potential for a target or targets for solar to emerge from the energy strategy, perhaps at different scales, including embedded agricultural-scale solar. There is potential for marine energy targets as well. How do such targets influence your approach to market design and regulation? It would be useful to start with solar.

That was a useful session today, which looked in some detail at the REACH model—both registration and compliance—and how the whole model is evolving and developing over time. It is important now, in the post-Brexit landscape, that committees are able to scrutinise how common frameworks are working and how stakeholders are interacting with the development of those regulations, so I felt that the session was useful.

I do not think it desirable or achievable for the Scottish Government to take an alternative route in relation to the matter, so I am content to accept the regulations that are before us. However, there is a need for on-going scrutiny, and I would welcome more information about the alternative registration model as it is developed over time.

The wider model, which the minister talked about, particularly in relation to the points that were made about divergence and the review of existing chemicals—that we are all using at the moment, but which might impact on our health or environment—needs watched as well. Questions exist about the pace of how that model is developing and how particular groups of chemicals are being reviewed continually, as our knowledge and understanding of their impact develops.

It would be good if those points could be reflected in a letter to the minister, as I feel that this is the start, not the end, of a conversation.

Yes.