Seòmar agus comataidhean

We need to get on with this, because there have been far too many delays. That has not been good for businesses, producers or the hospitality sector. People need to know what is happening. It might seem as though October 2027 is a long way off, but it is not.

The critical issue is that there needs to be more work with local authorities, which need investment now so that they can address issues with glass recycling. There is an opportunity right across Scotland, but geography can be different even within local authority areas. Local authorities need support to ensure that recycling rates increase, and our constituents need to be confident that there will be progress.

My view is that we need to get on with this. The monitoring of recycling rates is critical, as is making progress in implementing the scheme. Right across the business sector, people need to be confident that, this time around, this will happen and that, when investment is made, it will benefit the wider economy and, critically, our environment. We need to get on with this and ensure that the Scottish Government’s monitoring approach is transparent so that people can relate to it and see the progress that we need to make.

The UK Government has argued that, although it acknowledges that there are sometimes exceptions, the conventional approach to commencement orders is for them to be made by the same body that introduced the parent legislation. The UK Government has highlighted that because any new fee system would take precedence over the current system upon commencement of the clause, there would be no delay if the Scottish ministers chose to introduce a new fee system.

I very much agree with Mark Ruskell’s points. The committee’s evidence sessions on the topic in previous weeks have been useful in considering how to make buses more accessible and affordable, and even in relation to whether services should exist. Important opportunities come from franchising. One thing that is quite helpful is the reference to the requirements for transport authorities to have time to ensure that services are retained for passengers in the event of operators reducing or withdrawing their services before a franchise framework comes into operation. That is an important provision.

For me, part of the issue is about the sheer length of time that the franchising process will take. The requirements are too onerous. The process needs to be simplified—it is too complex and too time consuming. Compared with the process in England, there are a lot more requirements placed on any authority that wants to use the franchising process, and that is not helpful.

I very much agree with Mark that the statutory guidance must be issued as soon as possible. I know that Strathclyde Partnership for Transport is looking at franchising, although I understand that it is not a cheap process; it could cost it £15 million. We need to make progress. However, we also need a reality check, because it could be 2030 before we see bus franchising in Scotland. That means that people will not get the bus services that they need. Although I support franchising, much more needs to change.

I thank the Get Glasgow Moving team for raising that issue with me, to make sure that we focus on making this possible for the benefit of our constituents, because the timescale for this happening is way off into the future.

I welcome those answers, because the issue of small producers and retailers is huge and one that I certainly raised in the first instance.

You did not clarify whether there had been any discussions with local government or NGOs in the drafting of the current regulations.

I think that issue about there not being a gap is important for environmental standards—we do not want to see a reduction in standards here.

One thing that strikes me here is that significant changes will be taking place, which includes new duties for local authorities and SEPA, but there is gap in relation to advertising the changes. How will our constituents know about them? We need there to be publicity, led by the Scottish Government, so that people will understand what is happening, because it will impact their everyday lives. The changes that the cabinet secretary has mentioned are pretty significant.

I would also like there to be monitoring and analysis of the registration fees that SEPA will receive. Although no concerns have been raised about that, that will enable us to see what practical change is taking place once delivery is under way.

Providing a lot more information on and giving a lot more publicity to the issue would be very much welcome.

Thanks. I will come back later to ask about some of the changes that have been made.

Cabinet secretary, could you give a bit of clarity about the fees that will be introduced for electricity consent applications? Will those fees be ring fenced to support the work of the energy consents unit? I draw your attention to the views that we got from Scottish Environment LINK that, if we were to do that, it would be likely to lead to

“better resourcing of the determination process and therefore more timeous processing of applications, without being overly onerous for applicants.”

It is useful to get that on the record. For clarity, you said that you expect the fees to go to the energy consents unit, but can you confirm that that is definitely what will happen?

That would be useful. I know from being in various local authorities recently the differences between places where people can drop materials for collection 5 feet away and places where they have a long walk to recycle things. In the latter case, it is just not happening.