Seòmar agus comataidhean

That is a concern.

Finally, what we are seeing globally is a massive investment in the green recovery. The European Union has its green new deal package, and similar levels of capital investment are being made in the United States. In this budget, however, we are seeing a real-terms decline in capital investment over time. Does trying to get the most out of what is a declining capital budget simply tie one of our hands behind our back when it comes to meeting climate targets?

In its submission, Scottish Renewables said that visual impact is the main reason why renewables applications are turned down. What changes to how projects are assessed is the industry looking for? Who is responsible for that—is it NatureScot? You briefly mentioned wild land. Are you looking for a change to how landscape is assessed? The major point of contention—if there is one, as the public strongly support onshore wind—seems to be visual impact; that is the main reason why projects are turned down or why it takes a long time for them to get through the planning process. What changes are you looking for?

Is there potential for conflict, and a potential limit on capacity for transmission? We may have projects competing against each other, with onshore versus offshore versus solar. Is that a realistic prospect, or does NPF4 allow everything to be built out?

It would certainly be good to take some more evidence on the NatureScot report.

I understand that the peatland restoration budget was underspent this year. Is there an issue there? We can keep putting in more money but, if there are reasons why landowners are not signing up to spend it or there is a lack of skilled workforce or equipment or whatever, we will continue to not meet the target for other reasons beyond the budget.

I will pick up on those transport themes. You mentioned the roll-out of concessionary travel for under-22s. That is a huge investment; £130 million is allocated for it in the budget. In addition, direct support to the bus companies is up from £54 million to £99 million. A lot of people write to me about the quality of bus services or about services that are going to be closed. I always point out to them the fact that the Government is investing a lot in concessionary travel and in keeping services running during the pandemic. However, a lot of people then get back to me and say, “All the money that is being invested is great, but why don’t you just nationalise it?” What is your response to that view?

I warmly welcome the minister to her new role. I highlight the brilliant work that is happening in schools across the country, particularly those in Perth and Kinross, which are using the parent portal system to sign up entire age groups across the school. What more can schools do? Should we start to see a roll-out in primary schools as well?

Most people who have EVs want to charge them at night, which, of course, has some benefits for the electricity grid. As John Mason has said, the issue is off-street parking. Householders have difficulties with putting in their own infrastructure, as well as difficulties with accessing Energy Saving Trust and other grants. Can the cabinet secretary say anything more about that? Might the design work that he has commissioned from the V&A provide a solution so that we get better public facilities that are close to where people live and they have a convenient choice rather than having to travel to some hub in the middle of the city, which might be a considerable distance away from where they live?

The gateway review that came out last summer identified some risks with going even for the August 2023 date for implementation. What work has been done to look at those risks? How are you mitigating some of them? Everybody wants a deposit return scheme as quickly as possible, but clearly it needs to be up and running with the full confidence of retailers and the public. Can you identify what risks around the August 2023 date remain and how they are being considered?

That transparency will be welcome. Our predecessor committee asked for milestones way back in 2019, and I do not think that it got them, so the fact that we have them now is good.

What would happen if the committee decides not to vote for the statutory instrument today? What would be the implications of that?

It is fair to say that everybody on the committee is concerned about the delay, and I imagine that the minister is concerned, too. The original regulations that were put in place under the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009 gave the Government the opportunity to move quickly on a DRS scheme, and that opportunity was not taken at the time.

The minister has been put in a very difficult position with the establishment of Circularity Scotland only last summer. The fact that there is now a commitment to milestones and that we are going to hold Circularity Scotland to account—there is a critical role for the committee in doing that—gives me a lot of confidence that we finally have a minister who will deliver the DRS rather than its being the vague commitment on which previous ministers have not moved quickly enough.

I read the ENGOs’ briefings, and I am as frustrated as they are that the scheme is not already in place. However, we have to bear in mind that it is incredibly ambitious—it is the most ambitious scheme in Europe. It is not as if we are following the path of other small countries that might have put in place a scheme for plastic bottles with larger retailers to start with, and then considered moving over to cans or maybe to an online scheme, adding glass a later date. We are trying to deliver an all-singing, all-dancing, ambitious scheme in the quickest time possible.

Parliament agreed a hugely ambitious scheme way back in 2019, and it would be really disappointing if members of the committee turned down the SI and effectively voted down progress on the DRS. All that that would do would be to create even more delay. It would force the Government to reconsider the scheme from square 1, create uncertainty for business and, ultimately, impact on our environment, including our marine environment, and on climate change.

Monica Lennon said that she wants to make the scheme work. So do I. We are all disappointed that we are where we are, but we have an opportunity now to move at pace. I want the scheme to work, so I will vote for it. I hope that other members will, too.