Seòmar agus comataidhean

Can I pick up on the council issue before you bring Haydn Thomas in? My understanding is that the inclusion of glass in the DRS would have meant that many councils could have wound down or reduced their kerbside recycling operations and saved money as a result. Are you expecting any changes due to councils having to maintain glass recycling—at a cost to them, because they do not make a profit from it—as a result of glass not being included? I am interested in where the cost will arise. Will it come to local authorities or will the extended producer responsibility kick in, with local authorities getting money for running such schemes? They will still have to collect and deal with what is a bulky, expensive and difficult-to-handle material.

Okay. Haydn, will you comment on the economics of the exclusion of glass?

Yes. I read Scotland Against Spin’s response to the committee. I think that it was possibly the only group that actually submitted evidence. I recognise that there is a concern.

I wanted to ask for your view, cabinet secretary, on whether the good practice principles on community engagement are already being adhered to or whether you can point to examples of where developers are not engaging early on with communities, not doing a pre-application consultation, not holding exhibitions, and not gathering feedback on a development application and then offering feedback to those who have put in their views as to whether, as a result of those views, changes are being made or rejected. I am interested in the development process, how communities get involved very early on and how their views are respected.

Is the current voluntary system working, or are you coming across developers who are ignoring or bypassing it and saying, “It’s fine, we will just get through with very limited consultation”? Is good practice happening widely across the industry, or is that not happening, which is why you are bringing a mandatory requirement?

Do we need legislation for that?

For sure. We have had evidence to suggest that, in order to prove an aggravation, it has to be demonstrated that the accused knew that the dog was an assistance dog—in other words, a link must be made between knowing that a dog was an assistance dog and then going on to steal it. What are your thoughts on that? Your intention is, I think, that the aggravation should apply regardless of whether somebody knew that the dog was an assistance dog.

We will come to part 2 of the bill, on environmental assessment, later, but it strikes me that a huge amount of work has already been done through the environmental assessment process around forestry licence applications and development applications. I am interested in your thoughts on how we make best use of the data that is already out there to help to set targets, monitor progress and guide decision making.

Millions of pounds are being invested every single year in assessment and working out what is happening with protected species and recovery, and with the environmental impact of development, yet I do not get a sense of where all the information and knowledge sits within the bill and in the strategies.

That is fine.

My final question is for Caroline McParland. The existing system of environmental assessment within European law has functioned for 30 or 40 years. I want to get a sense from those who carry out environmental assessments in industry, and from your clients, of how beneficial it is to have certainty in the system. Is the system a well-used one that people understand? Are people satisfied that, broadly, the current system does what it is intended to do, or is there a real appetite for changing it and reform?

I can certainly see how that element—that is, how the individual knew the person in question or recognised that the dog was an assistance dog—would be a central part of the consideration of such a case.

Theft of assistance dogs is incredibly rare, but the committee has had evidence from the Law Society of Scotland and the Crown Office that its impact can be taken into consideration in sentencing. What is your response to that evidence?

I will direct this question initially to Emily Johns. It is about what really needs to be fixed. You described the two separate, although related, regimes of environmental outcome reports and the regime that we have here for onshore infrastructure. What changes, if any, would you like the bill to make to the EIA legislation and the habitats regulations? Does the system that we have at the moment broadly work in facilitating development, as Caroline McParland suggested?

The view of the Government is that we are really going to struggle to meet our offshore wind ambitions without some changes, but I am struggling to see what the changes should be and where the good practice is in the UK or in other regimes. I know that you are not here to speak for the entire renewable energy industry—it is a shame that we do not have anybody here from Scottish Renewables or that sector—but perhaps you can attempt to field that question.