Seòmar agus comataidhean

It is a sign that years of lobbying by the Scottish Government and a succession of ministers seeking to mandate community engagement before an application goes in has worked. It is actually the opposite of what Douglas Lumsden is asserting. We have heard very loud and clear that communities do not feel that they are listened to by developers and that there is no compulsion on developers to engage with communities. There are developers who voluntarily engage with communities and who have signed up voluntarily to the good practice principles that we have put in place in Scotland, but there are others who, by law, are allowed not to bother to engage with communities. The change means that there is a material difference. Following the lobbying that we have done with the UK Government, Scottish ministers will be given legal powers to demand that developers engage with communities before an application goes in.

At present, there is no statutory requirement for notification, publicity, consultation or proposals before an application is made. There are no detailed requirements that applicants must adhere to in the making of applications to the determining authority, and no validation procedure. These regulation-making powers will allow for requirements regarding the pre-application steps of mandatory notification to prescribed persons, publicity requirements and consultation obligations. They create an acceptance stage during which Scottish ministers must assess an applicant’s compliance with the regulatory requirements before deciding to proceed with the application. They also enable fee charges for applications.

That empowers communities: by law, they must be engaged with by the applicant. It is a wholesale strengthening of communities’ views in the determination of an application—

This is an indication that the voices of communities have been heard loud and clear. The Scottish Government would not have lobbied for years and years for these regulation-making powers to make community engagement mandatory ahead of an application if it was not for community groups saying that they were dissatisfied—

Good practice is patchy. That is why we need the powers in the first place to mandate community engagement and the good practice principles that we developed ahead of making anything mandatory. There are responsible applicants who adhere to the good practice principles—there are some who will make a virtue of it. However, there is no compulsion on them to do that.

The picture varies throughout the country. I do not think that that is right. I agree with community groups that are saying that there has to be enhanced and meaningful community engagement ahead of an application. I think that that is the least we should expect from developers.

There are community groups that are angry at not being consulted. The clauses that make the requirements mandatory and the good practice principles no longer voluntary will be the springboard for what we take forward in secondary legislation. A great deal of work will be done to tighten the good practice principles, and they will be the guidance that we will want developers to follow.

We will take the views of communities that are unhappy with the current system, which is patchy. There will be some areas where communities are perfectly happy with the engagement that they have had from a developer. However, the very fact that, as Douglas Lumsden has read out, Scotland Against Spin does not feel happy with the current situation means that we need to do something, and this is the something that we have to do. Not engaging with the community in a meaningful way will have to be reflected in the evidence that we gather in assessing applications. The mechanism should vastly improve community engagement.

That is my understanding.

Thank you, convener, for the opportunity to discuss these two instruments, both of which were laid in Parliament on 2 May. The Government has been committed to the introduction of a deposit return scheme since 2019 in order to promote and secure an increase in recycling of materials by applying a deposit to single-use drinks containers.

Since a DRS in Scotland was delayed in June 2023, we have worked with industry, stakeholders, the UK Government and other devolved Governments to agree the principles of a DRS that will operate compatibly. That work culminated in the publication of a joint policy paper in April 2024, which set out the broad design of the schemes that had been agreed with industry and between all Governments at the time.

The Deposit and Return Scheme for Scotland Amendment Regulations 2025 amend the Deposit and Return Scheme for Scotland Regulations 2020. The 2025 regulations alter the implementation date for Scotland’s DRS to October 2027, remove glass from the scope of the scheme and make other amendments to support the operation of our DRS in an interoperable way with other nations.

The order designates the UK Deposit Management Organisation as the scheme administrator to operate a DRS in Scotland. That follows an open application process and a joint assessment alongside the UK Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Northern Ireland Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs. It also confers functions on that body as the scheme administrator. The organisation will also operate the scheme in England and Northern Ireland.

Once the DRS scheme administrator is formally designated, subject to Parliament’s approval, it will begin the process of implementing a DRS on behalf of industry.

Together, the instruments provide the legislative framework for a DRS in Scotland, ensuring that the schemes in Scotland, England and Northern Ireland can operate seamlessly with each other and launch jointly on 1 October 2027.

The DRS forms part of the Scottish Government’s response to the global climate emergency by ensuring that plastic and metal drinks containers are kept out of our bins and off our streets and instead are recycled for future use, bringing both environmental and economic benefits.

We will continue to engage constructively with industry and with the other nations across the UK to support the successful delivery of our DRS in 2027, joining the other 50-plus deposit return schemes in operation over the world.

I look forward to our discussion.

Yes. That is one of the changes that have been made. In terms of the associated fees or a review of whether there should be an exemption, there would be grounds to appeal, but, once these regulations go through in Scotland—obviously, it will be the same for England and Northern Ireland, too—it will be for the scheme administrator to lay out exactly the processes in this respect. You are right to highlight this, as it represents a fundamental change from our previous regulations, in which Scottish ministers would have determined whether to grant an exemption. That responsibility has now been conferred to the scheme administrator.

That is a good point, and it is something that the scheme administrator will take into account. You have rightly pointed to rural areas, where there might be no larger supermarkets and the small convenience stores might be the only vendor in the area.

The scheme administrator will look at the spread of return points. Supermarkets, grocery stores, convenience stores and newsagents will be required to host return points unless their premises are less than 100m² and in an urban area. In a rural area, there will be an expectation that a convenience store—which might be the only such store on, say, an island—will have a return point. After all, we do not want to disenfranchise people living in island communities; they will be paying the deposit on their drinks containers, so they will want to get that back. The scheme administrator will be working with small vendors to ensure they have that capacity.

The administrator will also have a map of all the return points. It will be voluntary in urban environments, but we should bear in mind the business case for having a return point when it comes to competition. It will be far better for you if your grocery store or supermarket has a return point in your grocery store or supermarket, because of the associated footfall; if people are returning their cans and bottles, they are more likely to spend money on their way out of your shop or to redeem their vouchers there.

At the moment, then, this is voluntary in urban areas, while in rural areas, there is an expectation that there will be an acceptable spread of return points to ensure that people in those areas are not disenfranchised.

No, it will be for the scheme administrator to decide.

I have no idea; the scheme administrator will decide that. You can take the can back—I do not think that anyone will stop you walking out with it.

Thank you, deputy convener. Good morning, everyone. Thank you for the invitation to provide evidence on the LCM on the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. Before I answer the committee’s questions, I would like to speak for a few minutes to explain the purpose behind the bill, how we have got to this point and why an LCM is required in this instance.

By way of background, I note that, although land use and planning in Scotland is devolved, the powers to legislate for generation, transmission, distribution and supply of electricity are reserved to the UK Government. However, Scottish ministers determine applications to construct or install electricity infrastructure under the Electricity Act 1989. In England and Wales, the relevant legislation was updated in 2008 to make the consenting process more efficient. However, the process in Scotland has remained unchanged as we do not have the power to amend the legislation. The situation has resulted in it taking up to four years to process an application determination. The Scottish Government has long called for the process to be reformed, for the relevant powers to be given to Scottish ministers and for the system to be modernised, as it has been across the rest of the UK.

Having finally recognised that Scottish consenting needed reform, the previous UK Government, under the Conservatives, committed to reviewing it in November 2023. Thankfully, the new Labour Government continued those plans, and UK and Scottish Government officials worked together on the proposed reforms that the UK Government published in October 2024, alongside a consultation. In March this year, the UK Government published its response to the consultation, which showed broad support for the reforms from consultees, and the measures were included in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, which was introduced to the House of Commons on 11 March.

The bill cuts across a number of different subjects including planning; nationally significant infrastructure projects; the transmission, distribution and supply of electricity; transport, roads and the operation of harbours; and the environment. Many of the bill’s clauses apply only to England and Wales or have no practical application in Scotland. However, clauses 14 to 20, which relate to electricity infrastructure consenting in Scotland, and clause 42, which refers to harbour processing fees, alter the competence of Scottish ministers, so the UK Government is seeking legislative consent.

As I set out earlier, the changes that are proposed in clauses 14 to 20 are intended to reform outdated and inefficient elements of the consenting process for electricity infrastructure. The changes include, but are by no means limited to, strengthening pre-application requirements and procedures, making them statutory for the first time and allowing communities to share their views earlier in the process; creating a new reporter-led procedure in response to an objection from a local planning authority, reducing the administrative burden of an automatic public inquiry while always retaining a public inquiry as an option; and moving from a lengthy judicial review process to one of statutory appeals, aligning with existing processes under the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997.

The bill will provide Scottish ministers with regulation-making powers to implement more technical statutory elements of reform. Those will be concurrent powers that are exercisable by either Scottish ministers or the secretary of state. The bill does not specify which authority will exercise which powers and how, but the general expectation, which is shared by both Governments, is that the Scottish Government will introduce the regulations and they will be laid in the Scottish Parliament. That reflects the position that planning is a devolved matter and it recognises the executively devolved role of Scottish ministers in administering applications for consent under the Electricity Act 1998. With regard to clauses 14 to 20, we therefore recommend that consent is granted. The Scottish Government intends to consult on proposals for secondary legislation as soon as possible after the bill is passed.

I am not the Cabinet Secretary for Transport and I am not best placed to speak on clause 42, so I welcome the presence of officials from Transport Scotland who will be able to reply if you require further information on that front. I also note that Ms Hyslop provided an update on clause 42 in her letter this morning.

I am happy to answer any questions, convener.