Seòmar agus comataidhean

The adjustment in clause 20 is about restoring that limited ability that we had under the European Communities Act 1972 to make procedural changes to the EIA process to mean that it is aligned with reformed electricity consenting, but there will not be any gap in the process—there will not be any point at which there will be a dilution of the requirement to follow an EIA. I hope that that gives you clarity.

EIAs will always be in place. We want to be agile in making sure that there is no misalignment between the two processes—the EIA process and the EOR process—but EIAs will still apply. There will be no point at which they are diluted or do not apply. They apply in all cases.

The six-week timeframe has been effective in practice for offshore generating station decisions for more than 10 years—since 2013—and for planning decisions more broadly. We think that it provides sufficient time for potential challengers to assess decisions and prepare cases, but it reduces the extended period of uncertainty for them in getting a resolution. The clause complies with the Aarhus convention’s requirements for access to environmental justice, and the six-week challenge period has been accepted by the Aarhus compliance committee.

Crucially, the rights and regulations that will now be devolved to Scottish ministers to mandate community engagement ahead of a planning application going in will mean that, by law, there is much earlier engagement by developers with communities. I think that it is important to look at what is being proposed in the round. It is no longer going to be voluntary to engage with communities ahead of putting in an application; it is going to be mandatory. However, at the other end of it, once an application is in, there will be the ability, within a six-week period, to challenge that determination. Then it will be referred to a reporter, who will undertake all the evidence gathering around it. People will not be left in limbo for two years, wondering what the result will be.

Yes, I do. It is in line with other planning regulations. I would expect that, when you have mandated community engagement, which is what we have been calling for for many years, there will be early community engagement, which, it is my hope, would prevent objections.

The clause complies with the Aarhus convention requirement for environmental justice. The Aarhus compliance committee has said that it provides sufficient time for preparing cases, provided that the decisions are properly publicised. The regulations that will be in place will mean that there is a legal requirement on applicants to properly publicise proposals and to engage with communities. That is in line with the Aarhus compliance committee’s view. That is why we are taking it forward in the way that we have. Obviously, the proposal has been negotiated not just with the current UK Government but with the previous UK Government.

My understanding of EPR is that, in general, the funds that will go to local authorities will allow them to expand their recycling capabilities into a lot of the areas that we discussed when we created the Circular Economy (Scotland) Act 2024. Of course, the funding is not ring fenced and it is up to councils to decide how to do that. The polluter-pays principle means that we are putting funds into local authorities, but the main point of EPR is to incentivise producers to reduce the amount of packaging. I think we will see massive innovations in packaging because of EPR.

It is for individual councils to decide how to respond to the twin opportunities of the DRS and the fact that they will no longer be dealing with the same volumes of plastics and cans, but also what to do about glass versus—or in addition to—the other things that they want to do to expand their waste recovery, reuse and remake, and circular economy objectives more widely.

You make a good point about the variability of services across the 32 local authorities, so that information is important. With the circular economy route map, which has been worked on by all 32 local authorities and COSLA, we can see that some local authorities are doing things differently for particular reasons. We can look at their recycling rates and ask what other local authorities can learn from them. Every area is different and they all have their particular geographical opportunities and challenges, but your point is well made. We need to see the variability and we need to be able to pinpoint and address where things can be improved.

Yes. Clear glass in particular has a high value and we should make sure that we capture that.

I ask members to reflect on the fact that the regulations for a DRS including glass were voted for by a majority of the Parliament. The will of the Parliament could not be exercised, because there could not be an exclusion according to the UK Government at the time. What is important now is that we look forward and that we have an interoperable DRS that will mean that we do not have aluminium cans and plastic bottles littering our roadsides, because those materials will have a value associated with them, which will improve the recycling rates.

Yes, absolutely. Of course, before the scheme administrator could be appointed, I was required to accept the recommendations and approve the scheme administrator, as was Northern Ireland and DAERA.