Chamber and committees

I very much welcome that this SSI has been introduced—it is the final SSI in a suite of regulations that are needed to introduce franchising. However, a number of questions arise from this and previous SSIs that need to be answered.

When the previous SSI came to the committee, the Government committed to getting back to us with more information about the guidance that would be produced. I do not think that we have seen that yet, so it would be useful if we could write to the Government to ask it where the guidance on franchising is.

It would also be useful to ask about the timescale for implementation. I am aware that Strathclyde Partnership for Transport might be making a decision in September about whether to go down the franchising route, so I would be concerned about any delay in the production of guidance delaying that process. We are already quite delayed in Scotland compared with many of the mayoral authorities in England that have already taken advantage of the legal changes there and have gone down a franchising and municipalisation route. More information from the Scottish Government on that would be useful.

I am also aware that SPT has raised a range of concerns about the risks that are associated with the suite of franchising regulations. It would be good to reflect those concerns in a letter to the Government and to get a response from it on those concerns at this point, given that SPT is preparing for a potential decision to go down that route in September.

I feel that there are a couple of loose ends that it would be worth this committee following up on with the Government—its commitment to us on guidance and our raising with it a few of the concerns that have come out of SPT’s considerations.

Beyond that, I am happy for the instrument to come into effect and that we have the legal basis to allow bids for franchising to be developed.

Caroline, do you want to come in on that question as well?

My next question follows on from that, because the purposes for which the proposed power can be used, which are outlined in sections 3(a) to 3(f), are extremely broad. Under section 3(c), it can be used

“to ensure consistency or compatibility with other legal regimes”.

Emily Johns has already mentioned the regime under the Electricity Act 1989. I am interested in any other views on that. When it comes to environmental assessment and the habitats regulations, what would be an ideal system? Can we get a view from the property and housing sector?

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.

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?

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.