Chamber and committees

Another issue that colleagues have highlighted is heat in buildings. The domestic renewable heat incentive ends, I think, at the end of March, and I understand from installers that there has been a bit of rush to apply for the RHI and to get installations under way. What will happen after that? Will there be a huge demand for grants or loans through the Energy Saving Trust after March, when there will suddenly be nothing in place?

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?

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.

I was just reflecting on some of the comments about the convening power of the public sector, and I want to press the witnesses a bit on that. Our inquiry looks specifically at local authorities. What is your sense of where local authorities can really crowd in that investment and drive programmes on the ground that can make propositions attractive to investment in the low-carbon space? I am thinking particularly about housing stock or other investment opportunities, where they work and, perhaps, where they do not work or where there is not the capacity. I would like to hear any brief comments that the witnesses have on that.

There is another aspect to that convening power. We are talking here about innovation in financial mechanisms, and it was interesting to hear about the Italian model—I know that other models around heat as a service can also be developed. To what extent do you see it as being the role of Government to effectively bring together energy companies and financial institutions to work on that financial innovation? Does the market need to lead on that and come up with solutions that minimise costs for home owners, ensuring that they can invest over a reasonable timescale instead of just getting a bill for £10,000 for something that they cannot afford?

I realise that time is getting on, but I would like some quick comments on those points.