Chamber and committees

Let me have a look. [Interruption.]

Because it is a goal.

That is not within the scope of the bill, but I would be happy to talk to you about it. I am sceptical about whether it is an issue for the bill. We might be able to do something more agile.

Our interpretation is that we need to have the flexibility in law.

I am happy to answer that, convener. I will take you through the substantive changes to the current regulations for Scotland. The first thing, crucially, is that the timeline is revised to launch the DRS in October 2027. Glass is removed from the scheme. The minimum container size has increased from 100ml to 150ml. Producers will be required to register with the scheme administrator rather than SEPA. Supermarkets, grocery stores, convenience stores and newsagents will be required to host return points unless their premises are less than 100m₂ in size and in an urban area. Take-back services may be provided voluntarily and organisations must register to operate take-back services.

I mentioned the designation of the new scheme administrator, UK DMO. It will have additional functions. The scheme administrator must issue a logo and a machine-readable code, and it may issue a logo identifying multipacks containing scheme articles. It will determine the deposit level, which may be a flat or variable rate. Those who want a review of the rate can request one from the scheme administrator. Any scheme administrator will also determine applications for an exemption from operating a return point.

Those are the substantive areas in which there will be a change.

The most substantive change is the removal of glass. We want recycling rates for glass to accelerate and improve. The Scottish Government, as has been well documented, wanted to introduce a scheme in 2024. It would have been up and running, I think, in March 2024. We have effectively lost a year of deposit return items being recycled, so that has had a material impact on our recycling targets in the past year.

The biggest difference is the exclusion of glass. That is why Wales has decided not to go forward with the regulations as we are. Its recycling rates are very good—they are the best in the UK. Wales wanted to include glass in order for the scheme to make a material difference to its recycling rates.

As you will remember, convener, the previous UK Government denied an exemption from the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 to allow glass to be included in the Scottish scheme. Our view is that a deposit return scheme that deals with aluminium cans and plastic bottles but without glass is better than no scheme at all. It is expected that the implementation of a deposit return scheme will take 0.8 megatonnes of CO₂ out of Scotland, and it will increase the recycling rate of those materials to about 76 per cent. There were different estimates for the previous regulations, which included glass. We are also working on implementing the Circular Economy (Scotland) Act 2024 and are working with local authorities on how we can have general improvement in recycling rates. A number of strategies are being taken forward.

There is no doubt that a UK-wide deposit return scheme, which we have signed up to in concert with the previous UK Government, the current UK Government and the Northern Ireland Government, will make a substantial difference to recycling rates. However, the impact will not just be on the recycling rates but on the amount of litter, as I mentioned in my statement. As you know, a lot of litter, particularly on our roadsides and in our coastal areas, is single-use drinks containers of the type that will be in the scope of the regulations. I am looking forward to a situation in which we no longer see cans and bottles littering our streets and our roadsides, because they have a material value associated with their return.

Yes. I think that it is one of the ways in which these regulations strengthen things: vendors can ask for a review of decisions that the scheme administrator makes.

I will bring Ailsa Heine in here.

Throughout the process, we have been clear that planning is devolved in Scotland, but we have an understanding with the secretary of state. The regulation-making powers and the bill itself are righting a wrong. Wales had the powers long before Scotland will have them, and this is an area where we have wanted reform. I believe that, in your time as energy secretary, you looked for these reforms as well.

The bill uses the wording

“The Secretary of State or the Scottish Ministers”,

but there is an understanding that it will be the Scottish ministers, who will be able to bring in secondary legislation on consents. Up to now, we have been quite hamstrung. In the past couple of years, in working with my officials, it has been quite frustrating that we have not been able to change any of the regulations on consents, particularly in relation to mandating a requirement for community engagement ahead of applications going in. That has been a source of great frustration to communities, but also to the Government. We have been asking for the change for quite some time. If the legislative consent motion is agreed to and the bill passes, we will be able to mandate that community engagement.

We have got ahead in that we have been doing our own work and we have just published our good practice principles on engaging with communities, but they are voluntary. There is no compulsion on developers to engage with communities. We do not think that that is right. However, we have done the work ahead of the LCM because we wanted the good practice principles to be updated. If the LCM is agreed to and the bill passes, we will be able to work on secondary legislation, which we will bring to this committee, on what we require of developers ahead of them putting in their applications.

We want full-cost recovery for public services in general. In my remit, one of the things that we have done is expand the capacity of the energy consents unit. In the past year, we have more than doubled the number of personnel who are dealing with energy consents. We expect that the fees will be set to recover the cost of processing applications and providing pre-application services to streamline the process, so that there is communication between the ECU and applicants, in line with policy.

The fees will, of course, help to resource the Scottish Government’s administration of the consenting process. That will mean that we can enable more timely consents. That work has already been done. As I say, we have more than doubled the capacity of the energy consents unit, because of the volume of consents that we anticipate. We are not waiting for the volume of applications to go through the roof before we put in place the necessary capacity. We have front-loaded the capacity in the ECU in anticipation of the many applications that will come through, particularly with regard to the transmission infrastructure and the ScotWind round.

I will defer to my officials, but my understanding is that EORs can apply in any case while environmental impact assessments will apply in all cases. Alan Brogan can perhaps add some clarity.