Chamber and committees

Which organisation did you say? I did not quite catch it.

Yes. The reason why I have been at pains to distinguish between the substance and the transfer is that I was concerned that there might be confusion about what was up for discussion today.

I mentioned to Bob Doris that we recently consulted on proposed powers that would allow the Scottish ministers to make future amendments to the 1994 habitats regulations and to the various EIA regimes in Scotland. We are carefully considering the responses to the consultation in order to identify the best way to proceed with those powers.

Nothing stands still. We want to ensure that the regulations and the legislation that form the EIA regimes, which are the key frameworks that underpin the important environmental protections and assessment processes in Scotland on land and sea, are fit for purpose and are achieving ministers’ aims of protecting the environment, reducing biodiversity loss and meeting our climate change targets. We want all those to be fit for purpose.

I have already referred to the fact that this year’s programme for government set out our intention to include those powers in a natural environment bill, which is to be introduced in this parliamentary year. Therefore, you are absolutely right—that work is on-going.

That is correct. Obviously, any decision to deploy that discretionary power would be subject to extensive consultation and engagement. For now, yesterday and tomorrow, irrespective of what the committee does, the 2017 regulations are in force.

To an extent. We would be in control, because that is the purpose of this instrument, but we are also watching carefully to see what the UK Government might do in terms of transitioning to EORs. If it were to transition, that would be a long-term and complex process. As far as I know, we do not have final confirmation from the UK Government on what it intends to do along the lines of EORs.

The Scottish ministers have a settled position on seeking to align with the EU as far as possible. That is why I am stressing in this conversation that seeking the passage of the instrument is not a request for fundamental changes. For example, we have already set out that the 2017 regulations remain in place.

However, completely independently of this conversation, we have been consulting on how to ensure that, for example, the 1994 habitats regulations are fit for purpose in terms of ensuring that there is proper scrutiny of and accountability for those areas. As is set out in this year’s programme for government, the powers will be included in a natural environment bill, which will be introduced in this parliamentary year.

It is not that there is a settled position and we are not constantly thinking about how to improve in order to ensure that our regulations remain fit for purpose, but it is the Scottish Government’s default position to seek to align as closely as possible with the European Union.

Prior to—

We get into tricky territory when using specific examples, because of a number of points. I cannot argue whether the draft order would make it easier or harder, because it really depends, first, on what the UK Government might do in introducing EORs. What we know about EORs so far is based on what the previous UK Government initiated on consultation. It published a consultation seeking views on a new system of environmental assessment to replace what had previously been an EU-derived environmental assessment processes. We have no information beyond that as to when or how the UK Government might move to an EOR system, or what that would look like. As my colleague said, it might be EIA by another name. It is impossible to say at this point whether the order will make a certain outcome easier or more difficult, as you have outlined, because we do not know what changes will be made at a UK Government level.

Turning to a second element, I have stated openly in this meeting that we have no intention in the short term of making any changes to the well-understood environmental impact assessment system. If the instrument passes, there is an opportunity to consider how we future-proof and improve the consenting processes. Of course, environmental impact assessment is only one element of the much broader consenting regime.

In your question, you talked about the sea and whether that would make some things easier or harder.

Onshore—sorry. If we are talking about onshore, that is easier to answer, because it does not have the issue of the 12 nautical mile cut-off.

If we ever wanted to change to EORs once we have seen what the UK Government might do and what information is forthcoming, because of the concurrent point, which is very relevant, we would engage and consult. At that point, however, it is a question of what is coming back to us by way of suggestions for improvements that need to be made. Your question whether the instrument would make things easier or not is almost redundant, because we are talking about changes to who controls the process, not what is included in the process.

Audit Scotland has also talked about the complexity of delivering NSET. We have taken on board its recommendations on the need for political leadership, on finance, on metrics and on evaluation more generally. Tracking the cumulative spend relating to a strategy as vast as NSET continues to be tricky, and I am still strongly of the view that it is counterproductive.

We take on board such things and are looking at ways of using new corporate systems to better track spend on prioritised actions. I hope that the committee hears my reluctance and concern about trying to boil NSET down to a particular budget rather than trying to embed the NSET aims, which are to encourage innovation, attract new finance and do things differently. Those are all laudable aims, and the Government becomes its own worst enemy when it tries to boil the strategy down into one siloed area or one pot of funding.

I will ask Aidan Grisewood to come in. You talked about directorates, and he oversees the work from the officials’ side.