Seòmar agus comataidhean

Our second item of business is an evidence session on the legislative consent memorandum that the Scottish Government has lodged on the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, which is a United Kingdom Government bill that is being considered at Westminster. The committee must report on the LCM.

The LCM, which the Scottish Government lodged on 27 March, mentions the need for the Scottish Parliament to consent on two matters: consent for electricity infrastructure, which is covered in clauses 14 to 20, and fees for application for harbour orders, which is covered in clause 42. The LCM also mentions clause 96, which makes commencement and transitional provisions, in so far as those relate to clauses 14 to 20 and 42.

The committee agreed to write to a targeted group of stakeholders to gather evidence on the areas of the bill that are covered by the LCM, and we are thankful to those who responded to our call for evidence. This morning, we will discuss the LCM with the Scottish Government, including any developments since the LCM was lodged and some of the main issues that stakeholders have raised.

I welcome Gillian Martin, Acting Cabinet Secretary for Net Zero and Energy, and her supporting officials. Alan Brogan is head of operational delivery at the energy consents unit, Robert Martin is policy and administration team leader at the energy consents unit, and Anne Cairns is a solicitor. I believe that the acting cabinet secretary would like to make a short opening statement before we move to questions.

Thank you. Nick Gosling, head of maritime policy at Transport Scotland, is with us and he can respond as appropriate on any of the harbour order fee issues.

We move to questions, and I start with a question about the concurrent nature of the powers that are provided for in the bill. Why is the Scottish Government content that powers over areas that are wholly within Scotland may also be exercised by ministers at a UK level?

Okay. That is helpful. Thank you.

Item 3 is consideration of two draft statutory instruments. The Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee raised points in relation to both instruments. In relation to the Deposit and Return Scheme for Scotland Amendment Regulations 2025, it has reported a defective drafting issue under reporting ground (i) and seven issues under the general reporting ground.

In relation to the Deposit and Return Scheme for Scotland (Designation of Scheme Administrator) Order 2025, the DPLR Committee has reported one issue of defective drafting under reporting ground (i), one issue where the meaning should be clearer under reporting ground (h) and two issues under the general reporting ground.

The Scottish Government has committed to corrective action on most of those points. Further detail is set out in the clerk’s note on the instruments and, of course, in the DPLR Committee’s report.

I welcome back to the committee Gillian Martin, Acting Cabinet Secretary for Net Zero and Energy, and her supporting officials for this item: Giles Hendry, policy officer, deposit return scheme; Ailsa Heine, solicitor; and Haydn Thomas, producer responsibility unit head.

The instruments are laid under the affirmative procedure, which means that they cannot come into force unless the Parliament approves them. Following this evidence session, the committee will be invited to consider two motions recommending that the instruments be approved. I remind everyone that Scottish Government officials can speak under this item but not in the debate that follows under the next item.

I invite the acting cabinet secretary to make a short opening statement.

Thank you, cabinet secretary. We move to questions, and I will start us off. What substantive changes have been made to the Deposit and Return Scheme for Scotland Amendment Regulations 2025 in order to align with the scheme in England and Northern Ireland?

Those are quite significant changes. What impact will they have on the outcomes that will be achieved compared with what was proposed under the Scottish DRS, particularly in relation to the environment, carbon emissions, businesses and consumers?

The changes have quite a substantial impact on the overall benefit of the original deposit return scheme, given the exclusion of glass from the new scheme.

I call Douglas Lumsden.

That is helpful. On the concurrent nature of the powers, what is the intended mechanism to be used if there is a conflict of position between the Scottish and UK Governments in exercising what is an executive function under reserved legislation?

I appreciate that and I recognise the importance of it. I am just trying to understand what will happen if there is a conflict of thinking on exercising of the powers. If I recall correctly, the executive power sits with the secretary of state at the UK Government level. What is the intended mechanism if there is a conflict of views on decision making relating to the powers?