Seòmar agus comataidhean

We have already identified that many of the responses have said that they would like more detail on delivery, so we will take that forward.

Annabel Turpie would like to come in.

A lot more needs to be done. The fiscal situation that we are in has made it difficult to deploy as much money as was set out by previous First Ministers who made that commitment.

Kevin Stewart made the point that we need to look to where we can get assistance from the UK Government on just transition. You are right that we are committed to that just transition funding, but the fiscal settlement has made it very difficult.

On whether it is all associated with that, I would need to bring in Karen Thomas.

Thank you. The ECU has more than twice the capacity that it had, in order to deal with the demand. We want to be able to deliver those consents within a year, and we are certainly on target to do that. On your point about the other statutory consultees such as NatureScot, we continually monitor their workload that is associated with this area.

Another area that we have put investment into is the national planning hub. That is still in the early stages and it is focusing only on hydrogen at the moment. It supports expertise and addresses capacity gaps that might exist for local authorities to be able to deal with the very complex applications that might happen in that space. At the moment, it is in the hydrogen space, but it could be expanded, because a lot of the applications and the resources that are associated with it are very complex, and we want to be able to give assistance to local authorities as well.

There are a number of reasons why the ECU budget is still in my portfolio. Obviously, the permanent secretary wants to keep it in the structures that remain, but it is also the case that the policies that are associated with the good practice principles and with consents, as well as new policies that are developed as a result of movements in the UK Government, will affect the ECU. Ivan McKee has taken on responsibilities for final consent decisions, but not policy.

On numbers, I might have to turn to my officials, but what happened was that we were able to use money from ScotWind for climate action not just in my portfolio, but in portfolios that are associated with climate action, such as Mairi Gougeon’s portfolio.

I have been passed a note of the numbers. In finance and local government, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities has asked for funding to respond to the climate emergency, and £70 million was associated with that.

That is an important point, because the Government has to make lots of considerations about what it spends. Climate change is one of the Government’s four priorities, but it is not the only priority. If something that we did to reduce emissions had the knock-on effect of child poverty rising, we clearly would not want to do that, so we have to take everything in the round. You mentioned road safety. The dualling of the A9 is a road safety measure that has been taken because of the catalogue of serious accidents that have taken place on that road. You would not want to look only at the climate taxonomy; everything has to be taken in context, as you rightly point out.

We have to look at that every year. We always have to take into account what we are asking our public bodies to do and whether they are well resourced to do it.

Both Governments have a responsibility for the future of Mossmorran. The budget line is not in my portfolio because it is not strictly energy related, but the budget lines for the just transition and the project willow spend are in my portfolio because the refinery is in the energy space.

A lot of work has been done across Scottish Enterprise as a result of the work that has been done on all the many projects—more than 100—that have made representations in relation to Grangemouth. Some are not suitable for the Grangemouth complex, so we always look at other areas of Scotland where they could be deployed and supported.

It is the economy budget that has the £3 million, and there are various fora in which that is being discussed, as you have just said. The Deputy First Minister is leading on that. However, I take your point. There are two Governments involved, and, if I can put it bluntly, there has to be a look at the reasons why ExxonMobil made the decision that it did, including its commentary on the fiscal set-up that prompted that decision.

Thank you, convener. I will just find my information about the errors so that I can include that, at your request.

About 9.5 million tonnes of waste are produced in Scotland each year, but there is currently no single or comprehensive system to track that waste. To achieve a more circular economy and to tackle waste crime, we must have current and accurate information about what waste has been produced and where it ends up. To do that, the Digital Waste Tracking (Scotland) Regulations 2026 will introduce the first phase of a new mandatory digital waste tracking system, which is being rolled out in all four nations.

The system will transform existing outdated paper-based systems for recording waste movements and will address the information gap that hinders the effective regulation and management of waste. That should make it easier for those in the industry who operate within the law and reduce opportunities for waste crime for those who do not. The system will ensure that resources are properly recycled or recovered and fed back into the economy.

The system has been in development for more than five years. There has been significant business input, including through a waste user panel, which included more than 450 operators in Scotland.

The system will support our alignment with developments in the EU, including by meeting the requirements for digital recording of hazardous waste and waste containing persistent organic pollutants.

The first phase of implementation, which will commence on a mandatory basis from 1 January 2027 in Scotland, will apply to facilities that are authorised by the Scottish Environment Protection Agency to carry out a waste activity. Equivalent phase 1 regulations are planned in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, and we will work closely with those Governments and the UK environmental regulators to support alignment and delivery across the four nations.

The errors that you mentioned are very minor. For example, definitions of “end of the quarter” and “quarter” are included in regulation 2, but those terms are not used in the draft regulations. There are some drafting errors, but they have no impact on the meaning of the instrument.

As part of the four-nations approach to the Scottish statutory instruments that the committee considered last week and is considering this week, we fed back that, after the negotiations and the drafting involving all four nations, an additional quality assurance step is needed. We did that as a result of the minor errors that have been brought to our attention.

Given that there will be a phase 2 associated with the new system, we aim to use that process to amend the drafting errors in this instrument, which have no material effect.

I hope that that clarifies the position. I thank the committee for its time and am happy to answer questions.