���˿���

I am struggling a bit with that. It might be better for you to write to the committee with some examples of where that applies and where it does not apply. What I am trying to understand is whether the Government is moving away from the EIA system to a new system of environmental outcomes reports. Is that what you are doing? I see that you are shaking your head.

So, the environmental outcomes reports are more about those areas that are in the offshore environment, where Westminster is requiring that regime to be applied. You do not see EORs applying in relation to onshore development or anything that is within the consenting powers of the Scottish ministers.

We need to get on with it. We cannot let the perfect be the enemy of the good, so now is the right time to push ahead with the scheme that is in front of us. It is very regrettable that the scheme does not include glass—we have gone through the impacts on the environment, on our communities, on climate change and on the economics of the scheme—but now is the time to move forward with what we have.

A solution has been found in operating on a three-nation basis, but I think that the Welsh Government is going down the right route. There will be a lot of learning as Wales looks to secure an exemption to the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 and, I hope, successfully rolls out a scheme that includes glass. It will be bittersweet if Wales is successful in that and we realise that that could have been us back in 2023. Impossible conditions were put on the previous scheme. It could have gone ahead without glass a couple of years ago, but there were a lot of other conditions, which meant that we could not move forward at that point.

However, we are losing time. We are in a climate emergency. I see the impact of litter in our communities all the time. We are talking about really low-hanging fruit. Such a scheme is the simplest thing that the Parliament can do to tackle some of these issues. We should have got on with it years ago, but there is now an opportunity to pick up the reins again and move forward. I am pleased that there is now some movement on the issue, which is why I will be voting for the regulations.

On that last point, I am struggling to see—given the breadth of different product categories and retailers and everybody who would be involved in this—how SEPA’s current capacity is adequate because, presumably, there will be a need for investigations. This is not just about issuing fixed-penalty notices. It is about the investigatory work.

I am thinking about the example of the single-use packaging regulations that have come in. I still see polystyrene containers being used by takeaways and other shops in my community. I do not think that that is allowed but, clearly, the fact that it is still happening suggests to me that there is already a gap in SEPA’s research and enforcement work, and this is an order of magnitude bigger than that. This is about all product categories, not just polystyrene takeaway containers. It covers a huge amount of product categories. I am struggling to understand how SEPA is going to enforce this with the capacity that it has at the moment, given that it already seems that it is not enforcing as much as it could.

SEPA has said to you, “Yes, we will need an increase in capacity, but we do not need an increase in capacity beyond what we are going to get through the fees.”

It is a full cost recovery model.

Thanks.

Do you think that there are isolated examples of bad practice that have tarred the industry with the same brush?

I very much welcome that this SSI has been introduced—it is the final SSI in a suite of regulations that are needed to introduce franchising. However, a number of questions arise from this and previous SSIs that need to be answered.

When the previous SSI came to the committee, the Government committed to getting back to us with more information about the guidance that would be produced. I do not think that we have seen that yet, so it would be useful if we could write to the Government to ask it where the guidance on franchising is.

It would also be useful to ask about the timescale for implementation. I am aware that Strathclyde Partnership for Transport might be making a decision in September about whether to go down the franchising route, so I would be concerned about any delay in the production of guidance delaying that process. We are already quite delayed in Scotland compared with many of the mayoral authorities in England that have already taken advantage of the legal changes there and have gone down a franchising and municipalisation route. More information from the Scottish Government on that would be useful.

I am also aware that SPT has raised a range of concerns about the risks that are associated with the suite of franchising regulations. It would be good to reflect those concerns in a letter to the Government and to get a response from it on those concerns at this point, given that SPT is preparing for a potential decision to go down that route in September.

I feel that there are a couple of loose ends that it would be worth this committee following up on with the Government—its commitment to us on guidance and our raising with it a few of the concerns that have come out of SPT’s considerations.

Beyond that, I am happy for the instrument to come into effect and that we have the legal basis to allow bids for franchising to be developed.

Caroline, do you want to come in on that question as well?