���˿���

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.

It is important to set out that the process that we are looking at in respect of any challenge is probably more efficient for both sides—objectors and developers—in that it will enable a resolution to be found more quickly than has been the case when there has been an automatic triggering of a public inquiry. The reform that we are proposing maintains that robust scrutiny but allows for appropriate and efficient procedures. The mandatory public inquiry requirement has been a source of significant delay, but it is important for me to stress that it is still an option.

We will put a reporter in place, and there will be a number of tools at their disposal. Reporters will be able to make an examination into the application and will have the power to determine what form that examination takes. Reporters will be able to specify site inspection and hold evidence-taking sessions. They will have everything at their disposal, as they do in relation to other planning matters. Local planning authorities will remain statutory consultees. Their objections will continue to trigger a formal examination process, but the key difference is that the objections will be considered through a process involving an independent reporter rather than automatically going to a public inquiry. However, the reporter has the right to call a public inquiry.

In recent cases, public inquiries that have been triggered by a planning authority have added 12 to 24 months to the process. I do not think that it is good for an objector to have to wait 12 to 24 months to have a determination on their objection to something. The exact time savings will depend on the complexity of cases. There will be time for people to put in their objections, but the time that is taken for the assessment of all the evidence by the reporter should shorten the determination, and the objectors and developers will get a resolution a lot more quickly.

We can pass that information on if we have it. I do not have that in front of me now.

I do not think that anyone here would expect me to comment on a live court case. The deposit return scheme that we wanted to have in place included glass. What happened was that the UK Government at the time did not give us an exclusion from the internal market act to facilitate that, so we decided to work with the UK Government and the other devolved Governments in putting forward a scheme that is interoperable and workable. That is all that I will say on the matter.

The interoperability of the schemes in Scotland, England and Northern Ireland is the way forward. Everything will be put in place by the scheme administrator, which will be the same administrator across those three nations. Mark Ruskell makes a point about another challenge at the time.

I will bring in Giles Hendry, as he has been very close to the appointment of the board. One of the duties of the administrator is to set out an operational plan, which will take into account the rurality of Scotland and the different geographical challenges and opportunities in all three nations. Obviously, in Scotland, we have particular issues in making sure that what is rolled out is fair and equitable for rural and island communities.

Giles Hendry can give you more detail on that.

Mr Doris used the word “dovetailed”, which is important. We are talking about the same administrator but three separate systems. The administrator will be answerable to us for how the Scottish scheme operates. If we feel that certain tweaks, as you say, need to be made, we can have that discussion with the scheme operator in Scotland. It is a Scottish system that links with the English and the Northern Irish systems in terms of interoperability. We are talking about three systems, but the same company is the scheme administrator for all. It is not a UK system. There are three separate systems.

It is not a public body; it is a private company.

The scheme administrator must provide an operational plan to SEPA for approval by 31 March 2026, so I guess that that is the first milestone.