 Good morning, and welcome to the seventh meeting of 2018 of the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee before we move to the first item on the agenda. I want to remind everyone present to switch off mobile phones and other electronic devices as these may affect the broadcasting system. The first item on the agenda is for the committee to consider whether to take items 3 and 4 in private. Are we all agreed? We are—agreed. The second item on the agenda is to take evidence on the reasoning for a breach damsfynt gan y dwyn niadau yng Nghymru, Twannodivell, Menedig, Scymd Llywodraeth, Ymysgolun, Llywodraeth, Gwymd, Deirchwyn, Llywodraeth, Saathedr, Llywodraeth, Zheleu'r Fyrde, S하겠습니다w, Llywodraeth, Rwyfyr, Pwrdwyllwyr, Llywodraeth, Fyrd-Gwyllwyr, Llywodraeth, S yardım, Llywodraeth, Llywodraeth, Llywodraeth, Sâtodol, Pymblidan, Llywodraeth, Llywodraeth. I thank you for the opportunity to speak today. At the end of 2017, I became aware of an inconsistency between the Electricity Works Environmental Impact Assessment Scotland regulations 2017 and the EIA directive. This inconsistency required applications for our section 36 variation Mae cyfnod o'r edrych arlau isen nhogwrs ymddirionedd mewn bwrdd e-AIA yn caffndag o rhai fe ar fynd ymddyllai ar ddiwrnod ar y ddym machech. Mae ysgol wedi cael ei g wedi gwaith a'i gael arweinyddai ar y tre Groes, ac oherwydd a'i ddweud gan y cyfnod o'r ffwrdd e-AIA. Fe fydd yn rhoi ddweud gan e-TAE yn cael eu cyfnod o'r dyfanyddiaeth. that is necessary to amend the 2017 regulations to bring them inline with the EE directive and minimise the unnecessary regulatory burden on ministers, stakeholders and developers. Those amendments will help to ensure that further delays to offshore wind farm developments is avoided without compromising our commitment to safeguarding the environment. Llyfridogol a'r byffredig sydd breddai lluniaethion ar gyfer gyfer henchau Llyfridogol yn ddim o ddwylen ffarn y tro, oherwydd, ychydig i wneud, gweld y proses EIA, gwaith y blynyddol i amser unrhyw hwnnw, ac yn hwnnw i angen i gydagiaethau clinogol, mae gynnwys ar gyfer 50 ar gyfer mwy o ddysguol, a lluniaethau unrhyw hwnnw i ddwylen hwnnw i ar 30 sphysgol o 4 mwy o dd耶chydd, a lliniaethau rhaid i ddim yn mynd i ddefnyddio o'r cydwyr. Onw、 dweud y Llywodraeth 28 i fy ngyf bod lleiwyr sy'n gweithio'r cymryd yn ei wneud i gydagrathu'r cynllun o'r edrych ac mae wedi gweithio'r cysylltu'r cymrydosodd yn ei wneud i gaeliasu a'ch hefyd i gaeliasu'r Cymru gyda Gwyl Wagdoniamol Gwyl Wagdoniamol Gyda Gwyl Wagdoniamol Gyda Gwyl Wagdoniamol Gyda Gwyl Wagdoniamol Gyda Gwyl Wagdoniamol, os yw lleisio'r ni ddigonwch a the EIA directive, and as part of our drive for continual improvements for efficiency and robustness, we'll undertake a review of the 2017 regulations and the marine works EIA Scotland regulations 2017 to ensure they are consistent with each other, as they are also both applied to the same sector. I'm happy to take questions, convener. Thank you minister. Just a technical and context question, ministers under section 36 have no legislative competence under section 36, just administrative ability to give consents for generations over 50 megabytes but megawatts, computer strikes again. I take it therefore the only way in which this sort of thing can be sorted out with as a conflict is not by looking at the electricity act but by looking at the bringing the regulations together in one interpretation. I believe that that is the case, but I will check with my colleague Joanna Dingwall in case there is any misunderstandings there. I believe that that is the case, Mr Stevenson, and you are correct in that assumption. You said the only circumstances in which an EIA wouldn't be required would be generating capacity. Unrhyw ddiwedd yn gydag, myfyrdd, yn gweithio. Pryddo'r cyfrifoedd i ddefnyddio'r tectnologiaid o'r cyfrifioedd y ffordd ddaeth i gynnwys hubau eu hunain. The best example being if a turbine was upgraded in terms of its power output, unless improved otherwise yn gael ei wneud ymddangosgwrdd mewn cyd-dwybr! Felly dweud i'r ddweud o gydych chi'n siŵs o'r gerchawr. Fel oedd weithio dyma'n bywau'n mynd o'r ddweud o gydych chi'n gan weights o gydych chi'n gweld pwynt gŷllwyr i'r ddweud hefyd tai ddych chi'n gweld o gydych chi'n gweld o gydych chi'n gweld i'r ddweud o gydych chi'n gweld o gydych chi'n gweld, a chi'n byw ychwan Cornell efallai i'u gael trysgwyr. Ond bynnag, mae'r yanlış cychydig o gwybatraeth mewn i gwybodaeth i gyfweld y teimlo i gail gwybodaeth fel oedd mae'n gylwgr Modnol iawn i'ch gwybodaeth i gyfweld yr unig. Mae'n ei gwybodaeth sy'n gwybodaeth yna, maen nhw eich gwybodaeth i cychydig y tarbwyr, gallwch arwad, y hublaeth, y tawr mewn, oherwydd ystafell ar mynd i gwybodaeth i cysylltu ac unig o gwybodaeth o ddim y tŵr, koelwch yn ddych chi'n wneud. Those changes are more likely to require an EIA because of its significance, depending on the scale of change that was involved. Certainly, a change in turbine's power output that we do not believe would have an environmental impact, so that situation is cited. I did not mean to present it as the only example. One thing that I understand that is normally is that a significant change in the power capacity of a turbine byddai'r unig o'r hen Witness yw ydy'r union iawn, a phas sy'n rhoi ei ddod y lleolau i ardal i dдаeth i ddod yn y cyflusio penderfynu. Felly'r gwaith m sicknessu yn ddrill iawn yn ddylai'r lleol iawn yn hynny. Mae hyn yn bryd yn ni'u dalion iawn yn ddegi dddangosach ac mae ein gwaith i ddaeth yn ddyneb i ddegi ddegi ddegi ddegi ddegi ddegi ddegi ddegi o'r turbine, ond mae'n gweithio'r engin o'r turbine, ond mae'n gweithio'r power output o'r wind, ond mae'n gweithio'r power capacity o'r site. That can arise for a number of reasons, because we have changes in terms of the financial environment for wind farms, both onshore and offshore, that is necessary with either reduced subsidy or more competitive environment for subsidy. They need more powerful turbines to be able to be competitive in terms of winning that, but it may also be the case that turbine manufacturers have moved on their technology and no longer making them less efficient turbine units, and therefore they have to use the available technology that is there for them and have to replace like with like, with more a more powerful outcome from the point of view of generation capacity. That doesn't have in our view, or at least to date, we've not seen evidence that has an environmental impact and is likely to be something that wouldn't require an EIA under the change that we've made. Okay, thank you. A number of members want to come in. Mark Croskell to be followed by Claudia Beamish. Yes, thanks, convener. Perhaps just further to that minister, could you say a little bit more about the screening process, because there is a determination of what is a significant environmental impact or not, which then triggers an EIA, so what actually happens before something is ruled out of a full EIA process? Obviously, it would depend on whether we had an application for a variation, so it assumes that a developer comes in wishing to make such a variation and then presents a scenario whereby they want to change perhaps the turbine to more powerful output. That would then be notified to stakeholders who would then have, I'll just check with colleagues just the length of time that happens. 20 days, convener, to respond to that, to indicate whether they felt there was a material change that did have an environmental impact. Unless there was such a representation made, there may be 50 bodies potentially that would be notified of that and therefore have the ability to respond to that. If they didn't respond or responded that they were happy or content with the change, then 10 per cent could go forward without an EIA being triggered. I'll just check with colleagues of Gail Holland, convener, if I'm going to bring in Gail Holland. Where it's thought that there may be an environmental impact from one of these changes proposed, it would go through a formal screening process at that stage under the EIA regulations and at that time we would consult with a number of consultation bodies to get views from them on whether they thought the change proposed would cause environmental impacts. On the basis of that consultation, we would form a screening opinion, which would either screen it into the EIA process if there were significant effects identified or out of the EIA process if there were no significant effects identified. Just about data. Obviously, data is very important in terms of understanding impact on potential species but also informing the industry and informing the wider sectors as well. So I'm just wondering, does this have any bearing this change on data collection and the requirements for data collection? To my interpretation, no. If there was an environmental impact identified, for example, then we would clearly want monitoring of any impact of a project on species that would not change just based on the turbine. Having changed, for example, it would still be a requirement for the project. It may well be that projects that are applying for a change in turbine have had an identified environmental impact. It's doomed to be, obviously, through the consending process, one that can be either managed or is acceptable, but that doesn't mean that it's stopped the requirement for monitoring simply because they've not had to go through any EIA for the change in the turbine. So I want to reassure the member that if environmental impacts are identified, then they will still need to be dealt with in the same way as previously in terms of monitoring requirements and mitigation when it's required or there's planning conditions, they will still need to be fulfilled. Claudia Beamish Thank you, convener. Morning minister and colleagues. It's a follow-up question to that. Is there any guidance that is publicly available in terms of any list of what is unlikely to be necessary to go through the environmental impact assessment process? I just think that this might, in some ways, reassure stakeholders and anyone with an interest. I don't believe that there's a published guidance yet, but I'm going to be asked Gail if she can respond to that, convener. No, there is Scottish Government guidance in place, but it needs to be updated to incorporate the amendments to these regulations. The guidance that's in place was published in 2015, and it makes very clear that any application for a variation is only appropriate if the proposals are not fundamentally different in terms of scale, character and environmental effects. That's the kind of wider guidance, but it is required to be updated to include the changes brought about by these amendments, and that will be done in due course. So nothing specifically yet, convener, from this, but it certainly needs to be updated. In response to Claudia Beamish's valid point that when that is updated, you're right to the committee minister detailing the exact position that we will then be in. Very happy to give that commitment, convener. I think that's an entirely sensible suggestion. Do any other members have further questions? Do you wish to add minister? No, just to stress that other than to stress that this has done in exceptional circumstances, I very much respect the 20-day rule and the reason for it being there. It's done reluctantly in this case, and hence my desire to offer immediately to Pugh before the committee, because I was aware of the great importance of trying to maintain such disciplines. So reassure the committee that it's not going to be a general rule, is very much the exception to the rule. Okay, minister. Thank you for your time and that of your colleagues today. At its next meeting on 6 March, the committee will consider the carbon accounting scheme, Scotland amendment regulations 2018-SSI 2018-40 and its work programme. The committee will also consider draft correspondence to the Equalities and Human Rights Committee and its approach to an inquiry on the marine environment. As agreed earlier, we will now move into private session and I ask that the public gallery be cleared as the public part of the meeting is now over.