Official Report 617KB pdf
Digital Waste Tracking (Scotland) Regulations 2026 [Draft]
Welcome back. Cabinet secretary, I am sorry for the slight delay—as you can imagine, the draft climate change plan was quite a lengthy subject, and I am sure that you will experience the same next week. However, I apologise for keeping you waiting.
Agenda item 4 is consideration of the draft Digital Waste Tracking (Scotland) Regulations 2026. The Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee has drawn the instrument to the Parliament’s attention under the general reporting ground in respect of a number of areas, as set out in the clerk’s note.
I welcome to the meeting Gillian Martin, the Cabinet Secretary for Climate Action and Energy, and her supporting Scottish Government officials Haydn Thomas, who is the producer responsibility unit head, and Ailsa Heine, who is a solicitor.
The instrument has been laid under the affirmative procedure, which means that it cannot come into force until the Parliament approves it. Following the evidence session, the committee will be invited to consider a motion to recommend that the instrument be approved. I remind everyone that Scottish Government officials can speak under this item but not in the debate that follows.
The Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee noted that there are five errors in what is, ostensibly, quite a short instrument. That is a huge number, so I would be grateful if you could address that in your opening statement, cabinet secretary.
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The system will transform existing outdated paper-based systems for recording waste movements and will address the information gap that hinders the effective regulation and management of waste.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.
Thank you very much, cabinet secretary. I accept that the errors are drafting errors, but they mean that amendments will be needed to the legislation and, in my opinion, it is always better for committees to get the polished item.
What waste streams are covered by the SSI?
It covers waste streams that involve waste activity at permitted facilities—I use the phrase “receiving sites”. The instrument excludes local authority household recycling centres, but that does not mean that that waste will not make its way into the digital system, because, after that waste is collected by a local authority, it will be delivered to a receiving site. At that point, the waste will be entered in the new digital system. In future phases, all waste movements, from waste generation to the end state, will be recorded in the system.
The instrument covers waste that is received at permitted facilities. For the moment, local authority household recycling centres will be exempt, but that waste will enter the digital system once it is moved to a receiving site.
I assume that recording the waste that goes into the receiving sites will help us to achieve the circular economy that we are looking for in Scotland, by reducing the amount of waste that does not need to be waste, as it were.
Yes. I think that it will be instrumental in helping with that, because it will improve the quality and accuracy of the reporting of the waste data—what is actually out there. That will support any future regulations, as we will have a clear picture of what waste streams there are. The system will be digital. It will integrate and simplify the recording of waste and bring together what are currently separate systems into one so that the regulator can gather and interrogate the information as needed. The regulator will start to see trends associated with that, and will start to make recommendations to Government on any future legislation.
The measure will also help to reduce waste crime. It will increase transparency for all parties in the waste chain, because they will all have to input into the digital system. Where people who are handling waste have not put that into the digital system, the regulator will be able to step in.
Do you think that the system will reduce the amount of unsold goods that find their way to disposal?
Sorry—I need clarification on that, convener. Are you asking whether it will reduce the amount of unsold goods that make their way in?
Some unsold goods are put into the waste cycle. I am trying to work out whether, in recording what is going into waste, unsold goods will be picked up. They probably still have some use if they are unsold.
We will certainly get a more accurate picture of the types of waste that are going in. Unsold goods that have been put into any kind of receiver will be recorded, so we will certainly be able to see trends and whether there are issues with a particular waste stream. The actual recording will not in itself diminish the waste at source—it will just record what goes in. However, it will give us data to be able to assess what actions need to be taken.
That last point is the key and interesting bit.
Sarah Boyack has some questions.
How will the arrangements for digitally excluded persons work in practice? Will that be at SEPA’s discretion? Will there be a database of exclusions? Do you expect a lot of operators to be included in that? In your opening remarks, you said that there are 450 Scottish operators involved in the process. I just want to get a sense of the numbers.
It will be a very small number, but digitally excluded persons will be exempted from the use of the tracking system, for obvious reasons. SEPA will have a record of those people, and they will have to produce written records and submit information through a non-digital route to SEPA. It is not as if they are exempted from reporting; they are just exempted from having to use this particular system.
The information will still be added into the system so that we can look at the analysis.
Yes.
I want to ask about compatibility with international systems. I know that there is development of similar waste tracking systems in the EU.
Do you mean the interface between the actual software?
Well, yes—it is about all aspects of the systems.
My understanding is that the systems are for use domestically. They will not have to interface with any other digital systems. However, the regulations will keep us in line with EU developments. More broadly, in terms of the policy, we want to be alongside the EU in having a digital tracking system, but it is not as if the data or the systems that we are using in Scotland will have to interface with any systems outwith the UK.
I assume that there will be transnational shipments between the EU and Scotland at some point.
I will need to bring in Haydn Thomas on that.
I am thinking about electronics and other resources that have a bigger supply chain.
12:30
There are probably three aspects to that. Certain waste streams are required to have digital waste tracking in the EU. We made certain commitments on keeping up with those digital requirements before we left the EU, for things such as hazardous waste. We therefore need to build the system to deal with those commitments anyway—that is the baseline scenario that we talk about.
There is also a broader direction of travel in the EU towards digital reporting of all waste, which is in line with our system.
On specific interactions, certain waste shipments would need to be tracked in the EU. That is not covered by the regulations, but it is something that operators would need to do if they are exporting certain types of waste to the EU. That will be easier if they are already creating those records digitally in Scotland, as they will not have to comply with two sets of requirements: an existing paper-based set of requirements in Scotland and a separate digital set for the EU.
The information that is collected when the waste is being tracked will be made available to local authorities for their statutory duties. Part of getting people to change their mind is to give them as much information as possible about what waste they are creating. Will the information be used to try to influence public opinion on correct waste management?
That goes back to the initial question that you asked about the analysis. Having a complete set of digital data will allow us to assess trends. Part of that will be about what we do in informing the public on how to reduce their waste. The system is a recording and data collection system for waste, but the lessons from it and the ability to analyse the information digitally will mean that it will inform future campaigns and, indeed, any future regulations or legislation that we want to introduce in this space.
When we talk about releasing data, we always have to think about data protection. You have obviously thought about that. Are there any risks?
No. No more data will be available publicly than is available now. In effect, we are taking the current paper-based system and turning it into a digital system. Businesses will have to use software to input the information. However, it is not as if commercially sensitive data or granular source data will be available to the public. It will just be the general reports that we have now. There will be no difference in what is reported.
Thank you.
As there are no more questions from committee members, we move to agenda item 5, which is consideration of motion S6M-20458.
Motion moved,
That the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee recommends that the Digital Waste Tracking (Scotland) Regulations 2026 [draft] be approved.—[Gillian Martin]
Motion agreed to.
Does the committee agree to delegate to me, as convener, the authority to approve the draft report for publication?
Members indicated agreement.
Thank you, cabinet secretary, and thank you to your officials, who I think are going to leave now. I will briefly suspend the meeting to allow a quick shift of officials.
12:33
Meeting suspended.
12:35
On resuming—
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme (Amendment) (Extension to Maritime Activities) Order 2026 [Draft]
Welcome back to this meeting of the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee. Item 6 is consideration of a further draft statutory instrument, the draft Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme (Amendment) (Extension to Maritime Activities) Order 2026. The Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee has made no comment on the instrument in its report.
I welcome the Cabinet Secretary for Climate Action and Energy back to the meeting, together with her supporting officials from the Scottish Government: Kay White, the team lead; Lauchlan Hall, the senior policy adviser; and Julia Burgham Pearson, a lawyer.
The instrument is laid under the affirmative procedure, which means that it cannot come into force unless the Parliament approves it. Following the evidence session, the committee will be invited to consider recommending that the instrument be approved. Officials cannot speak under that item, but they can speak in this one.
Cabinet secretary, would you like to make a short opening statement? I do not mean to bounce you, but we got the information that the impact assessment had been laid on Friday afternoon, which was after the committee papers had gone out. If you would like to bring anything in that assessment to our attention, it would be helpful if you could use your statement to do that.
I am pleased to provide evidence supporting the draft Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme (Amendment) (Extension to Maritime Activities) Order 2026. The ETS authority, formed and jointly run by the four nations of the UK, is extending the scope of the scheme to include emissions from domestic maritime activities. That builds on the existing coverage of aviation, power generation and energy-intensive industries within the UK ETS. It incentivises cost-effective maritime decarbonisation and encourages efforts across our society and communities towards net zero goals.
The expansion is focused on emissions related to domestic voyages between UK ports as well as emissions at berth in UK ports, and it will apply to ships of 5,000 gross tonnage or more. In response to extensive stakeholder feedback, there will be exemptions for specific activities, such as search and rescue activities and humanitarian aid, and specific types of ship, including publicly funded research vessels.
Importantly for Scottish interests and for our support for islands and peninsular communities, ferry services in Scotland are also exempt from the scheme, as they maintain essential connectivity to those areas, and fish catching and processing vessels are also exempted. The instrument that is under consideration provides technical detail on the practical aspects of bringing the domestic maritime sector into the UK ETS, including on the regulation of operators, the monitoring and analysis methodology, and annual reporting on maritime emissions.
As in other sectors that are included in the scheme, owners of in-scope vessels or, on their behalf, those to whom the responsibility is delegated will purchase allowances for each tonne of carbon dioxide emitted and surrender them at the end of each scheme year. For maritime emissions, there will be a surrender reduction for voyages between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, in order to avoid a carbon pricing imbalance.
As the expansion to domestic maritime emissions will occur in July this year, arrangements will also be in place to allow double surrender of allowances for both the shorter 2026 and full 2027 scheme years by April 2028.
The instrument adjusts the ETS cap to account for the maritime sector. The scheme will extend to vessels that provide support or services for offshore structures from January 2027. Including those ships at a later date is an alignment approach that is taken in the EU ETS that avoids market distortions ahead of their equivalent inclusion in the EU scheme.
The ETS authority has consulted extensively on the inclusion of domestic maritime in the UK ETS, in order to ensure that it is incentivising emissions reduction in a way that is fair and that accounts for industry best practice. In doing so, it has engaged with businesses across the UK and has held specific workshops with our island communities.
The instrument represents an important step in the on-going development of the UK ETS, recognises the importance of maritime operations to our economy and net zero journey, and lays the groundwork for future expansion to international voyages, which was the subject of a recent authority-wide consultation.
The business and regulatory impact assessment for the instrument was laid on 30 January, after extensive engagement with Scottish businesses.
Thank you, cabinet secretary. What are the main impacts on Scottish businesses and individuals of the introduction of the maritime sector to the UK ETS next year?
Mainly because of the exemptions, there is a very limited impact on Scotland-based operators. Approximately 96 per cent of the costs are expected to fall on international operators. We did extensive work with island communities and operators, and, as a result, we very quickly decided to exclude fishing and fish processing vessels and lifeline ferry services for island and peninsula communities, for the reasons that I set out in my statement.
I see that ferries to Scottish islands will be exempt from the introduction of the ETS and that the exemption will be reviewed in 2028. My brief research suggests that, for example, the MV Hamnavoe would fall comfortably within the weight limit for the ETS if the ferries exemption was not extended. Will the Government continue to push for the ferries exemption from the ETS?
I cannot pre-empt what the review will say, but the reasons for having the exemption in the first place are to do with the islands impact assessment and the lifeline nature of the ferry services. I do not think that that will change, but the review will take place.
Okay. Do you think that the tonnage limit will ever come down? If it came down too much, the MPV Jura, which is one of our main fisheries protection vessels, might fall within it.
A four-nations discussion needs to take place. As you rightly say, a 5,000-tonne threshold applies. The review in 2028 will consider whether the threshold should be lowered in the future, but that discussion will happen between the four nations and it will have to take into account the socioeconomic impacts of the inclusion of smaller ships. In the brief discussion that we have had, we have talked about the lifeline nature of the services and the fact that fishing vessels are important to the socioeconomic aspects of communities around Scotland. We will bring all that intelligence and those arguments to the fore in 2028 as well.
I hope that, in 2028, somebody will remember that I have mentioned maritime protection vessels when it comes to the tonnage limit.
The deputy convener has a question.
You said that 96 per cent of the vessels that will be captured are internationally based. What are the primary options that are available to them to reduce their emissions?
There are two aspects. First, there is the fuel that they use for travelling. There are different types of fuel, and fuel switching might be available. Secondly, there is the fuel that they use when they are berthed. It is going to be an interesting innovation for Scottish ports to be able to offer different options. When I was at Montrose port a couple of months ago, there was discussion about the fact that ships can get green electric power while they are berthed there, rather than using diesel. There could be good opportunities for ports to offer different types of fuel supply to vessels that are berthed.
Are alternative options available for the fuel that vessels use for travelling? It will probably be much more difficult for large vessels to be hybrid or electrified. I do not know whether electric generators would be able to generate the levels of power that they need. I am keen to understand that.
12:45
That is not my area of expertise, but the negotiations considered the different types of biofuels that might be available. It is ultimately for the shipping companies and the international operators to decide how they want to decarbonise and to consider the fuel options that are available to them. They could decide that some vessels are not able to decarbonise to a certain extent and that they will pay the fees and additional costs that are associated with not decarbonising. As an example of such decarbonisation, when cruise ships berth in UK ports, I hope that they will be able to take on an electric fuel supply to reduce the use of diesel.
Unless diesel is being used to generate the electricity—that is the challenge.
I have an example in my mind of a particular port that is using green electricity, but you are absolutely right that, if the electricity is being generated by diesel, there will not be an impact on the level of carbon emissions.
The instrument is meant to incentivise a reduction in emissions. Given that wind energy is being constrained in Scotland, as we all know, there is a big opportunity for ports to make arrangements with generators to utilise green electricity that would otherwise be constrained.
Okay. Thanks.
How many ports in Scotland presently have the capability for cruise ships to connect and use electricity?
I do not have that data in front of me—I would need to speak to my transport colleagues about that.
Would it be a good idea to have an audit, so that people can see exactly what is planned at the ports?
It is very possible that the information already exists and that the Scottish Government already has it; I just do not have it in front of me now.
Would you be able to send that information to the committee?
Yes, I will speak to our colleagues in other departments and get that information.
Thank you.
What is your plan for furthering the decarbonisation of vessels that are below the 5,000-tonne threshold?
You would need to speak to the Cabinet Secretary for Transport about that, because I do not have that information. I do not want to get into something that is not in my particular portfolio. If you are talking about fishing vessels, Ms Gougeon will have information about incentivisation in that regard. However, I can certainly find that out from those portfolio areas.
I was thinking more about the climate change plan. Is there any mention of how we will decarbonise some of the smaller vessels that are below the 5,000-tonne limit?
I will need to look into that, but, if those vessels want to decarbonise and stop using diesel, the most readily available option for them would be to use biofuels.
Okay. Thanks.
It would be good to get some joined-up thinking. We have talked before about opportunities for biofuels, and it would be interesting to see biofuels or electrification used in different ports when charging cruise ships.
However, my question is about what the estimated reduction in emissions in Scotland will be from bringing in these proposals. The estimate is that domestic shipping makes up 5 per cent of the UK’s transport emissions, which is more than our rail and bus networks. What will be the overall reduction in emissions by agreeing to this piece of legislation?
I do not have an estimate of the particular emissions reduction that will be associated with the instrument. If there is any information on that, it will likely be a UK-wide estimate. However, we can write to the committee. If we have the information, I will get a letter back to the committee on all these detailed questions about specific issues, but I have information only about the instrument with me today.
I am interested in how the decarbonisation that will occur as a result of the instrument will link into the climate change plan, which we have just been scrutinising. I do not think that the plan contains a particular figure for shipping, unless shipping is listed separately from maritime figures. There is no assumption in the CCP of carbon reduction.
I would need to look at the climate change plan. It is a draft plan at the moment. If we have the figures that are associated with this particular instrument and if they are not already in the climate change plan—I do not believe that they are—then we could, as we are finalising the plan, and if the figures are large enough to make a difference to the plan, put them into it.
There are some chunky emissions figures that are associated with domestic shipping, as Sarah Boyack has already alluded to. It would be good to get a sense of the cross-Government programme of engagement that is taking place with the different sectors to consider options. For example, there is a pelagic fishing fleet that is based largely in Shetland, where quite large vessels—up to 4,000 tonnes—are doing what they do. It feels that there is low-hanging fruit that can be drawn into the climate change plan.
I will look into whether an exact assessment has been done on that particular issue and get back to the committee.
If would be helpful if you could feed that information in before we see you next week, so that we could consider it as part of our evidence session on the climate change plan. I am sure that your officials will love that suggestion.
As there are no further questions, we move to consideration of motion S6M-20456.
Motion moved,
That the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee recommends that the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme (Amendment) (Extension to Maritime Activities) Order 2026 [draft] be approved.—[Gillian Martin]
Motion agreed to.
I invite the committee to delegate authority to me, as convener, to approve a draft of our report on the instrument for publication. [Interruption.] Well, if you are not happy, Mr Matheson, then, as deputy convener, you can write the report. However, I note that you are happy for me to do so.
Do members agree to delegate authority to me?
Members indicated agreement.
That is all that we will discuss in public. We will now move into private.
12:51
Meeting continued in private until 12:59.
Previous
Budget Scrutiny 2026-27