Chamber and committees

Absolutely. The Scottish Government has already committed to maintaining broad alignment with EU environmental standards, and we have been monitoring with interest the development of the EU’s ambitious nature restoration law. In fact, our strategy sets out the metrics that we would use to measure against the targets that the EU has set out.

At the moment, the EU law and the targets are proposals, and they are subject to negotiation between member states and amendment by the European Parliament. Our approach is not to wait for them but to develop our own targets and delivery proposals; however, we will take account of what is going on in Europe as those developments emerge.

I am very happy to take that under consideration. I can write to the member on that point.

The member is referring to the NatureScot agreement with Hampden & Co. As he suggests, that is an investment model that is based on a bridging loan from Hampden & Co to a private land owner to support that private land owner in creating woodland. The loan bridges the gap between the initial investment and the flow of carbon revenue. That is a way of helping private land owners do that woodland generation.

As the member will know—or she might not have been present for the committee’s evidence session—

We are looking at a variety of measures to support small producers. As I outlined in my answer to the convener, although hundreds of producers are signed up, there are some who have not yet signed up. We are digging into the detail of what the challenges are there. In response to conversation with those producers, Circularity Scotland has already put in place considerable cash flow measures—£22 million-worth of measures have been put in to reduce up-front costs and help with cash flow, because that was identified as a barrier.

Another identified barrier for small producers was labelling. Getting their bottles redesigned with a different barcode requires minimum order quantities and it takes a long time. To remove that barrier, Circularity Scotland will be issuing sticky labels to producers. When they have fewer than 25,000 of any particular product, they can get those labels from Circularity Scotland. They will kind of already be pre-registered, because the labels will have been issued to them.

Those are two—

[Inaudible.] A return point must be registered in order for it to be a return point; anyone who sells these materials has an obligation to register. That is so they can enter exactly the detail that Mr Kerr was pointing out in terms of how much storage they have and the volume of returns that they expect to receive so that the logistics can be organised. If a business wishes to be exempt, it needs to apply for an exemption. Zero Waste Scotland is managing the exemption process.

The member will recall that, before the legislation was passed, a business and regulatory impact assessment was done to assess the economic impact. That work was fully documented at the time.

The Scottish scheme, as set out in the regulations that the Scottish Parliament passed back in 2020, is very much in line with schemes around the world. Nothing here is a surprise. What we are doing is exactly along the lines of what has been done in other countries.

I will address the position of producers and retailers separately. On the producer side, the intention is to be fair to all producers, but it is absolutely a proportionate scheme. Producer fees are charged for each individual container. Therefore, the scheme will be inherently proportionate to the size of the business. A small business such as a craft brewery will pay significantly less than a larger producer will pay.

The additional cash flow measures that Circularity Scotland announced two weeks ago—maybe it was three weeks ago—benefit all producers but, proportionally, they benefit small producers more. When we passed the regulations, we passed a scheme that is similar to schemes in other countries. As I discussed in an earlier answer, it will be up to businesses themselves to manage the push and pull between the producers who pay in and the retailers who take the fees.

There is no request—that is not part of the process. As Euan outlined, the common frameworks process has been agreed. It is not a question of making a request that is then accepted or rejected; it is a question of working through the framework in order to present evidence and then working with that evidence. It is unfortunate that Alister Jack has presented it in that way in the media, as it is not accurate. It is not how the process works. For the record, Alister Jack has not attended any of the interministerial group meetings at which we have discussed the matter, nor has he corresponded with me on the matter. He does not know how the frameworks process works, so his comments about it are, unfortunately, not very helpful.

I understand, convener. As Euan has said, the resources and waste common framework has the right structure, and it is not helpful to frame the process as involving a request that needs to be accepted or declined. That is not how the process works. The decision-making process is evidence based.