Chamber and committees

As the member will know and the committee will have heard in the evidence session last week, there absolutely need to be mechanisms for bringing private finance and investment into this space. Carbon credits are an established tool, and work is being done on biodiversity credits and so on. They are under development, but the finance that they bring in is absolutely needed. There is no question but that we must have private finance to develop those areas, and that is one of the tools for bringing in that finance.

I do not have any particular comment on that. I am not aware of any particular work in that policy space.

The matter of green lairds does cause concern, to me and to my ministerial colleagues. It is really important that we balance the need for investment in our natural capital with work that we are doing to empower local communities, so that we do not have the situation of problematic green lairds.

A suite of existing measures are in place to mitigate the impact of that rapidly evolving market. For example, in the last session of Parliament, we implemented legislation to extend community right to buy, including the right to buy land in order to further sustainable development. We also introduced a new register of persons holding a controlled interest in land.

Fears were raised at the time that our measures would deter inward investment but, as the member knows, that has not been the case, as we can see from substantial rises in land values over the past few years.

I share the member’s concern around so-called green lairds on the land concerned, and that is why we are putting in place frameworks for ethical investment in land and nature restoration, with private finance.

The development of highly protected marine areas is still under way. We are carrying out a consultation to get the areas in the right places—which was rightly pointed out as being important. There is certainly a challenge in ensuring that we have engaged stakeholders at all the key stages when locating and selecting the sites for those areas.

I turn to the enforcement of HPMAs. MPAs and HPMAs are different beasts. MPAs will have marine management plans in place, which say how the areas are to be used, while HPMAs are much stricter as no-take zones, given the restrictions on commercial activities in those spaces.

I might have to get Lisa McCann or Matthew Bird to support me on the detail of how exactly those restrictions would be enforced.

—the need for private finance for nature restoration is unquestioned.

The finance gap is £20 billion. There is absolutely no way that that can be fully funded from the public purse; that simply is not possible. What we need to do, and what we are working on doing, is to put in place the framework for ethical investment in the places concerned for nature restoration. That means managing the different interests and incorporating community wealth building and local input into the schemes. However, we absolutely cannot meet our targets for the climate and nature restoration without private finance. That simply would not be possible. We have to find a way of doing that ethically that supports communities.

I actually think that the problem is largely because of misunderstanding of what the scheme is and how it operates. The scheme is moving toward launch, and we have that big milestone of 95 per cent of the market, by volume, being signed up to the scheme.

The scheme is a producer responsibility scheme. That means that producers of the materials that we are collecting—the people who profit from those materials—need to ante up. They need to put it on the line and say, “Yes, we are now going to be responsible for collecting the materials, sorting them, and making sure that they are recycled properly.” That is a big shift, from using public money to do that work to putting it back on the producers. Producers that produce an enormous market volume—as I have said, it represents 95 per cent of the market—have signed on the dotted line and said, “Yes, we’re stepping up.” That is a huge milestone.

The next significant milestone is getting the return points signed up. Once Circularity Scotland and Biffa know where the return points are and how many items they expect from each return point, they can finalise their collection schedules. Circularity Scotland and Biffa are working towards the 16 August launch date.

All those pieces of the puzzle are under way. That is what we need to get the scheme launched. I know that there are still concerns among some small producers about how they participate in the scheme. We are working with them, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency and Circularity Scotland to bring them on board so that they can continue to supply the Scottish market.

That would be required to extend the deadline. However, late applications are being accepted. That has not been a hard cut-off. Businesses can still apply, and they continue to do so.

They need to register, but they can go through the process to get those labels. It was identified that redesigning packaging on the timescale given was a barrier to businesses, and Circularity Scotland came up with that really practical labelling solution so that that is no longer a barrier.

We are looking at what else we need to do with regard to the producers who have not signed up. Do they understand the package of measures that are on the table? I know that the committee took evidence from—

That is how such schemes normally work. It is the case that return points need to take bottles back and store them until they are collected. I understand that, when a retailer registers to be a return point, it enters information on how many returns it expects to receive and how much storage space it has. That allows Biffa to put in its schedule how often materials need to be collected. That is normal for retailers. They will need to be able to store materials until they can be collected.