Chamber and committees

No. The target-setting criteria are as I laid them out. We want alignment with the biodiversity strategy and the global biodiversity framework. The target-setting criteria were set out for the bill, with all the alignments. There had to be criteria for setting the targets. It is not a case of not bringing anything new; it is about the target-setting criteria being interwoven into all the other biodiversity goals, outcomes and frameworks to ensure that the targets are robust, measurable, realistic and achievable.

Yes—exactly. I come back to the point that we cannot just set arbitrary targets; there have to be criteria behind the targets, and they have to be grounded in all the other strategies that have been followed to get us to 2030, to halt biodiversity decline, to become nature positive and to have species restoration by 2045.

That is why I was a bit confused.

You have referred to other regulations, such as the REACH regulations. I will take away that comparison that you have made and I am open to discussing that with members. The whole point of us sitting in front of you today is to hear your concerns and to think about how we can bottom those out, so I will absolutely take that away.

There might be other avenues that we can consider in respect of safeguarding. I am absolutely open to that. My officials and I are having those conversations even as I am sitting here listening to the committee’s concerns. Let me take that away.

The premise of your question is that the Scottish Government cannot meet its offshore wind ambitions, but, in fact—

It is not that we have not had those conversations with DEFRA. We have done an analysis of regulation 9D and we do not believe that it gives us the flexibility to respond in an agile way to situations on the ground and in the sea.

I would say the opposite. The very fact that the powers originated in EU law means that there is a gap now. The parent act was the European Communities Act 1972. That was a moment in time. We left the EU in 2021, or whenever it was, and we now have a fundamental gap. The purpose of part 2 of the bill is to fill that gap, which we do not believe has been addressed, in order to give us the flexibility that we used to have to respond to a changing climate and changing situations in nature and the environment.

I am happy to answer that, convener. I will take you through the substantive changes to the current regulations for Scotland. The first thing, crucially, is that the timeline is revised to launch the DRS in October 2027. Glass is removed from the scheme. The minimum container size has increased from 100ml to 150ml. Producers will be required to register with the scheme administrator rather than SEPA. Supermarkets, grocery stores, convenience stores and newsagents will be required to host return points unless their premises are less than 100m₂ in size and in an urban area. Take-back services may be provided voluntarily and organisations must register to operate take-back services.

I mentioned the designation of the new scheme administrator, UK DMO. It will have additional functions. The scheme administrator must issue a logo and a machine-readable code, and it may issue a logo identifying multipacks containing scheme articles. It will determine the deposit level, which may be a flat or variable rate. Those who want a review of the rate can request one from the scheme administrator. Any scheme administrator will also determine applications for an exemption from operating a return point.

Those are the substantive areas in which there will be a change.

The most substantive change is the removal of glass. We want recycling rates for glass to accelerate and improve. The Scottish Government, as has been well documented, wanted to introduce a scheme in 2024. It would have been up and running, I think, in March 2024. We have effectively lost a year of deposit return items being recycled, so that has had a material impact on our recycling targets in the past year.

The biggest difference is the exclusion of glass. That is why Wales has decided not to go forward with the regulations as we are. Its recycling rates are very good—they are the best in the UK. Wales wanted to include glass in order for the scheme to make a material difference to its recycling rates.

As you will remember, convener, the previous UK Government denied an exemption from the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 to allow glass to be included in the Scottish scheme. Our view is that a deposit return scheme that deals with aluminium cans and plastic bottles but without glass is better than no scheme at all. It is expected that the implementation of a deposit return scheme will take 0.8 megatonnes of CO₂ out of Scotland, and it will increase the recycling rate of those materials to about 76 per cent. There were different estimates for the previous regulations, which included glass. We are also working on implementing the Circular Economy (Scotland) Act 2024 and are working with local authorities on how we can have general improvement in recycling rates. A number of strategies are being taken forward.

There is no doubt that a UK-wide deposit return scheme, which we have signed up to in concert with the previous UK Government, the current UK Government and the Northern Ireland Government, will make a substantial difference to recycling rates. However, the impact will not just be on the recycling rates but on the amount of litter, as I mentioned in my statement. As you know, a lot of litter, particularly on our roadsides and in our coastal areas, is single-use drinks containers of the type that will be in the scope of the regulations. I am looking forward to a situation in which we no longer see cans and bottles littering our streets and our roadsides, because they have a material value associated with their return.