Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee

Meeting date: Tuesday, September 3, 2024

Official Report 689KB pdf

---

Subordinate Legislation

---

Environmental Protection (Single-use Vapes) (Scotland) Regulations 2024 [Draft]

Welcome back to the meeting.

I apologise for the fact that we are running a wee bit late, as another item was added to the agenda earlier. However, if people can keep their questions short, I might be able to get us back on schedule.

Agenda item 3 is consideration of a draft statutory instrument. I welcome Gillian Martin, the Acting Cabinet Secretary for Net Zero and Energy—thank you for making yourself available for this session, cabinet secretary. I also welcome, from the Scottish Government, David McPhee, deputy director, circular economy; Mark Sweeney, senior policy adviser, product stewardship; and Carolyn Boyd, who is a lawyer. Thank you all for coming.

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, under the next agenda item, to consider a motion to recommend that the instrument be approved. I remind everyone that Scottish Government officials will be able to speak during this item but not in the debate that follows.

I invite the cabinet secretary to make a short opening statement.

I will keep it brief, convener. Thank you for the invitation to give you evidence this morning.

We want to ban the sale and supply of single-use vapes in order to make our communities greener and healthier. Research commissioned by the Scottish Government found that up to 26 million disposable vapes are consumed in Scotland in just one year, and that that consumption involves between 800 tonnes and 1,000 tonnes of packaging. It also found that, of those vapes, an estimated 10 per cent were littered and more than half were incorrectly disposed of.

It is not just a problem in Scotland: across the UK, 73 per cent of vapers say that they throw away single-use vapes, which leads us far from the circular economy that we are all trying to build. The lost lithium is equivalent to throwing away the lithium in 5,000 electric vehicle batteries every year. Some 5 million single-use vapes are thrown away every week in the UK, and it is estimated that, of the single-use vapes that are returned to shops or sent to recycling centres, only 1 per cent are recycled, due to the complexity of doing so. Batteries from electrical items, including vapes, have been responsible also for approximately 700 fires in bin lorries and at recycling centres in the UK, and that impact has been felt keenly in Scotland.

This year, 54 per cent of vape users under 18 said that a single-use vape was the vaping device that they use most frequently, so action clearly needs to be taken. In last year’s programme for government, we therefore committed to take action to tackle the environmental impact of single-use vapes. We have consulted on the policy proposal, the draft regulations and impact assessments, and we have worked very closely with the respective Governments across the UK to align our policies, and we have laid the draft regulations before you today, in keeping with our commitments.

If the draft instrument before you is passed by the Parliament, it will ban the sale and supply of single-use vapes in the course of business in Scotland from 1 April 2025. That date was agreed with the other UK nations, which are also implementing a ban. We are the first to lay regulations for the policy, and each nation will bring its own legislation in due course. The ban will reduce waste and the number of single-use vapes littered, and it will tackle our throwaway culture by encouraging more sustainable behaviour.

We have worked very closely with trading standards officers to ensure that they have the necessary powers to enforce the regulations, which reflects their feedback through our various consultations. We will continue to work closely with them as we move towards implementation.

From litter on our streets to the risk of fires at waste facilities, single-use vapes are increasingly an issue for our environment, local communities and young people. The draft instrument is a crucial step in tackling their environmental impact, and I urge you to support it. I am happy to take any questions.

Thank you, cabinet secretary. Jackie Dunbar has the first question.

Good morning, cabinet secretary. My first question has probably been answered, but is there anything further that you wish to add as to why the Scottish Government feels it important to implement the regulations, especially just now?

We want to take single-use vapes—or disposable vapes, as they are better known—out of the economy altogether. For a number of reasons, there is no ability to recycle them, even if they make it to recycling plants. The process is quite a manual one. Disposable vapes are not designed to be taken apart or to be recycled.

I have spoken about the volume involved. If local authorities had to recycle disposable vapes, it would cost them £200 million. There are a number of advantages to taking them out of the equation completely. First, they will not be littering our streets. As everyone here will have noticed over the past few years, once we spot one of them in the street, we spot 10 of them. When they go into a bin, they are going in with the general rubbish. As I mentioned, there is lithium in there, which is a very precious resource. We often mention that there is not enough lithium available for the larger batteries that we need for EVs. Cumulatively, vapes have a large amount of lithium in them, which is ending up in general waste.

The ban will have a health impact, too. We know that many of the uptakers of the single-use vapes are likely to be under age. They are getting hold of them somehow—that is what teenagers do. The vapes are very attractive. They often have flavours associated with them that are attractive to younger people. If we take them out of circulation, younger, underage people will be less likely to access vapes, because they will not be likely to buy a rechargeable and reusable one, for so many reasons. There are a number of advantages to the measure.

Fires have been associated with vapes. If they are not disposed of properly, they are likely to go into general waste and cause a fire in a bin lorry. There have been so many instances of that happening already. As I say, there are a huge amount of advantages to the ban. The draft instrument is a set of environmental regulations, but they reach more widely than that, including into health.

It is vital that we separate the single-use vapes from the vaping products that are used as a smoking cessation tool. I am a former smoker who used to use vapes, so I know the benefits of them.

Did I hear you correctly, cabinet secretary? Did you say that local authorities have costs of about £200 million per year?

10:30  

No. If we were to put in place a requirement for local authorities to collect and recycle these types of disposable vapes, that would be the cost of it. They are extremely expensive to recycle because, as I say, they are not designed to be taken apart easily. In effect, you would have a person breaking them open and separating them into their component parts. By taking them out of the waste equation altogether, we are getting rid of that difficulty. Even if we were to recycle them, and even if we were to go down the route of saying that they have to be recycled in a certain way, the cost would be huge. As I mentioned, only 1 per cent of the ones that are brought back or put into recycling are recycled properly anyway, given the difficulty of recycling them. Most of them go into general waste or are thrown down in streets, into hedgerows or out of cars.

I am sorry; I picked that up wrong, and I apologise. Do we know the current cost to local authorities of single-use vapes?

I am not sure whether it is quantifiable, so I will look to my officials.

I do not have the exact figure for the recycling point, but what we know from our impact assessment is—

Sorry, I just want an overall figure.

At the moment, most of them are dealt with through residual waste, because that is where they are put. Most of the disposable vapes are not being recycled, and that is the point. If we were to recycle them, it would be expensive. However, we know from the impact assessment that there will be a saving of £7.4 million from a reduction in the number of fires, which also cost local government, and £2.5 million from landfill. That is just that end of it. Recycling them is very expensive.

It is worth noting the exponential growth that we have seen in disposable vapes in the past four years. They have gone from a very small base to large numbers, and the numbers could grow much higher. The point is that the increasing amount of disposable vapes means increasing demand on waste services. It would mean lost lithium, but if we were to recycle them, which is what we hope to do with all products when they come to the end of their lives, it would be extremely expensive because of the type of products that they are. That increasing volume is the concern.

Thank you, convener. I appreciate that.

Thank you, Jackie. I have a few questions, but I will make an observation first. Cabinet secretary, it was interesting that you said that disposable vapes are often used by people who are under age. I have certainly seen—I think that we all have—shops where disposable vapes are made attractive to children. I have also seen those shops selling ice creams to attract people. I know of one situation where ice creams were being sold with a disposable vape as a free gift on the side of it. It is quite evident that there is a problem. As long as the Government accepts that the regulations are not going to absolve it from preventing young people who should not be supplied vapes from getting them, I think that they are a step forward.

Is the definition flexible enough to allow future proofing? One of the issues that have been raised with us is the use of coils, but ceramic plates are now used in disposable vapes, and pod vapes are being used. Are you convinced that the legislation will prevent some clever person from getting past the definition of disposable vapes in the regulations?

There are a number of things in there. All four nations have tried to engineer the regulations to future proof them to make sure that the definition that was developed alongside all the other nations takes into account the kind of feedback that you have just given. Single-use vapes are defined in the regulations as products that are “not rechargeable” or “not refillable”. In effect, in order not to be caught by the regulations, the vape has to be rechargeable and refillable. In order to be considered rechargeable, it has to have a rechargeable battery and, separately, a replaceable coil. That seems to be quite a narrow definition, and I hope that it addresses some of your points.

Notwithstanding that, there is a huge industry associated with the manufacture of single-use vapes. It is not in the UK; it is usually in China. Are there going to be attempts to re-engineer them in a way that takes the regulations into account? Potentially, yes. We are alive to that. The very fact that they are in the regulations means that, as the four nations implement the ban, we will have to keep a keen eye on any innovations that in effect work around the regulations. We want to be able to respond to any risks that might arise, such as those resulting from innovation.

However, the regulations are quite tight in identifying the type of products in the market today that we want to take out of the system, as well as what is not a disposable vape. That addresses Jackie Dunbar’s point that, for many people, using rechargeable and refillable vapes is part of their journey away from smoking.

In relation to rechargeable and reusable vapes, vapes that allow one refill before becoming useless could be cheaper than ones that can be refilled numerous times. I do not know—I have never used them. I was a smoker, but I have never been attracted to vaping. How do we avoid that?

I am not entirely familiar with reusable devices that would work only a couple of times. It seems to me that, if you were going to invest in something of a certain price that was designed to be reusable, you would want it to last, so I think that consumer choice will come into play.

Do my officials have anything to add? I am not entirely sure how we can predict how consumers will react.

I do not know. All that I am saying is that, if you can get a vape with a cheap battery that can be recharged a couple of times or one with an expensive battery that can be recharged 20 times, for example—I do not know whether those figures are even relevant—the one that can be recharged 20 times will cost more than the cheap one that can be recharged a couple of times. I want to ensure that we do not just move to an intermediate stage at which people throw away something that meets the definition and is cheaper.

David McPhee wants to come in.

Carolyn Boyd might want to come in, too, because she is closer to the regulations.

I confirm again that we have worked closely with people in trading standards and with other nations to ensure that the regulations are as tight as they can be, although we note that, with innovation, it is almost impossible to completely future proof them.

On the point about devices that could be charged more than once, you are right that there could be a cost model in which such a vape would be cheaper than one that could be reused for a long period, but it would still be more expensive than a disposable one. There is an argument about the cost per use. If you are going to reuse a vape many times, you get better value per use from a fully rechargeable one. As far as we are aware, a disposable vape tends to be more attractive to people who do not want to recharge it, for a variety of reasons—they might not want to carry it about, or perhaps they should not have it.

We think that the definition gives us the best chance to prevent the most voluminous disposable vapes. We cannot stop people having rechargeable and refillable vapes but—Carolyn Boyd might want to talk about this—the regulations say that the refills must be readily available. For example, a vape might be technically refillable but it might take six weeks to get a refillable pouch. The vapes must be readily refillable. As much as possible, we are reducing the ability to buy disposable vapes. Anything that is left is, in theory, a reusable vape, even if it is less reusable than those at the top end.

My point is that, with computer printers, for example, we went through a stage when it was cheaper to buy a new printer than it was to buy the ink cartridges to go in the printer, so people ended up throwing away a perfectly serviceable printer because it was cheaper to buy a new one with printer cartridges installed. I just want to ensure that we do not go that way with this issue.

We need to be alive to any kind of modifications that there could be to things that are on the market. As I have said, the four nations have worked together to put together a definition that, we think, will avoid that kind of situation. However, there are, of course, some very clever people out there who might see a gap in the market, so we need to be alive to that as the regulations are implemented.

Mark Ruskell has a follow-up question, and then it might be appropriate to bring in Carolyn Boyd if she wants to come in.

If manufacturers could bring the price of rechargeable vapes down to the same price as disposable vapes, would people not just buy rechargeable ones but continue to chuck them away? In that case, would it not be more sensible to have some kind of minimum price, even for rechargeable vapes, so that we do not just perpetuate the current disposable culture, in which people have vapes that are technically rechargeable and refillable but which are so cheap that they just chuck them away, as they are doing now?

I think that taxing the devices was considered as an option. Zero Waste Scotland’s scoping report looked at the options for managing the environmental impact of single-use vapes, but it concluded that, although taxation might support the policy objectives, it would have a limited effect if it was not tied to waste management outcomes. When it comes to the possible implementation of a duty on vapes, consideration would need to be given to the people who access them for smoking cessation and the equality impact that such a measure would have.

It could be argued that the higher the price of something, the less likely people are to buy it. However, we must recognise that, although vaping has health implications, because it involves people taking nicotine into their bloodstream—obviously, I am not a health minister, so I will not go into too much detail on this—if we make vapes too expensive, that could affect a lot of people who are trying to quit smoking, who see vapes as an alternative. Vapes are not prescribed as a smoking cessation tool. They have been brought in by manufacturers as an aid. Most smoking cessation tends to involve the use of patches, gums and so on.

In the round, the four nations thought that introducing regulations on single-use vapes would be the best first step, and that it would represent quite a large step in getting rid of the litter problem. However, that does not stop us looking at what might happen after 1 April and how consumer behaviour might change. The convener made that point, and you are making a similar point. How might behaviour shift? What might the design of reusable vapes look like? What littering implications might a shift to reusable vapes have? Although the regulations relate to single-use vapes, in the future we will have to monitor how they work and to look at some of the consequences of the kind that you have described with regard to what happens to reusable vapes.

Of course, we are looking at how we dispose of electrical items in general as part of all the waste management strategies that are in train under the Circular Economy (Scotland) Act 2024. As vapes are one example of such items, they will be taken into account as part of that. However, I think that the regulations, in taking disposable vapes off our streets, out of our bins and out of circulation, will have an enormous impact and will be a major first step.

I absolutely welcome that. I suppose that it is a question of whether we trust the vaping industry, given where it has been and what it has developed into, to work in the spirit of the regulations that are being put in place and to establish a genuine market for rechargeable, reusable vapes that might have a role to play in smoking cessation but which are not more widely available to a market that is huge and growing. I have my doubts that smart people somewhere will not find a way around what is proposed by targeting the price point. People on the boards of vaping companies will be thinking, “Let’s go for the price point—that way, we’ll keep our market alive.” Why would they not do that?

In its consultation, the UK Government included a proposal to introduce a duty on all vapes. I am trying to think whether that was a pre-general election commitment or a post-general election commitment. We are awaiting the publication of the report and, obviously, we are working with counterparts across the UK on what the next steps might be. Therefore, the introduction of a duty on all vapes is not off the table.

We are concentrating on bringing in the regulations on single-use vapes, but we are doing so with an eye to what might happen, which will inform what the UK Government does with regard to the imposition of a duty on rechargeable and reusable vapes. If what you and the convener are suggesting might happen does happen and there is innovation such that, in effect, reusable vapes end up costing the same as disposable ones, with the result that people, rather than recharging them and reusing them, do not value or look after them, that will inform the conversations that we have on the potential imposition of a duty on reusable vape mechanisms in the future.

The deputy convener has some questions.

10:45  

On the points that have just been made, we will also need to keep an eye on what the European Union does in this space, because when that huge market begins to regulate, it could have a significant impact in terms of market change. Perhaps there will be good lessons learned from Scotland and elsewhere that can help in that process.

Yes.

Over the summer, when I was out and about in my constituency, I talked to a lot of small businesses about a variety of issues. The convener said that he had heard about a business that was perhaps not acting responsibly. However, most grocers’ shops, or other shops, that do not specialise in these products but sell them as part of the range of products in their store, will be thinking about what the ban will mean for them. Can you give them any reassurance in that regard?

Trade bodies have raised concerns about the impact of the ban on the viability of small retailers. What engagement has there been to help to mitigate any negative impacts that the ban may have on small businesses? For example, is it helpful that we are considering the regulations now, in order to ensure that there is around six months’ notice to enable those businesses to clear their shelves—so to speak—of products that, in the spring, will no longer be legal?

It is exactly that. You point to the fact that, if the regulations are passed, the ban will not be in force until 1 April. There has in fact been more notice, because the retail industry has known about, and seen, the regulations, which went out for consultation. We have had live consultations with retailers as part of the process. In addition, the proposal was in the programme for government last year, and it has been a topic of conversation in the Parliament for quite some time, with many MSPs lobbying for a ban on these products for very good reasons.

There is the official notice period: if Parliament agrees to pass the regulations, retailers have six months to run down their stock. There will always be an impact associated with not allowing retailers to sell a profitable item—there is no getting away from that. In the past four years, these items have exploded on to the scene. Initially, I think there was a single digit percentage of people using them, but that has gone up to about 50 per cent of people. They have become extremely popular.

If we look at the demographic of people who use them, we see that—as the convener said—many are younger people. I am quite shocked to hear that people can get a vape with their ice cream—that takes me back to the 1980s, when the rogue ice cream guy would sell you a single cigarette and a match when you went out to get an ice cream. I think we all recognise that that kind of thing used to happen—I did not realise that it was happening with vapes, but I am steeped in that experience.

The flavours associated with vapes mean that they are attractive to younger people. Of course, I am not saying that retailers are selling them to young people; young people are just doing the same as has been going on since time immemorial. Kids outside the shop get hold of a guy who is going in for his messages and say, “Can you buy me one of these?”, or older siblings or friends, or whoever, are buying them. That is just the way that teenagers operate—we know that.

With regard to the business case—yes, retailers will no longer be able to sell that profitable item, but they have notice in order to run down their stocks. They can decide whether they want to start selling the reusable products instead, alongside the refills for those; there is another stream of income in servicing the demand that might come from people who used to buy single-use vapes, legally, as their preferred model. There will be a market there, and it is for retailers to make that business decision.

I will give you a bit of background. We contacted every vape retailer in Scotland. We identified those through the register of tobacco and nicotine vapour products retailers. Seven thousand retailers in Scotland are registered. We contacted them all and invited them to provide feedback on the draft regulations, as part of the development of the business and regulatory impact assessment. We conducted the Scottish firms impact test—the SIFT—and we interviewed 11 businesses that came forward. With them, we worked through some of the potential impacts on them. The themes that were identified included funding for enforcement and the potential for illicit sales—going underground. A variety of businesses responded.

Of course, that is not the end of the consultation. Once the regulations are approved—as I hope they will be—by the Parliament, we will get in touch with every single one of the 7,000 members on that register, to alert them to the fact, if they have not already seen it, that the regulations have been passed.

That engagement will be important to stakeholder organisations as well, so I welcome that reassurance.

I encourage committee members to put short questions, and witnesses to give short answers, because we are quite pushed for time.

I have a very short question. On 1 April 2025, will the whole of the United Kingdom or just Scotland implement the measures?

As things stand, we are all going forward as one, and we want to go forward as one. Obviously, a new Government is in place, and I need to make sure that everything is still in train, so I am writing this week just to get confirmation of where the other nations are and to let them know that we have laid our regulations and started the process.

Should I get an answer that says, “Actually, no, we are not ready to go on 1 April,” a couple of options are open to us. If the period is quite short, we could decide to change our regulations to come in at a date along with everyone else’s. If it is only a couple more months, I do not think that there is any harm in that. However, if it is a couple more years, that is a different question altogether, and we would need to think about how we might go forward, because that would be a couple of years of those items still being on the streets, still in our bins and still causing the problems that they have caused.

As things stand, I have not had confirmation that the implementation date has changed. I think that I signed off on a letter to the UK Government yesterday, to say that we are ready for 1 April and to ask whether others were ready and whether that was still the plan.

I just note that I would have deep concern if we were all to go forward on different timescales, because that would mean that an illicit market was easily fuelled from elsewhere. I will leave it at that, but I will certainly come back on this whole thing if implementation does not happen all at the same time.

I have a few questions on enforcement issues. However, I first want to pick up on concerns about underage sales, which were raised with me over the summer in Hamilton and across Lanarkshire.

In her written submission to us, Laura Young said that

“a pitiful number of fines have been given out in comparison to the underage sales we know are happening across Scotland.”

With that in mind, how will the regulations be enforced—in particular to mitigate the risk of illicit trade? As well as hearing from Laura Young, we have heard from the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and the professional body the Society of Chief Officers of Trading Standards in Scotland, which highlighted that enforcement capacity may be an issue due to resourcing difficulties. Will the Scottish Government make additional resources available to assist with that?

The enforcement of anything that we bring in is absolutely crucial.

First, there is the communication that we would have with retailers around what the ban means for them. Twenty-nine of the 32 local authorities were supportive of the proposal. Their trading standards officers already have the powers to deal with any kind of illicit goods being sold, and these regulations add to that.

However, as you will remember, beyond the enforcement powers that trading standards officers already have and the offence provisions that are in these regulations, the Circular Economy (Scotland) Act 2024 amended the regulation-making powers in the Environmental Protection Act 1990 to enable enforcement officers to issue fixed-penalty notices as an alternative to prosecution for offences. The shorter, sharper and more effective approach of fining—rather than prosecuting, using the whole court process—will be a lot more straightforward than some of the processes that we have had, and that might release a bit of capacity in the system.

The Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government is the person who you have to ask about finance for local government; it is not really for me to answer that. However, as with any ban, there will be an initial concentration of activity until everyone gets used to the fact that single-use vapes are no longer available and then there will be a tailing off. Those products just will not be in the system any more and retailers will get used to that. All the mechanisms for the public to report anyone selling them will be open, as well.

I am sure that we will keep an eye on the resourcing issue. How will the regulations be enforced in respect of illegal sales online or from private dwellings that trading standards officers will not be able to enter? What is the strategy for tackling illicit trade?

The sale of anything online is subject to the same regulations as the sale of anything on the high street. If it is illegal to sell something online and it is a UK-based business that is doing so, that business is subject to the regulations that we have here, so it would be breaking the law.

In the case of online sales from outside the UK, there will be increased funding from the UK Government to the Border Force and His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to deal with that. They are preparing for the fact that there will probably be an issue with people purchasing single-use vapes online, although not necessarily from the UK. If you purchased something such as a dangerous weapon or illegal pharmaceuticals, those would be subject to customs searches. In the same way, Border Force and HMRC are alive to the fact that people might try to bring in single-use vapes from outwith the country by purchasing them online. Therefore, more resources will be put into those mechanisms at UK level.

SCOTSS has made detailed recommendations on enforcement powers, saying that the powers that are provided in the regulations are “restrictive and impractical”. What discussions are taking place between the Scottish Government and trading standards officers—particularly those who run local government trading standards departments—to address those concerns? Are you satisfied that the enforcement powers that are currently in the regulations are appropriate?

As I mentioned, there is now the ability to issue fixed-penalty notices, which has been done in concert with SCOTSS in relation to the powers that trading standards officers need. Giving them that extra power was one of the reasons why we brought this in when we did, through the Circular Economy (Scotland) Act 2024. Perhaps my officials have more detail on the on-going discussion with SCOTSS.

I will make one point about engagement, then I will perhaps ask Carolyn Boyd or Mark Sweeney to say something about the fixed-penalty notices side of things and in particular about bringing those powers into force.

We engaged with trading standards colleagues as soon as we announced that there would be a ban—we spoke to them immediately. They have been heavily involved in drafting the regulations, and they provided feedback to us. We worked with the regulatory review group, which includes trading standards colleagues, and we continue to engage with it on the challenges around the issue.

As is always the case, there might be a desire among trading standards colleagues to go even further on some of these things, but we are sometimes controlled by how far we can push regulations in this space.

11:00  

We are providing as many powers as possible and intend to bring in regulations for fixed-penalty notices. I will hand over to Carolyn Boyd to talk about that.

We have regular and constructive dialogue with colleagues from trading standards about the impact on regulations and the demands that that will place on them. We recognise that there are competing demands caused by other regulations and that there are many pressures on the trading standards service and we are working with them and with other colleagues to understand those. There is a positive dialogue. As we move towards implementation, we will work with them to ensure that we have the right guidance and will engage with retailers to ensure understanding. That is also part of our conversations.

That is all I have to say about engagement, but Carolyn Boyd or Mark Sweeney may want to say more.

Before you bring them in, I refer you to the submission to the committee from SCOTSS, which says that impact assessments

“do not adequately address the resource implications for local authorities”.

I heard what the cabinet secretary said about the opportunity to use fixed-penalty notices and about the wider circular economy framework, but it is important that that concern is not dismissed. Will that be discussed? Should finance colleagues be brought in to allow joined-up thinking?

I will build on my previous answer by saying that we are discussing those impacts. The flipside is that banning vapes will change what trading standards have to do, because, at the moment, they regulate the sale of disposable vapes. We spoke earlier about the impact on fires and waste, which already have costs for local government. It is important to understand the full picture.

That conversation is continuing and, as the cabinet secretary said, will affect other budgets, too. We are continuing our conversations about the wider impact on local government. Many in local government have called for the ban because they know the impact that that will have not only on trading standards but on waste and litter, and we are trying to work positively with them.

Following the first consultation on the draft regulations, and in response to communications from trading standards, we updated the definition and the enforcement powers.

Building on what David McPhee said, we expect to see savings for local authorities, particularly in waste management, due to a reduction in gate fees and in litter and cleansing costs. We estimate savings of £10.2 million over 10 years, made up of £7.4 million from a reduction in fires, £2.5 million from landfill and incineration fees and £300,000 from litter and cleansing. Those savings are expected.

My question is based on what the cabinet secretary said about timescales. You are seeking a four-nations approach and want all the nations to move at the same time, which sounds sensible. If timescales diverge and there is a need for discretion, do you have an exemption under the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 that would allow you to make a decision about Scotland going first or going later?

The new UK Government is now in place and I have written a letter asking for confirmation of the go-live date for the other three nations. I made the point that we do not want to diverge. There are very good reasons for us all going at once, including the obvious environmental reasons and some of the other issues that have been raised today.

I made the point that if there is a small gap we would still want to move at the same time as everyone else, but that a gap of years would be a completely different question. I am hopeful that such a gap will not happen. We have had a general election, there is a new Government and the Government machine has probably had to pause, which might have had an impact. I do not know about that because we have not had any confirmation.

We are ready to go. I have laid the instrument. We all agreed the date of 1 April 2025 and we need to get ready. If other Parliaments and Governments are not in that space and there is a time lag, we will look at our go-live date. Why would we go live two months before the rest of the UK? That would not make sense. However, if the measure comes off the table—I do not think that it will—or the gap is years long, that would be a completely different question. If I was told that there would be such a gap, I would try to convince them that it cannot be delayed for years.

You have not requested an exemption under the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020.

No. We will take things as they come. I have asked for clarification first. I have mentioned that that mechanism exists. I do not want to have to use it; I want us to go together.

Bob Doris has a couple a questions.

I have a couple of brief questions, convener. I return to the issue of enforcement. Under regulation 9, enforcement officers will have the power to sample and take possession of single-use vapes. That is quite a precise definition. The powers are not framed more broadly, such as to seize or sample single-use vapes or items that are suspected of being single-use vapes. Is the instrument too restrictive to enable enforcement officers to take appropriate action? Will you give assurances about that?

I need a bit of clarification on your question. Enforcement officers will have the powers to go in and seize single-use vapes. What is the issue?

Officers will have to identify vapes as such. It has been put to me that they would have to take a sample and identify an item as a single-use vape before they can then move to seize and confiscate it. Under the regulations, they cannot take a batch of items that they suspect to be single-use vapes at that point, so there could be a delay in the process. Are the powers drawn too narrowly? Will enforcement officers be able to go in and, if they have a reasonable suspicion that there are boxes upon boxes of single-use vapes, seize them at that point?

That is my understanding. Maybe my officials can help. Is your point that the enforcement officers might take items that are not single-use vapes in error?

It is the converse, actually. The briefings that I have looked at ahead of today’s meeting say that if enforcement officers were not clear about whether items were single-use vapes, they could hesitate and not seize the items at that point. However, if the powers were drawn more broadly, they could seize the items, establish that they were single-use vapes and retain them. The instrument defines single-use vapes; it does not cover items that are suspected to be single-use vapes.

Carolyn Boyd is the lawyer and expert. I reaffirm that we have worked closely with trading standards. As far as I am aware, no one from trading standards has raised concerns about that aspect. There is lots about their powers and their ability to do things, but not necessarily specifically about being unable to identify whether there is an issue to consider. Officers have powers to seize things that are obviously single-use vapes. Where there was uncertainty, they would have to go through a process to make clear what an item was, which would include sampling, as you mentioned. If an item was clearly a single-use vape, there would be no need for sampling; it would just be dealt with there and then. If something was open to debate, they might have to sample the items and then return to seize them.

Is that Carolyn Boyd’s reading of it? Are you aware of any other conversations with trading standards about that element?

I cannot speak to conversations with trading standards.

It is important to distinguish between the different powers. There is a power to take samples of a single-use vape or components of single-use vapes. The enforcement officer has the power to subject single-use vapes to any process or test and to dismantle them. If any single-use vapes are found in the premises that the enforcement officer has entered, the officer can seize them and retain them to use in evidence and to examine them.

Enforcement officers do not need to take each single-use vape and conduct a scientific process or test to show that it is a single-use vape, if you see what I mean. If a trading standards officer has entered the premises and single-use vapes are there, they are empowered to take those single-use vapes.

I was not suggesting that. Rather than be a pedant, I will seek an assurance, which I think that Mr McPhee gave, that trading standards officers are content that they have appropriate powers, but that the Government will keep that under review, along with trading standards officers, and would act if there was a gap in the regulations that needed to be plugged.

Of course. That comes back to the earlier point about what happens if something else enters the market that looks different or whatever. Obviously, we will be alive to anything that happens, in a four-nations approach, where that might be the case and might cause any dubiety. For the moment, I think that the single-use or disposable vape has a fairly obviously different appearance from the rechargeable type.

I will leave it at that. The important thing is that trading standards officers, who will have to enforce the regulations, have said that they are content.

I never want to put words into somebody else’s mouth, so I will make it clear that we worked closely with trading standards officers in developing the regulations and, as far as I am aware, I have not heard any concerns about that element. As has been mentioned in other briefings, trading standards officers might prefer even stronger powers in some spaces, but they have been involved in developing the regulations and have commented on them. On that specific issue, I am not aware of any specific concern that this would prevent them from doing what has to be done.

If there is a grey area, I simply ask for a wee bit of clarity. I ask the cabinet secretary to give a commitment that, once the regulations are passed and we move into the enforcement stage, the issue will be kept under review and you will continue to work with trading standards to see whether there are any issues regarding enforcement.

We will always do that. When the regulations land and once they are enforced, we will keep an eye on how they are working. If any issues come up that have not been considered, of course we will look at that again. However, that point has not been raised—hence my initial confusion as to your question. I hope that my officials have been able to give you certainty that that has not been an issue.

I think that I have got certainty, because trading standards are content at the moment, but my question is inspired by the fact that there are a lot of technical regulations, and we have a lot of expertise in the committee clerking team and the Scottish Parliament information centre team to identify areas where the legislation can potentially be improved.

I will move on. Another thing that we have learned on the committee is what the WEEE regulations are. For anyone who is watching the meeting, I should say that they are the waste electrical and electronic equipment regulations. I also note that a UK-wide vaping product duty will be implemented in 2026. I would like to know about the interaction between the WEEE regulations and other potential fiscal measures in relation to these matters. Take-back schemes are still required in relation to vapes and vaping products, but I understand that compliance with them has been relatively low.

That is the general context. Has the Government thought about the interaction between the WEEE regulations, the forthcoming vaping products duty in 2026 and what we hope to move to legislate on this morning?

I am going to have to bring in my officials. The WEEE regulations concern things such as the take-back of rechargeable items. Now that the regulations that we are considering today are coming in, there will not be that take-back responsibility. Can I bring in my official on that specific point?

Of course.

I might go to Mark Sweeney, who has been heavily involved in the consultation on the WEEE regulations. With the UK Government, we have consulted on a WEEE extended producer responsibility, which I think is what Mr Doris is referring to, because a collection requirement is already in place.

Yes.

The key point is about the interaction between all the measures. The measures are all interacting across the circular economy space, and there are absolutely interactions between the health stuff, the duty on vapes and wider things that we want to do on the WEEE EPR and other EPRs. For example, as part of the consultation, it was highlighted that dealing with vapes is much more expensive than dealing with all the other WEEE, which is why thought was being given to creating a separate category for vapes. Under EPR, the idea is that the producer pays for the waste cost, and the point is that it is much more expensive to get rid of a vape than other types of WEEE. That was in the consultation and is part of what we may regulate on.

If, for some reason, the regulations that we are considering today were not passed, disposable vapes would be captured under the WEEE collection side, and the cost might be there to deal with that. That will still be the case for reusable vapes.

11:15  

However, if the regulations are passed and we take disposable vapes out of the question, the interaction with the WEEE EPR falls away. I absolutely agree that all those things are interlinked and have an impact on each other, including the duty on vapes. It comes back to whether, if we ended up with a cheaper product, the duty would push it into being more expensive and therefore less throwaway-able anyway. However, that is about the reusable side of things rather than the disposable side, which is what we are here for today.

I am content with that. It is a complex area. It is about ensuring that the Government is live to the interaction between the regulations and the wider WEEE and other fiscal measures. That has been helpful. The terminology is dreadful—when I hear “WEEE” I think of a Nintendo Wii from several years ago—but I will leave it at that.

I am definitely going to leave it at that; that is all the questions from the committee.

We will move on to agenda item 4, which is a debate on motion S6M-13568, which calls on the committee to recommend approval of the draft regulations. I remind members that only they and the cabinet secretary can speak in the debate. I invite the cabinet secretary to speak to the motion if she feels that it is necessary or just to move the motion.

Motion moved,

That the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee recommends that the Environmental Protection (Single-use Vapes) (Scotland) Regulations 2024 [draft] be approved.—[Gillian Martin]

I say at the outset that there are a lot of moving parts in the regulations. We have heard from all the committee members about the difficulties of identifying the different types of vapes and whether they are reusable or single use.

What would concern me more than anything else is if not everyone in the United Kingdom went forward with the approach on 1 April next year. That would cause me grave concern. However, as an individual, I am perfectly happy to support this on the basis that everyone will move forward on the same date.

Given the points that have been made, as the legislation progresses and comes into force, it would be helpful for the committee to be kept aware of how it is actually working and whether it is achieving its aims. Does anyone want to ask the cabinet secretary anything that they have not asked already or to make a comment? Bob Doris has his hand up.

I have a brief observation. I did not think that I was going to make this comment, but I commend the Government for taking a very proportionate approach and looking constructively at the four-nations approach to going live in April next year. The Government is not rushing towards the need for an exemption from the UK Internal Market Act 2020 but taking a four-nations approach in the first instance, as we all have a common interest in the issue. That is a good tone to set as we seek to engage with the new UK Government, with the backstop measure of that exemption as and when required. I think that that is the way to do business, so I say thank you, cabinet secretary.

Douglas Lumsden wants to say something, too.

I, too, welcome the four-nations approach, which is the right way to go about the regulations. The only other thing that I will add—the cabinet secretary has mentioned it—relates to flavours and packaging. That is a problem in relation to single-use vapes, but it is also a problem in relation to multi-use vapes. I understand why that would not fit in with the regulations, but I would like it to be addressed somewhere—maybe in a health regulation or something—because the cabinet secretary is right that the flavours and packaging are targeted at younger people. We have heard a lot about how vapes are good for smoking cessation, but we are seeing now that, often, vapes are being targeted at people who go straight into the use of vapes. It would be good if the Government addressed those issues, too.

Would the deputy convener like to ask a question or make a statement? The cabinet secretary will get a chance to answer all the points that have been raised at the end of the debate—or during it, if she wants to.

I will make some brief comments in the same spirit as those that other colleagues have made. It is important to get the regulations right and, if the timescale needs to flex because of other Governments’ situations, that is absolutely the right thing to do.

I am reassured by the cabinet secretary’s comments on her proactive communications in order to seek that clarity. I am sure that the Scottish Government will keep the committee and Parliament updated on the communications with the UK Government and the other devolved nations. If the timeframe needs to change to make sure that a four-nations approach can be taken, that seems like the sensible thing to do.

Cabinet secretary, do you want to comment on anything that you have heard?

I welcome the support for the regulations’ intentions and for the approach that I am taking on any flexibility that we might need, should other nations not be ready. I do not know about that for sure, but the point is taken, and it is certainly my view, too.

Concerns about flavouring and packaging, which Douglas Lumsden raised, will be addressed in UK legislation—the Tobacco and Vapes Bill. He is absolutely right about the people who have marketed them. Let us face it—there has been a marketing attempt to attract younger people, and they might try the same thing with the more reusable vapes, although I would suggest that they are harder to hide from parents. Those points are being taken on board at UK level as well, and we support that.

The question is, that motion S6M-13568, in the name of Gillian Martin, be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Motion agreed to,

That the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee recommends that the Environmental Protection (Single-use Vapes) (Scotland) Regulations 2024 [draft] be approved.

The committee is agreed, and we will report on the outcome in due course. I invite committee members to delegate authority to me, as convener, to approve the draft report for publication.

Members indicated agreement.

It is fair to say that we should include in our report the concerns about moving forward together as the whole United Kingdom and refer to the flexibility that is required to do so.

Thank you, cabinet secretary. Some of your officials are staying, but I will briefly suspend the meeting to allow other people to change places.

11:22 Meeting suspended.  

11:28 On resuming—  

---

The Companies Act 2006 (Scottish public sector companies to be audited by the Auditor General for Scotland) Order 2024 [Draft]

Welcome back. Agenda item 5 is consideration of another draft statutory instrument. I welcome Gillian Martin, the Acting Cabinet Secretary for Net Zero and Energy. She is joined by officials from the Scottish Government: Andrew Mackie, head of environment and forestry sponsorship hub; David McPhee, deputy director, circular economy; and Carolyn Boyd, 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, under the next agenda item, to consider a motion for the committee to recommend that the instrument be approved. I remind everyone that the Scottish Government officials will be able to speak under this item but not in the debate that follows.

I invite the cabinet secretary to make a short opening statement.

I will make it as short as possible, convener.

The committee will recall that, during the passage of the Circular Economy (Scotland) Bill, amendments were lodged by the Government to ensure that various pieces of legislation that would apply to Scotland’s other public bodies would also apply to Zero Waste Scotland. The transition follows a decision that was made by the Office for National Statistics for Zero Waste Scotland to be classified as a public sector organisation, as it is primarily directed and funded by Scottish ministers. Work is well under way to ensure an orderly transition, and—subject to how the committee votes today—we fully expect the change of status to take effect from 1 October. Zero Waste Scotland will be subject to the same provisions on public finance and accountability as other public bodies in Scotland, and it is important that the organisation has a designated accountable officer as part of routine good governance.

11:30  

Zero Waste Scotland will not be part of the Scottish Administration under the Scotland Act 1998. That means that, for the purposes of the Public Finance and Accountability (Scotland) Act 2000, the permanent secretary, as principal accounting officer, cannot appoint an accountable officer for Zero Waste Scotland. However, article 2 of the draft order requires that Zero Waste Scotland be audited by the Auditor General for Scotland, which consequently engages the relevant provision of part 2 of the 2000 act.

Where a body’s accounts are subject to audit by the Auditor General, the permanent secretary will then be given power to designate an accountable officer for Zero Waste Scotland under section 15(3) of the 2000 act.

I hope that that gives a summary of what we are doing; I will close there.

Thank you, cabinet secretary. Does anyone have any comments on what appears to be a good idea?

I have a brief comment, convener. I am really looking forward to Zero Waste Scotland growing into the role. It has been a long time coming, and I think that it will enable Zero Waste Scotland, as an organisation, to drive forward progress in the circular economy in a way that is fully accountable. I look forward to Zero Waste Scotland attending the committee in the future.

Does anyone else have any comments?

Can the cabinet secretary confirm whether the change will mean that Zero Waste Scotland is open to freedom of information requests at this point?

Yes.

Okay—thank you.

As there are no other comments, we move to item 6, which is the debate on motion S6M-13501, which calls on the committee to recommend approval of the Companies Act 2006 (Scottish public sector companies to be audited by the Auditor General for Scotland) Order 2024.

I invite the cabinet secretary to move the motion.

Motion moved,

That the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee recommends that the Companies Act 2006 (Scottish public sector companies to be audited by the Auditor General for Scotland) Order 2024 [draft] be approved.—[Gillian Martin]

Motion agreed to.

The committee will report on the outcome of the instrument in due course. I invite the committee to delegate authority to me, as convener, to approve the draft report for publication. Are members happy with that?

Members indicated agreement.

Good. I thank the cabinet secretary and her officials. Some of you are staying with us for the next item—or are you all staying?

No—I see that there will be a wee changeover. You can do that while I introduce the item. I thank you for being here.

---

Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging and Packaging Waste) Regulations 2024

Our next item is consideration of a type 1 consent notification for a proposed UK statutory instrument. On 5 June, the Minister for Climate Action notified the committee of the UK SI. The instrument will involve the UK Government legislating within devolved competence and it seeks the Scottish Government’s consent for it to do so.

The Scottish Government proposes to consent to the instrument, which, as the clerk’s paper explains, would require producers of products to pay the full net cost of managing their packaging at the end of life.

The committee’s role is to decide whether it agrees with the Scottish Government’s proposal to consent to the UK Government making those regulations within devolved competence, and in the manner that has been indicated. If members are content for consent to be given, the committee will write to the Scottish Government accordingly. In so writing, we have the option to draw matters to the Government’s attention, pose questions or ask to be kept up to date on relevant developments.

If the committee is not content with the proposal, it may make one of the two recommendations that are outlined in the clerk’s note. We can recommend that the provisions should not be made at all, or that the Scottish Government take an alternative legislative approach—for example, by bringing forward its own Scottish statutory instruments.

I hope that that is all clear. To help to inform our decision, we have invited the cabinet secretary to stay and give evidence. I am not going to welcome you back again, Gillian, but you are here with us.

We are also joined by a number of Scottish Government officials. David McPhee is doing a third tour of duty in his role as deputy director for the circular economy; Alex Brown is, I think, joining us for the first time as circular economy policy officer; and Carolyn Boyd is on her third tour of duty, too. Thank you for joining us.

I now move to questions from members, with the first question coming, I believe, from Jackie Dunbar.

Thank you very much, convener, and welcome again, cabinet secretary.

I have just a quick question. Has the Scottish Government been in contact with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities on this matter? Are you able to tell us whether COSLA is satisfied with the proposal or does it have any outstanding concerns regarding the cost of recovery for local authorities?

We have absolutely been in touch with COSLA throughout the whole process. I am really pleased that the UK Government has brought forward these regulations, and I hope that the committee will agree that they really represent a step change in the management of waste; instead of its being a burden on the taxpayer and on the public purse, there will be a vehicle for the manufacturers of products to pay for the management of their packaging waste. I think that it will mean a number of things, and I think that COSLA is supportive of it.

What effectively will it mean? It is expected that £1.2 billion a year will come to local authorities UK wide, and with the consequentials, that will translate into £120 million a year for Scotland. That is what is anticipated; it might be more or it might be less, but that is what it is anticipated will come to local authorities from the scheme administrator as a result of its handling of waste packaging.

What that will mean, initially, is that authorities can invest that money in improving their recycling processes without—and this is crucial—putting the burden of dealing with the waste on council tax payers or on the funding that they get from Government. Initially, there will be two streams of funding, because authorities will have to put in place a certain amount of adaptation with regard to the waste management that we ask them to do. Effectively, though, the money that will come to them as a result of EPR is going to help them to significantly improve their waste management.

Thank you. That is me, convener.

Thanks, Jackie. I think that Douglas Lumsden has some questions.

I just want to double check something with regard to an issue that Jackie Dunbar raised. Will the extra money that comes into local authorities from EPR be seen as additionality? Because of the money coming in from EPR, will the Scottish Government look to rein some of that back in and reduce their block grant?

Local authorities will receive the full net costs of managing packaging through EPR, taking account of efficient and effective service provision. That might mean that, over time, the money that councils decide to spend on the waste management envelope will get taken over by the funding coming from EPR. As a result, it will come down to councils’ decisions about how they manage their funding.

I am not going to look into the future and say what the finance secretary of a future Government might do about council settlements—indeed, I do not think that you would expect me to do so—but the idea is that there will be additional money coming from EPR and then, as a result of councils’ spending decisions, they might be in a position to release money that they would otherwise have spent on waste management to spend on other areas. What that will mean for future council settlements is not something that I am able to answer here and now, because obviously that will be up to a future finance cabinet secretary to decide.

However, that is the mechanism that will be put in place. Essentially, EPR is all about producers having responsibility for waste management—in this instance, of packaging, although other regulations that I hope we will be able to agree to might come forward from the UK Government, extending EPR to other types of waste.

I guess from that answer, however, that a lot of local authorities will not be getting too excited. They will feel that extra money will be given on one hand and taken away on the other, because you cannot really give them assurance that it is additionality.

The thing is that you cannot give assurance about future budget settlements at all, Mr Lumsden, as you know. I am not in a position to say what will happen in future with regard to council tax settlements. However, it is about the fundamental principle that, with regard to waste management, the four nations of the UK are, as a whole, moving towards the responsibility for paying for the handling of waste coming not from the public purse but from the producers of the items that we use.

I do not know whether David McPhee wants to come in.

To confirm that point, the aim of the policy is not to pay local government to deal with waste twice—not that Mr Lumsden is suggesting that. It is not about their having money to deal with waste and then getting extra money to do so, but about the fact that the waste services for packaging will be paid for by the producers. Local government will therefore have enough money to deal with waste through getting the net cost of providing an efficient and effective service, which means that the pressure is broadly taken off the public purse to allow that money to be spent in other ways.

As the cabinet secretary has said, we cannot say what future settlements will be. However, the point is that that cost will always be met by the producers, therefore taking that burden off local government, which means that funding is essentially available for other services, and local government no longer has to look inside its budget settlement and ask, “How do we deal with packaging waste?” because that is paid for through the packaging EPR. The idea is that the burden is moved towards the producers rather than the public purse.

Okay. I will move to the next question. Have Scottish businesses or stakeholders raised any specific concerns with you about the impact of the EPR on packaging?

Initially, there were obviously a lot of questions around what it might mean for them and a discussion about what influence they would have in the design of the EPR. The administrator put together a steering group, because it was important that businesses had an influence on how the EPR would be designed—obviously, this is a UK instrument that is coming to us to agree on. It allowed members of that steering group to perform an advisory role.

Indicative producer base fees were released in August and gave businesses indicative accounts of what they can expect to pay per tonne under the EPR. Those have been dealt with at the four-nations level, because the business community has been involved in the design of the EPR from the get-go.

It might be important to say that I am genuinely looking forward to seeing how businesses and producers of goods and packaging adapt to that. I think that what we will see as a result is an improvement in our packaging, as they will not want to pay a lot of money for the soft packet plastics and so on. I am excited to see how that will develop. I think that we will see a revolution and innovation in the way that packaging for our goods is manufactured and designed, because businesses and producers will want to take the waste plastics away as much as possible. I hope that the fact that this is getting moved across all four nations means that they will see a market for better packaging—not only are there market opportunities for those producers, but they are also looking at how to bring down waste at source.

Have we learned from other countries already? Has that behaviour changed and has packaging changed?

Alex Brown might want to comment on that, because she is more of an expert than I am. The packaging EPR is not unique to the UK; that approach is taken throughout the world.

11:45  

To return to the cabinet secretary’s point about business being involved in the conversation, it is difficult to talk about business as one homogeneous group—there are people who disagree, to varying degrees, with how the regulations will be implemented. Broadly, we have engaged closely with the bodies that oversee producers in order to understand their position. They bring expertise, because all the producers work abroad. Many companies are multinational. They know how these things work and have fed that information in to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and ourselves. They will be involved with the scheme administrator set-up in order to make sure that best practice is brought in as much as possible.

Obviously, within that there will always be producers that want to go to X, whereas the Government will want to go only to Y. I will not suggest that we all agree and that we are all completely happy; there is compromise within that conversation. However, businesses have been involved in the development of the scheme administrator and the policy more generally, and they are working with us. Businesses have raised concerns about it being a public sector administrator, but that was defined by the way in which the scheme is currently set up. Conversations continue with businesses about how we can address that and how we can look forward and make it more in line with other countries in that respect. We continue to engage regularly with business.

DEFRA is taking the lead on that engagement, but, at a Scottish level, we are speaking to organisations that represent businesses to help us to understand how the policy can work most effectively for them. Most of the business organisations that I speak to recognise why the approach has been taken. They may not agree with every element, but they recognise it and are looking to respond to it. They are looking to innovate and move forward. There is good engagement in that respect.

There are a few other questions, which I hope will be short and receive short answers. Sorry—I should not have said that before your question came up, Ben.

It is okay. Much of what I was going to ask about has been covered by Douglas Lumsden’s questions on engagement with business. Unless the cabinet secretary and her officials have anything more to say about that, I am happy to move on.

Cabinet secretary, is there anything that you want to add?

No. I think that we have covered it comprehensively.

I am curious about how this relates to where we currently are with deposit return schemes. I presume that the EPR regulation also incorporates bottles, cans and glass. I am interested in looking at that and getting your views on it. Do you see there inevitably being a DRS across the UK in the run up to 2028?

I do not want to go too much into DRS, but I will give you an update. Obviously, DRS regulations will be completely separate from the EPR regulations. It is another area in which we are working very closely with the other three nations of the UK, and we have signed up to work with the UK Government on DRS regulations. When the new UK Government came in, I wrote to it to reiterate our stance on DRS.

I will hand over to my official to talk about the interaction between the EPR regulations and DRS.

DRS items are not included in the packaging EPR regulations for the reason that DRS has to be set up by industry, so businesses will be spending their money to get ready for it. Any items that are included in the DRS at the moment are not included in the EPR, because producers will be focused on that. However, there is a backstop in that, if the DRS is not up and running by—I think—1 January 2028, all the items that are in the DRS will come into the EPR regulations. That is an incentive to businesses.

I want to make it clear that every one of the four nations wants the DRS to be up and running well before that.

To be clear, if there is no DRS, businesses will have to pay through the nose for EPR post-2028. A wine and spirits company, for example, that is using glass extensively may be looking at the lack of a DRS scheme for glass right now and thinking, “Well, we’ve got out of that.” However, come 2028, if there is no DRS for glass bottles, it will have to make a payment through the scheme to enable local authorities to collect all of its glass. There is no way to get away from paying for the cost of collection; it is just a case of which mechanism it might go through. Is that a fair assessment?

That is a fair assessment.

What do you think will happen with the DRS, given the context of the EPR being brought in with a backstop of 2028?

On that, we have written to the UK Government to reiterate the position that we had signed up to with the previous Government before the general election. We had said that we would work in lock step with the other nations to roll out the DRS. In the same vein as the previous discussion around vaping, I have been in touch with them about moving ahead on that on a four-nations basis. I will keep you updated on that, but our position remains that we want a DRS working as soon as possible.

That is great. When will the draft circular economy 2030 route map be finalised? Lorna Slater provided an earlier version of that, which the committee saw in January. It would be useful to know when that whole picture can be finalised and brought forward.

I think that we are on record as saying that we aim to publish that by the end of the year, so nothing has changed in that respect.

Douglas, is your question specifically on this matter? If not, I will take Bob Doris’s question next.

No, it is not.

My question is not on this either.

It can be a short question anyway.

It will be, convener. There will potentially be £120 million per annum going to Scottish local authorities from a system administrator, who is to be appointed. That is very welcome. On parliamentary scrutiny in relation to all of that, do you anticipate that the system administrator would come to this Parliament to explain how they arrived at the breakdown for all 32 Scottish local authorities, to ensure that they are getting an appropriate share of the pot of cash that is created across the UK? What thoughts has the Scottish Government given to ensuring that the data that we get and the cash that local authorities get will be accurate and appropriate for each local authority?

Our committee papers state:

“The SA will then distribute that funding to local authorities. It will calculate the ‘net efficient disposal costs’ (efficient disposal costs in an assessment year, less waste income for that year)”,

which is partly because certain aspects are reserved. The explanation goes on. I will not go on, convener, but it can get quite complex.

I want to say a couple of things before I directly answer your question. One of the issues that we brought to the table when we were talking about the regulations was the fact that a lot of our local authorities cover rural parts of Scotland and we do not want them to be disadvantaged in relation to urban local authorities. Therefore, we managed to get “must” changed to “may” in the regulations and that kind of thing, in order that that is taken into account in looking at the funding that is given as a result of the activities that are happening at a local level. Rurality is taken into account. Highland Council is in a completely different situation to Glasgow City Council with regard to how it manages its waste. That adaptation was made to ensure that the process did not disadvantage a lot of rural councils. I think that the Welsh Government was very sympathetic to that for similar reasons.

On your substantive point about the scrutiny of how the money is spent, allocations will be given to councils, so we will be able to scrutinise how that money is deployed at a council level. However, on the system administrator coming here to give evidence, it will be a UK-wide system administrator role, but I would say that it is probably good sense for them to engage with all four Parliaments to ensure that they are scrutinised as much as possible. Of course, the Scottish Government will want the data as it relates to our local authorities, and it will be essential that we have that.

We are working on a four-nations basis, which is why we have one scheme administrator. Obviously, that efficiency is a benefit of doing this at a UK level. Regulations were brought to this committee earlier in the year in relation to the data that we need to collect around EPR, so you can see that there is a process for that. As I said, my understanding—Alex Brown can correct me if I am wrong—is that there will be a public document that sets out how the calculations work, and it will be possible to interrogate that.

The cabinet secretary made a point about ensuring that we take account of our rurality and our specific issues, and we have worked very closely with the UK Government to do that.

It is supposed to be as transparent a scheme as possible, but we have still to get to the point where our local authorities know what they will get under that efficient and effective calculation. There will still be an engagement piece to make sure that we understand what that looks like and that we can test it to ensure that it is being calculated effectively.

Clearly, we can engage in partnership with local authorities on scrutiny work in relation to that issue, but I asked that question because I wonder whether the quantum of cash that will be available for Scotland has been agreed, because we are talking about levies that will apply to businesses like Amazon, which operate across the UK and internationally. Will the remote and rural weighting kick in once the cash has been established for Scotland or will that weighting be at a pan-UK level, which would give Scotland a larger pot of cash to begin with? Those things become quite important. Also, at a later date, a local authority that felt that it was not getting a reasonable share of the pot of cash might want to come to this committee and ask what we can do about that. That is why I was asking about the scheme administrator. I am trying to future-proof parliamentary scrutiny as much as anything else.

It is a very interesting question. I am thinking about some local authorities that burn a lot of their waste because there is no other way to dispose of it—those with island communities, for example—and I wonder whether they will be disadvantaged as a result of the proposal. Cabinet secretary, could you address that issue?

To be fair, I did not ask about incineration.

No, but I did.

I am not sure that I am able to go into that level of detail, but the point is that the system involves the costs of dealing with the waste being met by the fund, not the other way around. It is not a case of “This is what we collect and this what you’ve got”; it is, effectively, a case of “This is how much it is going to cost us to deal with this packaging, therefore this is the money that is required.”

That is helpful.

To be clear, the £120 million is not a fixed figure, and neither is the £1.2 billion—those are based on estimates. The process still has to be gone through, and it will build up to a determination of what the costs are. At that point, the producers pay those costs.

I am delighted that, in a few years, we will be in a position to scrutinise all of this anyway. It is a really positive step, but I am thinking about the future situation in which such vast sums of cash are, quite rightly, going to our local authorities, and I expect that Parliament will want to keep an eye on how that money is being used and on whether local authorities are getting a reasonable share of the overall pot of cash.

I have a brief question. Will importers of goods into this country have to pay the charge as their goods come in? Is that how we will ensure that there is a level playing field?

Anybody who sells here will pay the charge.

As with any regulations, anyone who is trading in the UK is subject to the laws.

So, it is not just producers of products who would have to pay, but importers of products, too.

Yes.

There are no more questions for the cabinet secretary. Normally I would suspend the meeting to allow the cabinet secretary to depart; however, I am going to push on, because we have quite a lot still to do. I thank you, cabinet secretary, and your various teams, including the longstanding members of your team who have attended all three of our evidence sessions, for coming this morning.

The next part of our meeting is to ask members’ views on whether the committee agrees with the Scottish Government’s proposal to consent to the UK Government making those regulations within devolved competence. Does anyone have views on that, or are we happy to approve the proposal? Bob Doris’s point was interesting, and the committee will want to keep an eye on how that cash is allocated. I am happy to listen to any comments.

As no member wishes to comment, is the committee content that the provisions that are set out in the notification should be included in the proposed UK SI?

Members indicated agreement.

We will write to the Scottish Government to that effect.

That concludes our meeting in public. We will now go into private session.

11:59 Meeting continued in private until 12:14.