Chamber and committees

I know Julie James very well. We meet monthly and have met on other occasions as well. I know that Julie would like glass to be included in the scheme. That is the ambition for Wales, as it is for Scotland. My understanding is that the 2020 act will also be a problem for Wales, but the problem has not come to the fore yet because Wales has not passed its regulations. Wales might be forced to pass regulations that are different from those that it would like to pass or, if it were to pass regulations that include glass, it might be forced by the 2020 act—as we are—to revisit that before the scheme’s launch date. Of course, none of us knows what the political situation might be by 2025.

When an—

I do not recognise the term “liability”. We have had substantial investment in the scheme—

Sorry. I will come to you in a second, David.

Scotland’s regulations for a deposit return with a 20p deposit were passed in advance of the internal market act, cover a fully devolved matter, and were passed on the basis of work and research on the right deposit level for our scheme.

I will pass over to David McPhee.

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.

On the contract with Biffa, Circularity Scotland is a private, not-for-profit organisation and, as such, its procurement procedures are entirely its business and are not for the Government to be involved in. It is not a public company, so public procurement procedures do not apply to it.

On existing hospitality logistics, I know that CSL and Biffa are keen to use existing infrastructure where possible and that they are encouraging providers that wish to be involved in the scheme to contact them to discuss that.

The overall goal of the scheme is to produce more and better-quality recyclate. That means collecting the scheme articles separately—they need to be separate because, as the member has noted, they have separate values. That does not mean that the scheme encompasses all the recycling materials that hospitality venues deal with. There will be other containers, such as other glass and plastic containers, that are not scheme articles, and those materials will still require to be collected.

Once the scheme articles are taken out of the system, that will open up the bandwidth and capacity for local authorities and private providers to collect other materials. For example, I think that we can all see that more work could be done on the collection of materials such as soft plastics and pots, tubs and trays. The scheme should therefore broaden our ability to recycle across the spectrum as well as increasing recycling specifically in relation to scheme article materials.

The labels will be provided free of charge by Circularity Scotland to businesses to which that circumstance applies. That means that people who are importing or producing small quantities will not have to come up with bespoke labelling. The labels will bridge the gap.

On the organisational detail about the point at which the labels are put on, given that materials often pass through multiple wholesalers and retailers, I would have to come back to the member on that. Alternatively, when the committee has David Harris here in, I think, two weeks’ time, it would be good to ask him about that sort of operational detail.