Chamber and committees

Those exemptions were built into the regulations. That is not new; they were already in there. We streamlined the process to make it more straightforward for businesses to apply for exemption. We have brought in Zero Waste Scotland as our partner on that. There is no change to the regulations. We are just implementing them in what we hope is an easier and more practical way.

I am not hearing strong calls for the system to be an opt-in system. The obligation remains for anyone who sells these materials to be a return point for them, unless they are exempt and have applied for an exemption.

We have made the exemption process as simple and as streamlined as we can. Now that businesses are starting to use that process—registration for return points is open—I am sure that they will give us feedback and we can continue to make the system simpler and more straightforward, although it is already fairly straightforward for businesses. They can say that they are exempt for health and safety reasons and they are not that comfortable with handling glass on their premises. They can apply for an exemption and that can be done in a straightforward way.

That is correct.

Can you repeat your second point?

Okay.

All the work has been done in response to industry requests. One of the interesting things about the project is that the legislation, as passed by the Scottish Parliament, was relatively broad in order to allow the industry to come up with a solution that it wanted; the scheme is industry led.

There are two major parts: the producers who have to pay into the scheme and the retailers who have to implement the scheme, who will be selling bottles to customers and taking them back. You can imagine that there is a push-and-pull factor in that relationship: the producers want to pay as little as possible, and the retailers want to be paid as much as possible for the work that they do. Circularity Scotland is managing that internal negotiation and the tensions within the industry.

Specifically, the exemptions relate to the small businesses that saw the exemptions in the regulations and asked what that means for them. We have, with Zero Waste Scotland, put in place a process that is on the website and is now active. Handling fees and producer fees have also been addressed in the past few months. Circularity Scotland made calculations based on initial estimates of what fees might be, and the industry came back to say, “Please think again”, so it did.

The exemption process meant that Circularity Scotland could change its modelling about how many return points there would be and was able to adjust the figures: the producer fees have gone down and the return point handling fees have gone up. Circularity Scotland is a not-for-profit organisation, so it will not keep any of that money, which will go into reducing the cost of the scheme. The idea is that, as the scheme beds in and becomes more efficient and as we get past the day 1 costs and so on, the fees can be revisited in line with the efficiencies that will be built as the scheme goes forward.

Mercedes Villalba’s last point was about online sales, which are covered in the regulations. However, it was flagged up strongly to me and my colleagues that the online obligation as it was written in the regs was simply not deliverable. Businesses said that they could get on and deliver a more traditional scheme, such as other countries have, based on reverse vending machines and manual return points, but that the online take-back, which no other country implements to the extent that we had put into our regs, was simply not going to be possible within the timescale.

That is one area where I have listened to business and said, “Do you know what? You’re right. I can see that that will not be possible within the timescales.” As a result, we have committed to removing that obligation from the regulations. In other words, when the regulations come for amendment to Parliament, the obligation on online take-back will be removed, then phased in for larger retailers, starting from 2025.

The research that we have done has looked at similar schemes around the world. Because the deposit itself is fully refundable, it does not add to inflation; when you pay your 20p, you get your 20p back.

I do not recognise the member’s assertion about the cost being 40p. That is not a number that I recognise. Under the scheme, the cost is 20p, and people will get that 20p back.

With regard to consumer behaviour, we do not think that there will be extensive format switching from small units to large units in order to reduce any perceived mark-up in the deposit. As I have noted repeatedly, the deposit is fully refundable. Retailers are required to display information that tells people that the deposit is refundable.

There are many other deciding factors for consumers, including practicality, convenience, brand preference and the presentation of the product. Evidence suggests that, where product or format switching has occurred in other countries that have a DRS, it is rare that it can be attributed only to the DRS. Therefore, we think that there will be only a limited impact in that respect.

Are you referring to concerns of small retailers or concerns of small producers? One group will be in receipt of fees and the other will pay the fees.

I will give my view and then hand over to Euan, who is the expert on this.

The resources and waste common framework has worked well. For example, we used it last year to get the exclusion that we needed for the single-use plastics ban. Provided that the framework is used as intended, I think that it works well. The question on the table is whether UK ministers will break that agreement.

As the convener knows, the pattern of land ownership in Scotland is such that it is largely in private hands, and private landowners have the right to manage their land as they see fit. It is for the Scottish Government to use incentives and guidelines to try to ensure that land is managed in the best way possible and in pursuit of Scottish Government goals, but the use of privately owned land is, of course, the concern of the person who owns it.