Chamber and committees

That is right. It is obliged under statute to return that level of recycling. As far as the black spots for collections and such are concerned, CSL needs to put in place a comprehensive network of return points to allow it to hit the target, because, as an organisation, it can be penalised if it does not meet its statutory obligations.

I will clarify that point. The recommendation for the exclusion would have been made on the basis of evidence, and rejecting that evidence would be outwith the way in which the frameworks process is intended to work. As Euan suggests, if that were to happen, it would represent a very significant breakdown in the collaborative working between the two Governments—in fact, between all the devolved Governments. If that were that to happen, given what a big deal that would be, the Scottish ministers would set out next steps at that point.

That is correct.

We will do what we can on that.

That is premature. The Scottish Government has been following, and continues to follow, the agreed process for excluding the DRS regulations from the internal market act.

Euan Page is the expert on that issue, so I will give you what I know on it and then he can add some detail.

Whether there is an exclusion is not at the whim of the UK Government. The exclusions from the internal market act are agreed under common frameworks. The frameworks are an agreed process by which the devolved Administrations in the UK protect their powers in respect of devolved matters. The resources and waste framework is there to protect the Scottish Government’s ability to legislate in devolved areas. Under that framework, we have put together the evidence and the case that the matter that we are considering—our deposit return scheme—is fully a devolved matter, which it is. It clearly is a fully devolved matter, and we have presented that evidence through the agreed process to the UK Government. Those are the stages that we have gone through to get an exclusion.

Euan Page will be able to add much more detail.

The two things—the climate and nature emergencies—have now been incorporated and are being considered together, and there is a variety of forums in which that work is happening. There is, for example, the sub-committee on the climate emergency, which is meeting this morning, unfortunately—obviously, I am here and not there—and there is also the First Minister’s environmental council, which is another good forum that is attended not only by ministers but by experts from the field.

I do not have any further information on the timeframe. I am not sure whether we can commit to a timeframe, but I will ask my officials to confirm.

Spatial planning, both terrestrial and marine, is about balancing competing interests so that we have a thriving economy and thriving nature alongside it. It is clear that, in the past, the balance between competing interests has been wrong, to the serious detriment of our natural environment. Our strategy is clear that our high-level goals of being nature positive by 2030 and substantially restoring nature by 2045 will require that whole-of-society approach.

As regards spatial planning in the marine space, Scotland’s national marine plan provides the guiding framework for decision making in the sustainable management of marine activities and resources in Scotland’s waters. I might ask Lisa McCann and Matthew Bird to provide more detail on spatial planning in both those spaces.

I agree that we await with interest the results of the review. We will consider the panel’s recommendations carefully and will share those and our response with the committee in due course.

I do not think that that is an accurate representation of the situation at all. There are other sustainable ways of providing water and it is up to schools to provide it in the way that works best for them. For example, if schools and local authorities have invested in water fountains and their maintenance and upkeep, that is how they have decided to meet the statutory requirement to provide water and that is how they have decided to spend their budgets. It is for them to make that decision. Equally, if schools have invested in jug and cup schemes, it is absolutely within their purview to decide how to spend that money and how to make the provision. It is not for us to impose upon them how to interpret the requirement to provide water.

We know that water is being provided, as my colleague said, because of our on-going conversations with education authorities.