Chamber and committees

You can take a place-based approach to create circular places.

In the earlier session today, we took a lot of evidence on the impact of consumption. Is it possible to bring a metric for consumption reduction targets into sector-based planning, or does it make more sense at a national level? I do not know where that fits.

We have already covered some aspects of the topic—Anna Larsson touched on it earlier. Emma Hallett, what is your perspective on the UK EPR schemes? We have schemes planned for textiles, bulky items, construction materials, tyres and fishing gear. How do you see EPR fitting with what the devolved Administrations can do? EPR is being driven at the UK level and it is largely reserved under the Environment Act 2021, but we are considering the matter in the context of the bill that we are talking about, and legislation might be forthcoming in Wales as well—I do not know. How does EPR mesh with what the devolved Administrations should be focusing on? I am trying to get a sense of what the jigsaw puzzle looks like.

Those are some interesting examples, which are particularly interesting with regard to items with microelectronics and small batteries. I will move on to another issue.

I thank the witnesses for all those answers.

I turn to the final set of questions. We have talked about the importance of reuse and consumption, but I will focus on waste systems for household recycling and the infrastructure that is needed.

I am interested in a couple of things. First, is there international evidence of what really works? We have heard a bit about that from Wales already, but I want to focus on two specific aspects. First, if households are not complying with clear rules, do you see a role for issuing fines for that?

Secondly, do you have experience of waste charging having been brought in successfully, and of how issues to do with equity are dealt with in schemes? I think that no such schemes are operating in the UK so—again—the question requires an international perspective.

I offer everyone the opportunity to comment on that.

You can stick your hands up. Anna, do you want to go first?

Yes.

Beyond the discussion about a specific exemption, I am interested in Aileen McHarg’s perspective on how the common frameworks process can be used to provide certainty, so that, as policies are developed, there is the certainty that businesses can invest. It comes back to the context that you set out. The UK Government oversees an internal market for the whole UK, but it also acts as the Government of England, which is a part of the UK. There is a constitutional asymmetry in the way that the powers are used. How do we get a fair process, given that that is the constitutional settlement that we have? I am interested in your thoughts on how the process could be improved or codified.

We are in a climate emergency, and some of your comments so far have focused on that. However, I want to consider the Government’s strategy, the first priority in which is delivering the transition to net zero. The focus here is primarily on our historic environment assets. Has there been enough embedding of the historic environment sector’s views in other Government strategies that push towards net zero?

I was particularly struck by AHSS’s submission, which mentions pre-1919 buildings in Scotland. Many of us, including myself, live in such buildings and recognise the challenges that they present, but also the importance of their design features. What are your thoughts on housing, retrofitting and skills development, and whether the historic environment sector could be a driver for a wider transition in housing?

On a related point, do you see tensions within climate policy more generally? I put this question to Caroline Warburton of VisitScotland. If the objective is to grow tourism in Scotland, would that come with increased use of aviation? If it would, that would take us backwards as regards climate change. There is also the historic environment sector’s role on designations. Does that create a brake on renewable energy development, such as the use of wind farms or conservation areas, or restrict the roll-out of embedded renewables such as solar panels?

There are tensions, but there are also opportunities. Could the historic environment sector be a real driver on skills and achieving progress?

That is a good reflection. I will aim to chip away at the cement-based render on the side of my house—over a number of years.

I suppose that the question is whether you think that that is sufficiently reflected in Government strategies. We have a heat in buildings strategy coming, we talked about skills earlier, and we have a historic environment strategy, but that is very much focused on the historic environment, and we know what needs to happen. Should your sector not be embedded in other strategies?

Before I ask my question, other witnesses might want to answer Donald Cameron’s question—if we have time—because it was a good question that raised an interesting issue.