 Gateway Gymraeg! Welcome to the N Moreover. The 9th meeting of the Net Zero Energy and Transport Committee for 2023. Today we have apologies from Monica Lennon and Ash REaghan and I would like to welcome Collette Stephenson and Mercedes Villarba will be attending I think slightly later as a substitute. When Mercedes Villarba joins us I will have to just take pause and make a declaration before she made any questions in the committee? That technically is the first item on the agenda, so that will come at the correct moment. We will move on to agenda item 2, which is a decision on taking business in private. That is, we have consideration whether to take item 6, 7 and 8 in private. Item 6 and 7 are in to consider the evidence that we have heard today y gallwn gwirionedd cofnwyr o COP-15 a'r Sgwtlwns Cymru. Gweithio 8 yn y cyfrif sydd y rhaid o'r cyfrif yn ei gweithio cyffredigol. Felly, mae'n gweithio i'r gwirionedd cofnwyr? Mae'n gweithio i'r gwirionedd cofnwyr, ac yn gweithio 6708 yw gwirionedd cofnwyr. Gweithio 3 Mae'r gwirionedd cofnwyr. ALike-to-Continu is an evidence session as part of our scrutiny on the outcomes of the 15 UN Biodiversity Conference, otherwise known as COP15. Members have received papers in relation to this. Last week, the committee heard from a panel of experts in Biodiversity Policy. This week, we will hear from the Scottish Government on its views on the outcomes of COP15 and how the the targets agreed at the summit will be embedded in the new Scottish biodiversity strategy. I'd like to welcome Lorna Slater, the Minister for Green Skills, Circular Economy and Biodiversity. Thank you for attending today. I'd also like to welcome Matthew Byrd, who's the biodiversity team leader, and Lisa McCann, who's the head of biodiversity for the Scottish Government. Before we begin, minister, I believe that you'd like to make a brief opening statement. Thank you very much, convener, and thank you for inviting me here today to discuss the outcomes from COP 15 and how we are integrating those into our biodiversity strategy. I know you have already heard overwhelming evidence about the extent of the biodiversity crisis that we're facing here in Scotland and across the world, and the importance of taking action now to tackle this decline in nature. I know you have also heard about the historic Kunming-Montreal global biodiversity framework that was agreed at the end of last year. That framework builds on a vision that I hope you share of the world living in harmony with nature, whereby 2050 biodiversity is valued, conserved, restored and wisely used, maintaining ecosystem services. As you are aware, I was honoured to attend COP 15 with a small Scottish delegation, which accumulated in presenting the Edinburgh Declaration to that conference's high-level segment on behalf of sub-national bodies. As well as calling for a high-ambition outcome from the meeting in Montreal, the Edinburgh Declaration also called for the critical role that sub-national bodies play in addressing the biodiversity crisis to be recognised and allocated the resources and powers necessary to help tackle it. I was delighted that the declaration was adopted at the conference and now forms part of the new global biodiversity framework. The Scottish Government led the Edinburgh process at the request of the Convention on Biological Diversity's Secretariat, and I am very proud of the work that was done to promote and draw support for it. That work is demonstrated by the fact that, at the final count, it had been signed by over 300 sub-national bodies from around the world. Our draft biodiversity strategy was published to coincide with COP 15, but remained in draft to allow us to take into account the new global biodiversity framework and ensure that we are meeting that global ambition. The strategy is where we set out our high-level vision for a nature-positive Scotland and our ambition to halt biodiversity loss by 2030 and reverse declines by 2045. I have often wondered if that is ambitious enough, but, although there has been a huge amount of really positive activity across Scotland in recent years—for example, our scaling up of peatland restoration, our groundbreaking nature restoration fund—it is clear that there is still a huge amount of work to do. The type of change that we need to see does take time, which is why it is even more important to start taking action now. We are currently refining the strategy and are now very focused on developing the delivery plans that will sit underneath the strategy, as those will be where we set out how we are going to achieve our high-level vision and outcomes. I was very grateful to the committee yourselves for the careful and detailed consideration that you gave to the draft biodiversity strategy last year. Your comments formed an important part of our consideration in developing the strategy. As I set out when I wrote to the committee in December, many of those points were incorporated into the final draft. We are also starting to explore the next steps in implementing the Edinburgh Declaration with our subnational partners and how best we can work together to really deliver on the new global framework. I am really welcoming this discussion today, and I appreciate the attention that the committee is giving to this important matter. I am now just going to do a pivot, which politicians sometimes are quite capable of doing. I will pause the meeting in your section and go back to agenda item 1, which is, as Mercedes Villarba is the first time you have attended the committee, I would like to ask you if there are any declarations that you would like to make before asking any questions at the committee. So, Mercedes, are there any declarations you wish to make? Thank you. I do not have any relevant interests to declare. Thank you very much. We will now pivot back again to the subject in hand. Thank you, minister, for that opening statement. I would like to come back to the first questions on the subject, which is from Jackie Dunbar. The new global framework requires us to take urgent action to halt and reverse the biodiversity laws. We heard last week that, given that we have now got ambitious targets for 2030, which is only seven years away, that is only seven growing seasons that we were hearing last week, and that there is going to be a need for speed. How can the urgency be realised in Scotland? What do we need to do in this Parliament session for this to be on track and remain on track? That is an excellent question, because the member is right that we need to start early to make sure that we have the impact in the timescale that we need. I think that this work is being done in two streams. There is the stream of the urgent actions that we are already taking and that we now need to scale up things like our nature restoration fund, things like the peatland restoration work that we have started, and we are world leaders in it, but we know that we need to scale up. Then the biodiversity strategy, which represents that longer-term vision to 2045, and the actions that we need to take there, which I am sure that the member would agree, need to be joined up, need to be across government, need to be across all sectors of society, land use, agriculture and so on. I am happy to go through in detail some of the things that we are doing right now to urgently tackle the nature crisis. We are scaling up our peatland restoration rates with the aim of restoring 250,000 hectares of degraded peat by 2030. Our groundbreaking £65 million nature restoration fund is providing multi-year funding to drive restoration at scale. We have recently approved grants that include funding to Cairngorms Connect to restore natural rivers and floodplains in the Inch Marshes and to the Argyll and Islands coast and countryside trusts to restore Argyll's Atlantic rainforest. In October last year, we announced a new package of Scottish Government support, totaling over £2.9 million to focus on conservation research and connecting people with nature, aiming to accelerate the response to the biodiversity and climate crisis. That included £1.3 million to restore Scotland's rainforest, £500,000 for the five-year species on the ED partnership project and £200,000 to the Green Action Trust to support their work with local communities to create and restore woodlands. We have created over 10,000 hectares of new woodland in the past year, with 42 per cent of that being native species. As well as the investment that we are ensuring biodiversity is embedded in our policies, with our new vision for agriculture, which aims to make Scotland a global leader in sustainable and regenerative agriculture with nature and climate at its heart. We have committed to highly protect 10 per cent of our marine areas and our new national planning framework signals a turning point for planning with responding to the global climate emergency and nature crisis central to its objectives. You spoke there about the Scottish Biodiversity List. Will those be reviewed moving forward? Yes, that's correct. Who would be taking the lead on that? Government and also maybe within other partners? This matter in terms of recovering and protecting a vulnerable and important species is one of the five themes that is covered by the biodiversity strategy. The biodiversity strategy has 26 actions that we are taking for nature, and they are grouped into five themes. Theme 4 is to recover and protect a vulnerable species, and one of those is to revise the Scottish biodiversity list of species and habitats that Scottish ministers consider to be principal of importance for biodiversity conservation in Scotland. Perhaps Matthew or Lisa can add some detail on that process. The process will be led by NatureScot in consultation with probably our group of stakeholders who we work closely with in developing the strategy and delivery plan. NatureScot obviously has a scientific advisory committee and they will prepare papers together with stakeholders making recommendations for the relevant species, which will be put to the scientific advisory committee and ultimately to ministers for agreement. Matthew, you mentioned stakeholders. Can you give me an indication of who those are? Are they statutory bodies, non-statutory bodies, charities? Sure. There is a Scottish Biodiversity programme, which oversees the work that we do to produce the strategy and the delivery plan. In support of that, there is an advisory group, which comprises external academics from a wide range of sources, and a stakeholder engagement group, which includes about 75 different representatives. A wide range of NGOs, academics and representatives from the statutory public bodies and so on. It would be helpful to see who is on that list. I would be interested to see. Maybe, after the committee meeting, you could drop a line to the class. Jackie, is that you finished? I thought that I would go to Liam next. Scottish Biodiversity strategy was published in draft so that it could be updated following COP15 and GBF. Now that we are ahead of those, what areas do you think need to be strengthened in the draft strategy as a result of those COP15 outcomes? Overall, there is very clear alignment between the Kinming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework and our draft Scottish Biodiversity strategy, including 30x30 protections. Our analysis is that the strategy either already matches or exceeds the ambition in the global framework. The Scottish Biodiversity strategy has increased ambition compared to the global biodiversity framework, as the completion date for our targets is 2030 and delivery of the vision is 2045, compared to 2050 with the global framework. The goals and targets in the global biodiversity framework are global goals, and not all of them can be directly translated to a national context. It is the job of our Biodiversity strategy and delivery plan to set out what we will need to do in Scotland to contribute in meeting those global goals, but we will publish the comparison between our goals and the global goals within that final document. When do you anticipate the strategy and the delivery plans to be finalised? The strategy will be finalised first and then the delivery plan will come after that. Perhaps Matthew has timelines for that. We anticipate that there will be a further round of consultation in late spring, early summer, for both the strategy and the delivery plan together. That will then need to undergo a period of analysis of the responses to the consultation, and we will be looking to publish both together as a package in late summer, early autumn. Late summer, for something that the committee heard last week, we have now less than seven years for the targets. One of the things that concerned me following Jackie Dunbar's questions, is that we are obviously talking about delivery plans, but we surely cannot meaningfully make delivery plans unless the strategy is finalised. The minister went on to list a huge number of very impressive investments that the Scottish Government is making in biodiversity, but there is no strategy underlying it, and there will not be for at least another six months. I might reflect back and say that that means that you are funding a whole load of things without a strategy as to why you are funding them. Is that a fair criticism, minister? I think that where the member is maybe in a different sort of framework here than I am looking at is that the actions that we are taking now are well evidenced actions. We know for example that restoration of peatland has excellent results for biodiversity as well as for carbon sequestration. All the actions that we are taking are evidence, and things such as the nature restoration fund are going into very practical actions such as restoring rivers, restoring wetlands, managing rhododendron in the rainforest. We know that the actions that we are taking are effective. What we need to do with that strategy is to join that up, get that mainstreaming piece across agriculture, across all the different sectors, and of course that does take time and require that stakeholder engagement so that we make sure that we get those pieces right and bring everybody along with us on that journey. However, that does not mean that we have not got started or that we have delayed action in those matters, and it does not mean that we are not using evidence to support the actions that we are deciding to take. Following on from Liam, you were saying that you would need to join actions together to make them work. I was hearing that just on Friday, declaring my interest as the parliamentary nature champion for sea trout. I had a meeting with the John Muir Trust and the Scottish Wildlife Trust going up the River Don. They were telling me and explaining to me the problems that the sea trout has because it goes from the sea right up the estuary and also of course needs the landscape for it to be able to breed, et cetera. Can I ask you what the plans are in holistic terms going forward? How are we going to bring it all together? I am also going to ask a very cheeky question as well. We have a strategy for wild salmon. The brown trout and the sea trout, which are two different species, are very similar or are the same life cycle as the wild salmon, so would you be thinking of bringing them in to the same strategy so that they are protected as well? Before you make any comment on that, because you brought this up, last week I made a voluntary declaration of my register of interest that I own and manage land through my farming partnership. As you have mentioned, salmon is a subject very close to my heart. It is right that I refer members to my interest in a wild salmon fishery on the River Spay, which I joined here with my brother. Just so that there is no dubiety, and I am not asking the question, Minister, I am sorry to interrupt your response, which was about to be forthcoming. I will tackle both of those for the member. The Scottish biodiversity strategy ties in with other strategies, and it is essential that biodiversity considerations are mainstreamed to all of our policy development, which is one of our key aims. Given the breadth of matters dealt with government, there is a wide range of strategy and plans to address issues in particular sectors. The biodiversity strategy provides a clear vision and set of outcomes that all of our policies must help to achieve. The environment strategy for Scotland presents a whole of government approach to tackling the climate and nature crisis by creating an overarching framework for Scotland's strategies and plans on the environment and climate change, strengthening the connections between environmental policies and policies across government. It helps us to identify priorities and opportunities and drive the transformative change that we need. We know that healthy biodiversity underpins our prosperity, our wellbeing and our net zero. That is something that you are all aware of because of the evidence that you have taken that we need to mainstream this piece, that tackling biodiversity cannot be done in a silo. It needs to be done across all of society. Specifically about the wild salmon. Wild salmon are an indicator species, so things that we do to protect wild salmon will also protect other species. As you say, species that either have similar lifestyles or share their natural environment. As the members will note, wild salmon are in decline. In response to those declining populations, in January of last year, we published Scotland's wild salmon strategy, which was a collective vision for flourishing populations of wild Atlantic salmon. We set a high level of ambition and direction of travel there. We followed that up with an implementation plan, which was published last month, which sets out over 60 actions that we will be taking over the next five years to protect and restore salmon population. Those strategy and plan were developed in close collaboration with stakeholder groups, which include representatives from government, NGOs and agencies. We are clear that positive outcomes can only be achieved through a co-ordinated and collaborative approach. I have been lucky enough to go and visit some of the nature restoration work that is being done along some of the rivers and things like removing wears from the rivers where the wears cannot be removed, putting in passes to allow the salmon to pass, but that, of course, would apply to other species as well. There is a great project of river restoration where one of the problems that we have the sun rumors in Scotland is that they are too clean. There are no trees along the banks, there is nothing in the water, they run too fast and they run too clear and they run too hot because the sun shines on them all the time. This particular project was taking fallen trees and embedding them in the river bed so that not only does that slow the water, it creates shaded spots and eddies and stuff where fish can spawn but invertebrates can breed and so on. That is the kind of pret to go on the ground action that that nature restoration fund is having an impact specifically to target those such important species. Two notable targets for the global framework agreement are the 30x30 target and, as you have mentioned, the restoration target. For the restoration to be completed or under way by at least 30 per cent of degraded terrestrial inland waters and coastal and marine ecosystems, what scale of challenge do those targets present for us here in Scotland and what kind of programmes? I know that you have just mentioned one. Will we need moving forward? That is such an interesting question. When I was in Montreal speaking with people from around the world, other sub-national governments, it is very interesting how different the challenge here is in Scotland from places like large countries in South America or parts of Canada where to meet the 30x30, they can more or less draw a line on a map and go, right, that is our 30 per cent, we are done. Within this space, either no people live or only people live who live traditional indigenous lifestyles and that is why their job is relatively easy. We have a different challenge here. All parts of Scotland are inhabited in our managed landscapes so we cannot and would not be able to sort of remove or separate people from land in that way. Our challenge is actually quite an interesting one so we need to find a way to do all the economic activities that we currently do, farming, towns, our national parks, fishing, all those activities but within a framework that allows us to be nature positive, to allow us that nature regeneration. In fact, I think that if we can do that, we set a model for the whole world because we show how people and nature can live side by side and can thrive. That is why when we look at things like land reform, like the agricultural schemes, all of those things need to be looked at within that framework of restoring our biodiversity, of replacing what is lost and making sure that we are creating that abundant biodiversity. It is a really interesting challenge and one that is unique in some ways to Europe and to Scotland where we have these highly managed landscapes. However, it is an exciting one. I am hoping that our national parks can play a particular role in that because of their unique position in the Scottish landscape. They can provide a place where we can pilot ideas of humans and nature living alongside one another because we have commercial forestry, farming within our parks, which other countries, for example, do not have those activities in their national parks. We have an interesting challenge ahead of us and it is quite unique, but it means that we can show the world how people and nature can live together. Local authorities can help as well. I was hearing that in Aberdeen City they have a plan for a million trees in the next five years, but something that was interesting to me was the denburn, which runs through the city centre. It straightened it many years ago and flooding has occurred because of it. Now there are plans in place, I believe, to try to get it back to what it originally was to help. Sorry, I am rambling a bit, that is me. I was wondering when the question was coming, Jackie. That may have been a statement then, on that basis. Thank you. Moving to the next question, which will come from the deputy convener, Fiona Hyslop. You have already talked about the need for mainstreaming and we have already heard from other witnesses that there are a number of areas where biodiversity needs to be mainstreamed. There are opportunities in agricultural payments, the land reform bill, the circular economy bill and reviews of forestry policy to name a few. Are you satisfied that the opportunities for nature recovery are being given the right level of priority in those areas? I would always say that they always need more. Of course I would, I am the minister for biodiversity, but I can certainly outline some of our vision in this area. The biodiversity strategy is a starting point. It sets out very clearly what we need to achieve to halt and reverse biodiversity laws. It also provides us with the evidence that human activity has accelerated biodiversity decline. The member is quite right that biodiversity needs to be mainstreamed across all our policy developments, our business practices and across wider society. This is not something that government can do on our own. Nature does not belong to us, nature belongs to everybody, that is every business, every person. I am working closely with other ministers to make sure that our collective policies will deliver the positive outcomes that we need to see. Some good examples of that are our national strategy for economic transformation, which for the first time recognises the importance of our natural capital as an asset to the country that we need to maintain. Our vision for agriculture puts nature restoration at its heart alongside climate mitigation and food security, recognising the importance of that sector in delivering for biodiversity and that farmers and land managers are stewards of our land. Our national planning framework, NPF4, is supporting guidance, which has significantly greater emphasis on the importance of conserving our natural environment. I have an excerpt from it here, which is called developing with nature guidance, which is for anyone who is making a planning application. It has very clear and practical steps that people can take in taking account of nature when you are putting in place a application to apply the mitigation hierarchy, to consider biodiversity from the outset, to take a place-based and inclusive process. It has practical things here, such as what plants are suitable for pollinators, how to plant a wildflower meadow, what trees in scubbin woodland, and how they can be incorporated into developments. This is a really good example of mainstreaming that anyone applying for a planning permission for a development in Scotland has access to all this information, how to incorporate homeless for bees and bugs, for example, into their development planning, and how to manage nature with water, for example. That is an excellent example of mainstreaming that will make a difference as we go forward. The first time that nature capital was put in an economic recovery plan was not the national strategy for economic transformation. It was in the Covid economic recovery plan that was published in 2020, which is almost three years ago. I would be interested in what action had been taken in those, dare I say, two and a half years, as opposed to the national strategy for economic transformation. On mainstreaming, there is more obvious areas that we have talked about. We know that most Government agencies and departments understand the need for embedding net zero, because that is one of our crisis. Clearly, biodiversity is another of the twin crisis, the other crisis. What understanding do you have of the level comparison, if we compare it to net zero, in terms of embedding that as a mainstream activity? Do you think that it exists in other agencies? Are there forms that you bring together, different public agencies, to discuss what they are doing to tackle nature loss and biodiversity? How does it work in areas that are not so obvious? I think that the member is quite right that, globally, there seems to be a good understanding and has been for quite a long time of the climate crisis in terms of carbon emissions and reaching net zero, but there has been a slower grasping that the nature crisis is hand in hand with that and is part of how we are going to tackle that. I think that within the Scottish Government we have made some really good progress there in understanding how biodiversity fits in and how that natural capital fits in across the piece. You can see that, for example, not only the things that I have outlined already here in terms of our national strategy for economic transformation, our national planning, the agriculture vision, but also in things like our circular economy bill and the work that we are doing in circular economy. So much of that is the answer to the how. If your problem is that you have got plastics in your oceans, and I was meeting a stakeholder the other week who said that we have evidence that the otters that live in the water of leaf, otter kits consume plastics with their first meal that they ever take because the food that they eat has plastic in it. If that is your problem, then your solution is to take that plastic out of the environment, that plastic waste, and to make it more circular. I think that you can see that everything that we are doing from deposit return scheme right through to our national planning framework is considering biodiversity. I am really pleased that we are making those steps. I think that that is the right direction, but as Minister for Biodiversity I will always say that we can do more. Is there some kind of forum that you bring together all ministers on biodiversity, nature loss at any point? Does that happen? There are many forms for this. The two things are now incorporated together, the climate emergency and the nature emergency together. They are considered. There is a variety of different forms for that. There is the subcommittee on the climate emergency, which is meeting this morning. Unfortunately, I am obviously here and not there. The First Minister's Environmental Council is another good forum for that, where ministers attend but also experts from the field. Thank you very much. Mercedes, you are up next. I am Fiona. If you want to come in on the back of this, then we will see. There was a supplementary on Fiona's question. Is that okay to go to that first? Sorry, a supplementary on Fiona's question. Just while we are on the topic of mainstreaming and the land reform bill was mentioned, it is accepted that Scotland has an unusually concentrated pattern of land ownership. I know that the Scottish Government has expressed a desire for more diverse patterns of rural land ownership. I wondered if you could explain how addressing that concentration of land ownership can improve biodiversity and nature restoration. If you have any best practice examples that you could share of nature restoration taking place through publicly owned land, whether that is councils or public bodies? Yeah, absolutely. On the second point, the things like rural regional land use partnerships and also the national parks incorporate that working of different land managers and different business models and ownership models together to do the nature restoration and the land management. The best example of that is the Cairngorms Connect, which is globally recognised, which is a mix of public and private land to work together to do that regeneration within our national park. In terms of the land reform, the member is quite right. Land reform is part of the toolkit there to address the ownership patterns, which is part of the Scottish Government's policy, but I think that there is some good work being done as we move towards our land reform bill on how that can work for nature. I went with Ms McAllan when she did her road show on the land reform bill, and that meant that I got to hear first hand from stakeholders around land reform and what their hopes and dreams are in terms of that supporting biodiversity. The purpose of that land reform bill is to facilitate and help that land to go into the community ownership, particularly where it is for the common good around things like nature, but the key part of that is the land management plans, which I am very much hoping that we can use as a tool to make sure that land is managed well and that biodiversity is intended absolutely to be part of that so that we have responsible land ownership and can help to move the dial towards responsible land ownership around the country. I know that there are already some really good examples of that. The new global framework agreement requires that all land is to be under participatory, integrated by diversity, inclusive spatial planning and or effective management processes, addressing land and sea use change. I am interested in how the Scottish Government interprets that requirement and what that requirement means in practice in terms of land use spatial planning. I am happy to answer that one. Spatial planning both terrestrial and marine is about balancing those competing interests so that we make sure that we have obviously a thriving economy and thriving nature alongside it, and it is clear that the balance between competing interests in the past has been wrong to the serious detriment of our natural environment. Our strategy is really clear that our high-level goals of a nature positive by 2030 and substantially restoring nature by 2045 will require this whole-of-society approach. In terms of specific areas around spatial planning in the marine space, the 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 hand to Lisa and Matthew to come into some more detail on the spatial planning of those spaces. MPF4 provides the overarching framework for how we use our land. As the minister just outlined, it provides some high-level ambition for biodiversity. I am not a marine expert, but as the minister has outlined, the marine plan is also where we set out the overarching framework. The Blue Economy vision, which has recently been published, provides a synergy with that marine plan, which helps to ensure that the planning in the marine areas provides the outcomes that we are seeking for biodiversity. In terms of balancing those interests, on land and sea, you have a requirement for food, as well as energy. On land, you also have housing. What practical steps are you taking to ensure that all those different interests and balance interests are being balanced and that no-one misses out in order for us to reach our targets? You have identified three important areas—food, energy and housing. That is exactly the kind of mainstreaming piece that we are looking at with reform of the agricultural subsidies that is, as I have laid out, to deal with environmental matters, as well as food security. The idea is that those interests are not necessarily competing interests. Agriculture is part of the solution to the climate crisis and that regenerative farming and crofting has such an important role to play on how we do this and while that sector thrives. Those matters are dealt with under both land reform and the agricultural reform. Energy and housing will be matters under the national planning framework, which, as we have outlined, has really clear guidance on having biodiversity built right in as well as specific guidance on both national development and that development guidance that I have just outlined there. In those areas, we are well covered for biodiversity. Clearly, MPF4, with its hierarchy, puts biodiversity in a far stronger place than it has been previously. That is obviously for land use change for planning, but for existing land, that land use management has been happening for generations. That stewardship of land has been happening very well in many places. I am concerned when we hear about the idea of competing interests. I was interested in what you were talking about in terms of that shared interest, because I think that that must be the solution. If it is a mixed-market solution, yes, there will be some public or community lands, but most of those lands are in private hands. How is that going to work in practice? You talked about the Cairngorn Connect, which, when we were in Iceland at the Arctic Circle Assembly, was showcased as a really good example of how that can be done. Is that the model that you hope to be used elsewhere? Are there going to be different solutions in different parts of the country, depending on that one land use ownership but also the use of the land? Maybe you could explain a bit more how you see that working in practice. Our land is such a mosaic that there absolutely is not one solution anywhere or everywhere that would be suitable. The Cairngorn Connect is a very successful project, but that is one project. Private land, of course, is owned for many uses, including farming, forestry and all the businesses that we do in Scotland. That is why we need to make sure that we are looking at those across the piece. We are looking at how the agricultural subsidies can be reformed to support agriculture. We are looking at minor adjustments to Grousemore legislation to ensure that those are managed well. We are looking at how we can improve public transport and all the pieces across the board. There is not a one-size-fits-all for how land will be managed. It is about making sure that each sector and each individual farmer, crofter and land manager have the tools available to them that they know how to apply for the right grants and the right support so that they can manage their land the way that is right for their land. The landowners know what they need to do, so I guess that I see our role in facilitating and sign-pointing and saying, here is the nature restoration fund. Here is how you get the agricultural subsidies that will allow you to do what you need. Here is how you apply for forestry grant schemes. All of those things together both incentivise land use towards biodiversity but also mean that the land managers have those choices to make so that they can look at their land and decide what is best for them and what is going to work for them. Just finally, what is the biggest challenge to make that work effectively? I think that there is quite a lot of challenges there. Some of it is helping people to understand what their options are because there may be a, well, this is how I have always managed my land, I do not want to change and that is fine too, but there is also, well, here is what is available to you. If you did want to manage your land differently of speaking to the head of the deer management group, the Association for Deer Managers, he said to me, for example, the way that things are currently set up, he cannot have fewer than 12,000 sheep but no more than 1,400 deer. To him that does not make sense, that is not necessarily how he would like to manage his land but that is how the current system means he needs to manage his land. I think part of this is putting different tools in place so that land managers like him are not sort of feeling obliged to overstock, for example, with sheep, that they can have a more of a mosaic even on their own land. Just following up on that a bit if I may minister, it wasn't many years ago that we saw vast tracks of Aberdeenshire countryside, which was good arable land being bought up and planted in trees, which was done because the grants were such that it encouraged tree planting and discouraged agriculture. We have seen bits of Scotland planted in wind turbines, if that is the right description for it. I think that I looked at the figures in 2021 for the deaths of birds of prey and I think that if I remember rightly it was something like four ospreys, four buzzards, four seagulls and eight ospreys that were chopped up by turbines just recorded. So we can't use land for all purposes. It has to be more a zonal approach, as you've indicated in the Cairngorms, what works in the Cairngorms may not work elsewhere. Has the Government considered doing a more zonal approach to land use because land is the finite resource and the use is owned? I think that it's important to remember with the member's comment that the biggest threat to wildlife to birds is climate change. When you get colony collapse and so on, where you have thousands of individual birds or colonies collapsing down to only a few members from tens of thousands, that is due to climate change. That is the biggest threat to birds and of course our energy transition is an important part of how we protect all species including birds. Minister, please go on. I would just say one of the biggest threats to birds at the moment, some people may argue, is avium flu, but I understand in the long term it may be climate change. Sorry, just put that on record. So in terms of the pattern of land ownership in Scotland, as the member knows, is largely with private hands and of course private land owners have the right to manage their land as they see fit and it is with the Scottish Government to use incentives and guidelines on to try and ensure that that land is managed as best as possible towards Scottish Government goals, but of course privately owned land is the concern of the person who owns it. I was suggesting a zonal approach. I wasn't talking about land ownership. A zonal approach is not limited by who owns the land. It's on how you direct the support and the grants and encourage people to carry out activities on that land. That's something that the Scottish Government can do, isn't it? I don't know if we have any comment on that. I think that you are absolutely right, convener. One of the key commitments that the Scottish Government has made is to deliver nature networks. We are absolutely clear that those need to be driven by local agreements and through local forums and the development of local forums. For local authorities to use their convening powers to bring those partnerships together and identify the proper land uses in the proper places. The right tree in the right place is a key part of the UK Forestry strategy and the Scottish Forestry strategy. It's a shame to hear about that Aberdeenshire experience. Pushing back on that, minister, right tree, right place, right crop, right place indicates a zonal approach. Are you in favour of a zonal approach? That phrase, a zonal approach, isn't something that's come across my desk. However, in terms of making sure that communities and the local communities are involved, that is absolutely so important because any investment in natural capital, we absolutely have to empower local communities. We can't have that just transition where we're imposing things on communities that need to come from them. The member's right that we need to consider the issue of who is benefiting from land and how we invest in it. I'm happy to take that away and consider it. Thank you, and I'm happy to meet you to discuss it, minister, if you so wish. Liam, I think that you wanted to come in. Yes, thanks, convener. I'd like to take on some of the questions that we've just heard about funding and investment, if I may. In particular, the deputy convener brought up farming. I noticed that there's a funding-related commitment in the draft strategy to shift half of all funding for farming and crofting from unconditional to conditional support by 2025. Minister, how much is half of all funding? What are the likely new conditions that farmers will have to meet? Is a lead time of, presumably, less than 18 months from finalisation long enough for farmers and crofters to adjust? As the member knows, that is on-going work on agricultural reform to implement that commitment for 50 per cent and the conditionality around it. I believe that the cabinet secretary made an initial announcement a couple of weeks ago to the national annual meeting of the farming union on the direction of travel there, but that is a matter of on-going consultation with the stakeholders to make sure that we get those right. The number one thing is that we need to make sure that that 50 per cent is not only delivering for biodiversity, but it's practical and workable and accessible for farmers and land managers so that they can get that money in a way that supports their business models. I understand that. I understand that it's a complex question, but it is part of the draft strategy that is under your remit minister. Are you unable to tell the committee at this stage what half of the funding is and what the conditions are and whether that will be a substantial lead time, despite the fact that that is in the draft biodiversity strategy? Is that the case? Biodiversity colleagues are absolutely feeding into that process, so that process of agricultural reform is on-going and biodiversity is one of the parts of that. We are feeding into that and officials and NGOs in that area are feeding into that process, but of course there are other, you know, the farming stakeholders and other stakeholders in that space who are working together as part of that on-going process to define what that 50 per cent is and how that will work for farmers, so that is still underway. Sticking with funding, a framework target 19 requires a significant upscaling of finance for biodiversity and it talks about leveraging private finance in particular. Part of the draft strategy is an investment plan. Perhaps Matthew Bird might be looking to answer that, but will that be produced, consulted on and finalised in the same timeframe that we heard earlier about the plans and the strategy that is being finalised? Broadly, yes. That is the intention. There are a lot of moving parts in relation to that investment plan, obviously, but broadly. I am going to press you, Mr Bird, on broadly, because you told me earlier that the delivery plan and the strategy was consulting in the spring-summer and it would finalised, I cannot remember your precise words, but I think it was there around the autumn. The investment plan is very much part of that strategy, so is that going to be concluded in the same timeframe or is that likely to slip? If I can take you back to one of your earlier points, one of the reasons that we published the high-level strategy in draft in December was so that the sector and the people who are delivering for biodiversity on the ground have that indication of the direction of travel and the steer that they need to start delivering for biodiversity already. In relation to the strategy and the delivery plan, both of those are being delivered out of our team, and I could make that commitment. The biodiversity investment plan involves bringing in a whole range of different partners to deliver it, so I am happy to say that broadly it is being delivered along the same lines, but I cannot be more specific about it. In line with my earlier answer to the question that Jackie Dunbar raised, that does not mean that we have not got started. As with the rest of the biodiversity matters, there are the two streams of the urgent actions that were already, evidence actions that were already taking and the long-term strategy to join it up, and so it is also for the finance, where we absolutely will deliver that finance plan along with the strategy, but that does not mean that we have not got started. For example, we know about our finance gap in natural capital. In 2021, there was a report from the Green Finance Institute that assessed our finance gap for nature in the UK, which is defined as the difference between the required spending and committed plan spending. Central estimates of our finance gap for the next decade are £20 billion for Scotland, which is about £8 billion for biodiversity protection enhancement and £9 billion towards climate change mitigation. That is information that is already with us. We have already spoken about our nature restoration fund, which is public money that is being put directly into that nature restoration. Of course, the member will be aware of the pilot agreement between NatureScot and Hamdons and Co to invest in natural capital, which is piloting this private investment, which we all know we need to bring into the sector so that we can fill that finance gap. That is the first step there. Again, we have not waited to get started. We have already gotten started, but that strategy will still be forthcoming. I am very grateful on that particular private finance deal that NatureScot has signed. I think that it is around woodland for up to £2 billion. I find this a very interesting model, given quite rightly the minister talks about the need for private investment in the £20 billion for forestry, woodlands and what we need for heat and buildings. Can we leverage private investment? Given the interest in that model, when does the minister intend to publish the full detail underlying the deal so that we can see exactly what private investors are getting out of the deal and see whether it is applicable at scale in other areas? This is a partnership between NatureScot and Hamdons and Co. It is not something that the Scottish Government is directly involved in. I do not have the information on when the information around that may be published on that project, but that is an on-going partnership so that we can see how that works. Will you commit to publish it, minister, however, or could you come back to me with an answer as to whether it will be and if so, when? We certainly hope to gain learnings from that project. I am happy to write to the member and find out to let him know what the timescale is for the learnings of that project being shared. I was not asking about the learnings. I was asking about what investors get out of it and the detail underlying it. Will that be published, minister? As it is a partnership between NatureScot and private companies, I do not know what that may be in the commercial confidential space and what that may be in the public space, so I am unable to commit to the member on exactly how much of that may be able to be shared publicly. However, I am happy to commit to share the learnings from that project so that we can take it forward into, hopefully, other similar successful projects. Minister, I understand your reticence about committing to doing that, but it would be helpful, I believe, for the committee to receive correspondence from you just clarifying what you can share with us. I note that the learnings are part of that, but I think that the member was specifically asking about what the deal involved. We would be grateful to hear if you can share that. I have written letters to the committee to be absolutely perfect. Absolutely. I can give it a little bit more detail now, but I am happy to correspond as well. The investment model that is being looked at here is based on a bridging loan from Hampton and Co to the landowner to create Woodland, both through planting and natural regeneration, to bridge the gap between the initial investment and that flow of carbon revenue. The carbon credits that will be generated can then be retired, so that is offset to collect those carbon credits. That is the general model, but I am happy to write on more detail with what is available. As you offered that, I think that Liam wants to come in briefly back on that. Minister, a bridging loan, what interest rate is that subject to then? I do not have that information. Truthfully, I think that I have allowed you to push that quite a long way, Liam. I may be asking the minister to write, because I think that it is of interest. I also think that it is of interest to understand who will shoulder the obligations, because the loan will be a short-term loan to allow something to happen, but with long-term consequences and costs as far as managing the environment beyond that. I think that the committee would like to know more about that. The more you can share with us, minister, I am sure that the more grateful we will be. I am going to come to Collette Stevenson, who, in the cut and thrust of that, lost her question, but I am coming back to you, Collette. You are still muted. Hold on. You were muted. Start again. We hear you. I thank the minister and her team for their warm welcome. In evidence last week, the committee heard about a decision adopted at COP 15, which takes forward aspects of the Edinburgh declaration, which sets out areas for action for local authorities, as well as sub-national Governments, and recommends that management of biodiversity be decentralised. What role will local authorities need to play in the delivery of biodiversity targets and how, in practice, local authorities and communities should be more empowered in that area? I am keen to hear from you on that aspect. Thank you very much for that question. That was the really interesting part about the Edinburgh process. I think that you will recall from COP 26 how there was a frustration from sub-national actors like Scotland, some of the American states, some of the European regions, that the parties, the members of the United Nations, might not be as ambitious as the sub-national actors wanted them to be. The same concern was also present in the biodiversity space toward COP 15, and that was why the secretariat asked Scotland to lead the process for the sub-national bodies. It was really interesting in Montreal to get to meet. I met the Mayor of Conming, I met the Deputy Mayor of Paris, I met some amazing and interesting people from Sao Paolo, from America, from Quebec and from California, and to talk about what they were doing in that ambitious space. The members are absolutely right. The regional Governments have so much that they can do, because they are on the ground, they are at the coalface of how this actually happens. So I am happy to outline some of the things that we are doing in that space. So we know that a lot of the stuff will actually need to be delivered by local authorities, and I do meet with COSLA regularly, and NatureScot do work closely with the network of local authority biodiversity officers to work on these matters. With respect to funding, for example, the Nature Restoration Fund has a specific Edinburgh process stream, which is for local authorities specifically to take on projects. So we are applying direct funding to local authorities, there was £5 million of that in 2021-22 and £6 million in 2022-23. Another interesting initiative, I think, for local authorities in Scotland is our nature networks. So in October of last year, we announced an additional £200,000 for the expansion of nature networks in Scotland. So the vision is that local authorities will each have a nature network, and this addresses the problem of habitat fragmentation. So as human activity has encroached on nature, nature has retreated to sort of islands, if you like, which is a problem for resilience. It means that species cannot move between them, it means that they cannot keep their genetics healthy by intermingling, and it does mean that they are less adaptive to climate because they cannot relocate or move as the climate changes around them. So nature networks are a way that we tackle that habitat fragmentation, and they will be delivered by local authorities in Scotland, which I think is very exciting, because that means that each local authority can decide for themselves what is going to work for them and what is right for them. I am really excited about or interested in the question of how we join those up at Boundaries so that we can have this continuous network of nature throughout Scotland. So there is some really interesting work happening in that space. So can we now, can I just come back in? Can I keep going? I will stop here when we run out of time. Thank you. I am proud and honoured to be home to Langlands Moss, which is one of the biggest peatland mosses in the whole of Scotland. The volunteers there have done absolutely remarkable work, and there is a lot of biodiversity. Lorna, there is a huge amount of indigenous species there, which are at a huge risk if we do not take action now, particularly the new species. Can you maybe drill down and tell me what action has been taken there in respect of that? Because it is a beautiful nature reserved there on the now at Skirts of East Kilbride. Thank you so much. I think that you are right to recognise the work of volunteers. In this space for protecting and restoring nature, indeed I went to a very interesting, I think that Matthew was with me on Thursday, which was the launch of the UK's plant atlas, where I think it was an estimated 8,500 volunteers went around the UK for over 20 year period to count every flowering plant basically in the UK. It is an incredible achievement, and it is exactly that kind of data which we need to understand the challenges that the species that you would have at the moss are under and how much at risk our native species are. Unfortunately, that plant atlas shows that our native species are in significant decline with introduced species on a significant increase. You are absolutely right that the challenge is enormous and those protected areas make such a difference. On specific species, as I outlined earlier to Ms Dunbar, one of the four streams in the biodiversity strategy under actions is to recover and protect a vulnerable and important species. That is exactly the kind of focus that we need to have, that we are managing existing and emerging pressures for these species to continue the recovery and where we need to the reintroduction of these species. Lisa or Matthew may have specific notes on newts or... It does not look like you are going to get an answer on newts, Collette. Maybe the minister could write to you afterwards, or you could write to her afterwards on a specific and stick transition. No, we have no specific newt knowledge here, but we are very happy to write to you on newts. Thank you so much. Assuming that is the end for you, I am going to move on to the next questions, which come from Mark Ruskell and Mark Ruskell. Minister, I wanted to ask you about an issue that cuts across to the other side of your portfolio, and that is about consumption. We heard last week about some of the impacts globally on biodiversity of consumption and supply chains. We recognise that that is reflected in the new global biodiversity framework, but it is also something that is reflected in our environment strategy. Can I ask you about how the new biodiversity strategy and delivery plan will perhaps start to address the twin issues of understanding the impact of consumption on biodiversity, and what we do about it, given that there is a mixture of reserved and devolved competencies around that whole issue? That is a serious matter and a really big question. You are right that one of the outcomes that is detailed in our Scottish Government's environment strategy is that we need to be responsible global citizens and that we have to have a sustainable international footprint. If everyone on earth consumed resources as we do in Scotland, we would need three planets. Our consumption relies on resources extracted or used in other parts of the world, including water, land and biological and mineral resources. Our environmental impact, because we have such a significant one, does not just impact our own country but extends far beyond our country. The nature of that impact that we have, because of how much we over-consume, is complex. Some of the commodities that we import are associated with deforestation, with water stress and other ecological pressures. As being good global citizens, we need to make sure that we are managing our own consumption here. A big part of that, as the member rightly points out, is covered in the other part of my portfolio around that circular economy. We need to move to an economy in which we do not tolerate waste, we do not tolerate waste of energy and we do not tolerate waste of materials so that we can reduce to a bare minimum that extraction that we do from the natural environment and where possible we are reusing those materials over and over again and using materials that have long life. That is how we reduce that impact. As I touched on earlier, things like the impact of plastics on wildlife species, for example, and looking at how we manage plastics, how we reduce their use, how we make sure that we recycle them when we need them, it is exactly the how of how we tackle a lot of our problems in this space. Would we expect to see something specific in the biodiversity strategy and the re-plan around consumption going forward? This is part of the cross-government work that we do. The consumption matters will be largely covered in my other portfolio under the circular economy bill and the route map for waste in Scotland because it is about bending that around, but that does not mean that it is not related to biodiversity. Those things are artificially put in categories, but the member is quite right to point out that the work that we do in that circular economy space will be so important to biodiversity as well. I am absolutely confident that we will be referencing that in the strategy because it is an important part of how we deal with it. I will pick up one specific area in relation to consumption, and that is food waste. We have noted that there is a particular target around consumption and reducing waste in that global framework. We have that important target in Scotland to reduce food waste. I am just wondering how that is going and how we can make more progress on that going forward. Conversations around food and waste are on-going as we work towards that target of reduction by 33 per cent by 2025. Action so far has included running a school food waste reduction pilot with Glasgow City Council conducting food waste audits of over 100 hospitality and food service sector businesses while NHS Scotland has been working with Zero Waste Scotland to tackle food waste in healthcare settings. We have published our waste targets route map consultation, which is on our ambitious waste and recycling targets, one of which is food waste prevention. Food waste reduction is a global effort and we are signatories to wrap world-leading, car-toiled commitment to reduce food waste. Through that form, we engage with the UK's biggest food and drink businesses, other devolved administrations and have access to best practice research and interventions. A full review of progress against the commitments on food waste will be published this year. There was a bit of a delay to that during Covid. We have also run two consumer and household focused food waste reduction media campaigns in 2019. We are providing £100,000 of funding support for fair shares surplus with purpose scheme in 2022, which follows on from £200,000 of funding in the previous years. Scottish Potato Supplier, I'll Uppert Bartlett, recently announced that they have redistributed the equivalent of 5 million meals through their fair share partnership. That's a great success story. When you anticipate that review on food waste to be published, is that this year? Yes, we expect that to be published this year. That's obviously something that the committee will take a great deal of interest in. Thank you, Mark. I'm going to come to the deputy convener for another question. Is the Scottish Government looking to other international developments in finalising the biodiversity strategy? Are there implications, for example, of the recently agreed the UN high seas treaty? If Mary McCallan is the lead minister on marine issues, how is she influencing this biodiversity strategy? Also, for example, the development of the EU nature restoration law. How is that factoring into the final version, or once going out for consultation, with the delivery plan? I'm taking quick notes. The Scottish Government welcomes the UN high seas treaty. That is a historic agreement, which is now in place after over a decade of multilateral negotiations. We have been at the forefront of ensuring protection from the high seas through the UK's membership of the Aspar contention, which has adopted a series of high seas marine protect areas in the mid-Atlantic since 2010. Our national water Scotland has designated MPAs, which cover 37 per cent of our waters. We are obviously looking at those 10 per cent of waters as highly protected marine areas as we go forward by 2026. We are already doing some excellent work in this marine space and absolutely welcome that work that is outside of our territorial waters. We haven't yet incorporated in, but because the strategy is still in draft, that gives us the opportunity to incorporate that new bit of work into our strategy as we go forward. Is that Mary McCallan's area of responsibility, or is it yours? We are absolutely working very much together on that. The biodiversity strategy covers many types of land uses, including forestry and agriculture. It is not something that just myself is contributing to and working on. The ministers with the relevant portfolios are absolutely contributing on that as well. Indeed, the officials in that space—Marine, Scotland, Nature, Scotland and so on—work with all of us together. They are not separated. That is one of the nice things about having overlapping portfolios between me, Ms McCallan and Ms Gougeon, is that we very much are able to work together on those matters. The UN treaty is talking about 30 x 30 in terms of both land and sea. My understanding is that Scotland already has 37 per cent of its marine area covered. Therefore, the sensitivity of that makes sure that we can live with the local economies as well as look at the marine protection. Inland areas are of particular concern. We know of the current concerns, for example, by West Nile's council on a marine protected area that has been proposed. I am not expecting you to deal with that today, because that is an area for another minister. However, we should register that marine spatial planning has to be very sensitive and sensible. We will be looking for a common sense view, but it will be a key aspect of what we will be looking for in the biodeversity strategy. It has that balance and that sharing responsibility that we have heard on the land. It has to apply very much on the sea as well. Is that an approach that you would welcome? That is absolutely an approach that I would welcome. I think that, particularly in the sea space, it is not necessarily a sort of competing interest. One of the groups that I met when I was in COP15 was the representatives from California, where they have had already for many years what they call no-take zones, which would be the equivalent of our highly protected marine areas. When they implemented those, there were concerns by fishers about how that would impact their work and their business. However, what they have found there is that their no-take zones allow for species to breed and thrive uninterrupted, which actually improves their yields in terms of being fishers. That is not necessarily an either-or thing. The member is absolutely right that we need to consult and make sure that we put those in the right places, so that stakeholders are absolutely engaged in that and communities. However, I do not think that it is necessarily the vision that those things are in conflict. Highly protected marine areas, where you have a no-take zone, give the fish that place to breed and thrive and increase their numbers. As they move out from those zones, they are available to fishers. That can actually be an advantage that works for everyone. I would suggest that the Western Isle situation is a bit of a conflict zone just now in terms of what we are hearing. I will leave that when they are just now. I also referred to the EU nature restoration law. Is that something that you would be looking to keep pace with in terms of what they are doing to ensure that the biodiversity strategy embraces some of that thinking? Yes, absolutely. The Scottish Government has already committed to maintaining broad alignment with the EU's environmental standards, and we have been monitoring, with interest, the developments in the EU's ambitious nature restoration law. In fact, our strategy sets out the metrics that we would use to measure the targets that they have set out. At the moment, the EU law and targets are proposals, and they are subject to negotiation between member states and amendment by their Parliament. Our approach at the moment is to, again, we are not waiting for them. We are developing our own targets and delivery proposals, but we will take account of what is going on in Europe as those developments emerge. Thanks very much, deputy convener. I will look around the tables to see if there are any other questions. No, I have a couple of questions for you, minister. Are you happy with the use of carbon credits and them being attached to land across Scotland? As the member will know, and as we will have heard in the evidence session last week, there absolutely needs to be mechanisms for bringing in private finance and investment into this space. Carbon credits are an established tool, and there is work being done on biodiversity credits and so on. I guess that they are under development, but the finance that they bring in is absolutely needed. There is no question that we must have private finance to develop those areas, and that is one of the tools for bringing in that finance. Would you be happy to see parts of the land and estate owned by the Scottish people through the Scottish Government being used to generate carbon credits and finance for the Scottish Government? I do not have any particular comment on that. I am not aware of any particular work in that policy space. You do not have a view on it. Has it been discussed at all? It seems quite fundamental with the forestry estate that we have that whether the Government should be considering it or discounting it. I am very happy to take the under consideration. I can write to the member on that point. They have not discussed it. That may not be the case. I am not aware of those discussions, but I can certainly find out and write to the member on that matter. I will bring Mark in. Can I ask one more question on that? My concern is that carbon credits come with a sting in the tail because you do not know what the ultimate cost of those carbon credits is going to be. If firms are buying up or giving bridging loans, it may be for carbon credits, which is an interesting concept. I find it odd that the Government has not discussed it or discounted it or agreed that it should be done. What the member refers to is the NatureScot agreement with Hamdonson Co, which, as the member suggests, is an investment model based on a bridging loan from Hamdonson to a private landowner to support that private landowner in creating woodland, which bridges the gap between the initial investment and that flow of carbon revenue. That is a way of helping private landowners to do that woodland regeneration. I absolutely understand that, but help comes at a cost. I am trying to identify if the help is attached to carbon credits. I will bring you in and then maybe follow that a bit more. I actually wanted to go back to the issue about marine protected area designation. Can I finish on my carbon credits thing and then come back to you on the marine protected areas? I would be very grateful, convener. Of course. Just pushing that a little bit more, we have seen large tracks of Scotland change hands at very high prices to allow firms to attach their carbon output to that land by getting a carbon credit. It has caused some concern. Does it cause you concern, minister? Certainly the matter of green lairs does cause concern to myself and certainly to my ministerial colleagues as well. It is really important that we balance the need for investment in our natural capital with work that we are doing to empower local communities as well so that we do not have this situation of problematic green lairs. There is a suite of existing measures in place to mitigate the impacts of this rapidly evolving market. For example, in the last Parliament, we implemented legislation to extend community rights to buy, including the right to buy land to further sustainable development, and to introduce a new register of persons holding a controlled interest in land. At that time, fears were raised that our measures would deter inward investment, but, as the member knows, that has not been the case. As we can see from substantial land rises in land values that have happened in the last few years, I share the member's concern around the so-called green lairs and that kind of land. That is why we are putting in place those frameworks for ethical investment in land and nature restoration and private finance. Just for the record, I am surprised and concerned that the Government does not have a policy on carbon credits and their land and whether it should be the right way of generating capital. I am not expressing a view on it either way. I am just concerned that there is not a policy on it, but I will be very interested here. I am going to come to Mark and then Mercedes wants to ask a question. Mark first. I just wanted to go back to the issue about marine protected area designation. One of the long-standing concerns that has been from environmental NGOs and communities is that we designate protected areas, but they might end up as paper parks because of a lack of enforcement and monitoring. I wonder what your response is to that and how we might ensure that highly protected marine areas are adequately going forward. We have the right management measures associated with that and that the enforcement is there as well. The development of highly protected marine areas is still under way. We are doing that consultation to, as the member rightly points out, get those in the right places because there are certainly challenges there in terms of making sure that we have engaged stakeholders at all the key stages when we are selecting the sites for the highly protected marine areas. In terms of the enforcement of HPMAs—HPMAs and HPMAs are different beasts—HPMAs will have marine management plans in place that say how that is to be used. HPMAs are much, much stricter in terms of being no-take zones and the restrictions on commercial activities in those spaces. I might have to get Lisa or Matthew to support me on the details of how those will be enforced. There are a number of enforcement challenges that are recognised because of the significant area that they cover and the large number of fishing vessels that there are. My understanding is that effective compliance is going to be carried out by extending the requirement for vessel tracking and monitoring systems across the whole commercial fishing fleet by the end of the current parliamentary session. We recognise that illegal activity in MPAs is caused by a small number of operations that cast a shadow over most of the law-abiding fishing community, but if further detail is required, I am happy to obtain that from the relevant officials on providing. I think that you want to come in with a question. In response to the minister's point about the need to address green layers, you seem to suggest that part of the work to do that involves increasing community right to buy. Of course, the carbon credit model has the inadvertent consequence of increasing the price of land, so communities are priced out and they are even more reliant on Government funding to buy land. It strikes me as a short-term solution to go down the route of a private financing model and that, in the long term, it increasingly prices out communities and the public from land. I suppose that my question is that it would not be prudent to adopt a community wealth building model that uses public funding but locks that into the local area so that the whole community and, by extension, the country benefits rather than potential overseas private finance companies. As the member will know, the member was not present for the evidence session that came to this committee. The need for private finance for nature restoration is unquestioned. There is absolute consensus on that. The finance gap is £20 billion. There is absolutely no way that that can be fully funded from the public purse. That simply is not possible. What we need to do and this is what we are working on doing is putting in place that framework for ethical investment in those places. That means managing those different interests and ensuring that that incorporates the community wealth building and the local input into those schemes. However, we absolutely cannot meet our targets for climate and nature restoration without private finance. That simply is not possible. We have to find a way of doing that ethically that supports communities. I think that this is an interesting subject that will continue to access. The problem is that short-term gain could come at a long-term cost, whether it is for individuals, communities or whoever has sold the obligation and takes it on. I think that that is a very interesting question. I am going to suggest a pause until 10.35 before we go into the next session, which I am sure will be equally interesting. I therefore suspend the meeting at this stage for 10 minutes. Welcome back. Our next item is an evidence session on Scotland's deposit return scheme. I refer members to the papers that they have received in this item. At the committee's last meeting on 7 March, we agreed to take evidence from the Scottish Government on the DRS and to also hear from the Secretary of State Scotland the scheme administrator at a meeting in the near future. The purpose of these sessions is to ascertain key information about the scheme's readiness for launch on 16 August this year. I am pleased to welcome back Lorna Slater, the Minister for Greenskills, the Secretary of Economy and Biodiversity. I would also like to welcome Kevin Quinlan, the director of environment and forestry and Ewan Page, the head of UK frameworks. Before we begin, I believe that you would like to make a brief opening statement. Thank you very much, convener. I welcome this opportunity to address the committee on Scotland's deposit return scheme. When we launch the DRS on 16 August, the scheme will be among the most environmentally ambitious and accessible in Europe. It will increase recycling rates from 50 per cent to 90 per cent, reduce littering on our streets by a third and reduce CO2 emissions by 4 million tonnes over 25 years. We are at an advanced stage of preparation for launch, which with much of the infrastructure for the scheme already in place. Approximately 300 million pounds of private investment has been made, counting and sorting centres are being created, vehicle fleets have been ordered and recruitment is under way. As of March 10, 671 producers across the full range of drink producers from global brands to small craft breweries and distilleries, representing 95 per cent of the total volume of drinks containers sold in Scotland each year, have completed registration for DRS with Circularity Scotland. I am delighted that so many producers have already stepped up to the challenge to take responsibility for the waste that they produce. The scheme will also create 500 jobs across the country, with 140 new jobs at a recycling plant in Motherwell and 70 jobs in Aberdeen already announced. This month, we have also seen the launch of registration for return point operators. This includes supermarkets, local shops and other outlets where customers can return their empty containers and reclaim their deposit. We previously updated guidance and support to make it easier and quicker for retailers wishing to apply for an exemption to being a return point. That was in response to direct feedback from retailers, particularly smaller retailers. Exemptions can be sought on proximity, that is where an agreement has been made with other nearby return points and also on environmental grounds, for example if there is not enough space to store returned containers. I recently wrote to the convener of this committee to provide an update on the work undertaken to secure an exclusion from the Internal Market Act. As set out in that letter, UK Government ministers acknowledged that the Scottish Government has followed the agreed process at all times. I will take this opportunity to again confirm that we have been following the agreed and established process between UK Government and devolved Governments for excluding certain areas from the Internal Market Act since 2021. We expect a decision from the UK Government as soon as possible and I will continue to keep this committee updated. I will continue to work collaboratively with Circularity Scotland and businesses as they finalise their operational delivery plans and we move closer to the launch date in August. I welcome the opportunity to assist this committee in its considerations and I look forward to questions. Thank you very much minister. The first question is going to come from me in my six years in this Parliament. I don't think I've ever come across legislation that has caused this much problem as it is being introduced. So what is the problem as you see it and then I'm going to ask you how you're going to solve it? I actually think that the problem is largely one of misunderstanding of what the scheme is and how it operates. The scheme itself is moving toward launch. That milestone of 95 per cent of the market by volume being signed up for the scheme is the big milestone. This is a producer responsibility scheme. That means that producers of the materials that we're collecting in this scheme, the people who profit from these materials, need to ante up, they need to put it on the line and say yes, we are now going to be responsible for collecting these materials, for sorting them and for making sure they get recycled properly. This is a big shift from using public money to do that work to putting it back on the producers. For the producers in that volume, that enormous number of market volume, which represents 95 per cent to have signed on the dotted line and saying yes, we are stepping up, we're doing that, that is a huge milestone. The next significant milestone is getting the return points signed up and then from that point once Circularity Scotland and Biffa know where the return points are and how many items they expect from each return point, they can then finalise their collection schedules and so forth. Circularity Scotland and Biffa are working toward that August 16 launch date, so all of those pieces of the puzzle are under way and that is what we need to get the scheme launched. I know that there are still some concerns from some small producers about how they participate in the scheme and we are working with them and SEPA and Circularity Scotland to bring them on board so that they can continue to supply the Scottish market. If, in your own words, the biggest problem is misunderstanding, somebody has failed to explain it to the people who are concerned, have you got enough time to explain it to those people before the launch in August? The communications between Circularity Scotland and SEPA and businesses is on-going and is under way. Some of the frustration is that things that are being reported in the media and the press are simply not accurate and the correct way to get the right information is to go direct to Circularity Scotland to get the information that businesses need. We are both signposting people to that organisation but that organisation has also employed a communications expert to support the communications with businesses. They have been holding workshops all over the country with businesses to help them to understand the role in the scheme. They have an excellent website, they have call handlers who can answer phone calls and emails at all hours of the day and night. So any businesses that are not clear about their role, instead of reading something on Twitter, what I recommend that they do is get in contact with Circularity Scotland and get the right information that they need. I'm not sure businesses base their decisions on Twitter but on the fact that the misunderstanding is at business level, my next question is, I think that the public has signed up to getting deposit returns working but when you go to a supermarket, as I did on Saturday to buy some bottle of water, 24 bottles, small bottles of water costing £3, that's going to become £7.80. That's quite a change to my shopping basket and everyone else's shopping basket. Do you think that the public misunderstand it or do you think that they fully understand what's coming down to them? Whenever the public are asked about such schemes, they are always very enthusiastic about them. They generally have broad public support. These schemes, like ours, work very well in other countries. It's very straightforward and well understood. In fact, people in this country often are nostalgic and have memories of similar schemes from when they were young and returning their bottles to get their money back. The cost when you buy the bottles is added to the cost of 20 pence per each bottle and can, but of course you can get that back when you return those materials so that that is a net neutral cost to the consumer when they purchase those materials. I'm nostalgic about returning other people's bottles as well, which may have been fraught but I'm sure somebody will come on to that in the questions. Next question is from Mercedes Feaba. I've got some questions about producer registration. The initial deadline was 1 March, is that correct? To extend that would require a change in regulations, is that correct? To extend that deadline, however, late applications are being accepted. That's not been a hard cut-off business that can still continue to apply. Until when will that continue? That is indefinite. In terms of any business that wants to sell in Scotland in any particular year, it needs to be signed up by 1 March of that year. For this year, for the first year of the scheme, we are allowing late applications to support businesses to come online with the scheme. Any businesses that aren't registered in time for scheme launch will not be able to supply in Scotland, so we encourage them to get going. However, in future years, for example, there's a new start-up business in Scotland and they wish to sell into the Scottish market, so they would also need to apply for the scheme. As new businesses come into the Scottish market, they can sign up for the scheme on an on-going basis, so that they can sell in Scotland as well. Will 1 March be a hard deadline next year, or will it be that every year is just a... I believe that the regulations have that March deadline every year in the regulations, so that they allow time for the business to be operationally included. As with this year, I believe that late applications would still be applicable. The intention is not to be punitive to businesses. Businesses need to sign up for the scheme. They need to give that information over of how many products they have and the labelling. Basically, it's time to programme those reverse vending machines. When you take your bottler can back, it will scan the barcode and say, yes, you bought this in Scotland, this is a scheme article, here's your 20 pence back. From when you registered, the point of registration is to sort of go here are my barcodes, here's my products, and then we have to go and programme all the vending machines in Scotland to be able to take those back. That is why there's a sort of deadline for that, to allow that time for that work to be done for business. That's why businesses need to register as soon as possible so that their barcodes can be registered with the machines. I understand that there was a consideration of a potential grace period for small producers, so are we now in that or is that still something that you're considering? We're looking at a variety of measures to support small producers, so as I outlined in the answer to the other member, although we have hundreds of producers signed up, there are some producers that have not yet signed up. We're looking at digging into the detail of what the challenges there are. Circularity Scotland, in response to conversation with those producers, have already put into place considerable cash flow measures for those. I think that was £22 million worth of cash flow measures to reduce upfront costs, reduce really, really help with that cash flow because that was identified as a barrier. Another thing that was identified as a barrier was labelling, so if you're a small producer getting your bottles redesigned with a different barcode, there are minimum order quantities for that kind of thing, and it takes a long time. To remove that barrier, Circularity Scotland will be issuing sticky labels to producers who, when they have less than £25,000 of any particular product, can just get those labels from Circularity Scotland, so that they're already pre-registered because the labels have been issued to them. Would that be instead of the producer being required to register, or would they need to register to get those sticky labels? They do need to register, but they can go through the process to get those labels, so because it was identified that redesigning their packaging on the timescale was a barrier to them. Circularity Scotland came up with a practical labelling solution to the fact that that isn't a barrier to them. Going forward, we're looking at what do we need to do in terms of those producers who have not signed up? Do they understand the package measures on the table? I think that there will be questions later on about labelling, particularly for small producers, so if you wouldn't mind if we could stick to the question around registration just at the moment. That is what we're looking at, is understanding what the barriers to registration are. One of the things that some small producers asked us to consider was a grace period, so that was not a grace period for registration. They still need to register. That would be in hypothetically a grace period for implementation. There are some big challenges around that, not just that that is maybe not fair to medium-sized producers, it's not fair to those small producers who have signed up. I think that what we need to do is take a step back again. We know that hundreds of small producers have signed up, so this is clearly not a universal barrier. For those businesses who haven't signed up, we need to look at what the challenges there are and make sure that we're putting in place the right measures to help them get on board. The deadline to register has passed, but registrations are still accepted. If it gets to 16 August, which is the launch date, producers who haven't registered by that point, does that mean that they will not be permitted to sell their items in the Scottish market? That's correct. That's normal for how these schemes work. Are you considering a grace period for that point from 16 August, or is that a hard cut-off? Up until 16 August, is there time to register, or would you still allow registrations after 16 August? Can producers sell their products if they are in the middle of the registration process after 16 August? The date of 30 June 2023 is the final date that SEPA needs to assess and receive completed registrations. They have to be completed by that point, which means that I would highly encourage all producers to start their registrations before that point. The registration process is reasonably detailed, because you've got to put all your products in and the details of your barcodes and so on. SEPA needs time to process those applications and publish the register of producers before the scheme goes live on August 16. For example, if you're a retailer and you carry various products, you need to know which of those products you can continue to carry by 16 August. SEPA needs to publish that list going right. Here's all the producers. These are the producers who can continue to sell in Scotland so that they're complying with the legislation. What SEPA has said and that I support them in is that they will be very pragmatic about how they're going to implement that, because what we want to do is make sure that businesses are on a pathway to compliance. That's what we're in discussions with in terms of when I say we're looking at how we can bring small producers on board who have not yet registered is working out what that pathway to compliance looks out for each individual business. Each business is quite different and has different requirements and barriers. We don't intend to be punitive or coming after businesses. That's not the idea. The idea is to support businesses to comply with the scheme, because we want businesses to continue to be able to sell in Scotland and we want businesses to understand their obligations under the scheme and, in fact, to make the best advantage of it. Clearly, if you're registered with the scheme and you can continue to be stocked, that is a competitive advantage for you. If a producer registers after the 30th of June, would that registration be considered for the following year, because you said that the deadline is the first of March each year, or could that then be processed to get their products on to the market in the current year? We would have to look at that situation. I would be happy to write to the member on that with the details on exactly what that would work for. There clearly has to be an on-going process of business registrations because, of course, new businesses start up all the time, so clearly that's necessary, but exactly how that will work and what the delay is between registering and being able to sell on the Scottish market. I'm happy to write to the member on that detail. Minister, just to remind you, write to the committee if you wouldn't mind. Sorry, write to the committee. Thank you very much, convener. I think that that is fairly critical, because if there's hard deadlines and they can only join at a certain stage during the year, it may stifle business, an answer would be grateful. The next question comes from the deputy convener, Fiona Hyslop. Yes. I'd like to address return points and particularly the issues facing small convenience retailers who have concerns about limited space and also lack of capital revenue to invest. Have you addressed that to the extent that there are two issues in terms of health and safety and also the distance to another return point? What engagement has there been with the independent convenience store, different organisations and groups? What are their concerns? To what extent will you know that convenience retailers are either establishing a return point in their premises or choosing to opt out? At what point will we know that? The member asked some really good questions. Circularity Scotland itself is not for profit organisation. It's a private company that is not for profit that is made up of members. Within its membership are the trade associations assorted with small convenience stores. The Association of Convenience Stores, the National Federation of Retail News Agents and the Scottish Groceries Federation are all members of Circularity Scotland. They not only have a direct line to the information, but they are also influencing the decision making that Circularity Scotland has. That is the mechanism by which Circularity Scotland interacts with those convenience stores through their membership of their trade associations. I of course meet with those associations regularly, particularly the Scottish Groceries Federation. The concerns that they have flagged up to me, particularly where there are two categories of them, they have emphasised this to me. They very much want their members to be able to participate in the scheme because they consider this a matter of footfall. Where small grocers participate in the scheme, that means that people are coming through their doors, which is exactly what they want. What they have asked me for is to help us to be involved in the scheme. They are very supportive of that, so that is really helpful. The other thing that some small businesses were concerned particularly ones that are tiny, that do not have storage space, as the member pointed out, or for example a bakery that sells bottled juice but also baked bread. You cannot have broken glass in a bakery. As the member pointed out, there are exemptions for that. Let me give the high-level picture so that everybody understands. If you sell bottles and cans of juice in wine or anything else in Scotland, you have three options. You can choose to be a manual return point. You can choose to have an automated return point, which means installing a reverse vending machine, or if it is applicable to you, you can choose to be exempt. The grounds for exemption are proximity. For example, if you have several small stores together but a big store over there, the small stores might go, I am just not up for being a return point, can we ask the big store to take our returns? Equally, they might go, we want to work together to be a return point. All the small stores, we are going to pull together and we are going to get one reverse vending machine. There are different models, and it is up to each business to decide how they want to do that. The other two options are, if they want to be a return point, they can be either a manual return point, and that is most cost-effective for business if they are collecting small amounts. That is probably what a convenient store would do, because if they have a small floor area, they may not have room for a reverse vending machine, they may not have high numbers, and they would take those back as a return point. You just hand your bottles and cans over the counter and do it that way. With reverse vending machines, that infrastructure is probably most appropriate for bigger stores that not only have the space for them but then have the capital to do the upfront installations and the resource to do the administration of getting the planning permission and all those things that go together. If you think about it, it is likely that big stores will have the reverse vending machines, small stores will have those manual return points, and then businesses that apply, which will again be small businesses or businesses that have bakeries and so on in them, will be exempt. In terms of how we know, at this point, it is with those businesses to make the application. Return points applications are open, so businesses can look at that evidence and they can decide what to do. Once the period of applications for their return points is complete, we will have a picture of how many return points we have in Scotland and we will know the mix of how many are manual, how many are RVM and so on. Then we will be able to calculate knowing how much volume of material there is, and to estimate how many will go to each point. That will allow BIFA to then work out its logistics. Of course, if there are more return points, that is fewer items per return point, fewer return points more and so on. Working out the logistics depends on exactly how many businesses to sign up, where they are and what their volumes are. That is very much an iterative process, where we see what businesses have signed up. I hope that I have answered the member's question, and I may have drifted off it. When will we know? When does retailer registration close? I think that retailer registration closes. It is an on-going process, so it is a rolling process. You can register at any time. What that means, though, is that if businesses are not sure that they will be ready for August 17 or that they have not decided, they could apply for an exemption and it is applicable to them, they could apply for an exemption. Say a small cafe or things such as, I cannot deal with this this year, I will apply for an exemption, and they could then reapply at a later point to be a return point. That is not a permanent decision. Clearly, Scotland is a country that has vast rural areas, island areas, small community stores, in villages, small towns and so on. I think that that is also the concern about having a return point. I understand the iterative process and the logistics here, not least for BIFA for collection such that there might be a few far between in terms of collections and so on. That is what people might fear. What assurances can you give? Is this for circularity Scotland or is this something, as a minister, that you can make clear that you want this scheme to work for all parts of Scotland, not just urban areas but also semi-rural, island and remote communities? The member is absolutely right. This scheme has to work for every single person in Scotland, because every single person in Scotland will be paying their £20, so every single person in Scotland needs to be able to easily and conveniently get those back. That is absolutely how the scheme is intended to work. The way that the exemption process works is an opt-out process. By default, all businesses that sell those containers are obliged to be return points. Any convenient store in a small town or on an island or so on where you can buy those drinks also has to be a return point unless they are exempt. It is absolutely the intention that this is the mechanism by which small rural areas or remote areas—because it is the same place that you go to buy your juices that is the place that you would return it to. Those proximity exemptions are much more likely to apply either where you have a group of shops close together or, as you say, within an urban area, so that proximity exemption would not apply in a rural area. We have only got the one shop, for example. Certainly, circularity Scotland and Biffa are very conscious of the industry term as black spots. As the registrations for return points come in, they will be monitoring that very closely and engaging with any businesses that appear within a black spot to make sure that we have adequate return points. I believe that Biffa is even looking at the possibility of mobile return points to collect from very rural areas. That is probably an issue that we should be pursuing with circularity Scotland about the practicalities. Absolutely. They will be able to get into the nitty gritty of that. There are a lot of saps here. I am going to go to Liam first and then on to Jackie. On that exact point, I think that the deputy convener's questions were really pertinent. It seems to me that the suggestion is that if I am a retail outlet and I cannot afford reverse vending machine or I have no space for it, then, according to the ACS graphic that I saw recently, I would put the returns in bins behind the counter. What if I have no space for that? What if I am in a rural area so that I cannot avail myself for the exemptions that you have just been talking about? Is that really right for the health and safety of staff? That is how the schemes normally work. When you are a return point, you need to take the bottles back and then you need to store them until they are collected. That is the case. I understand that, when you register to be a return point, you enter in the date of how many returns you expect and how much storage space you have. That will allow Biffa then to put in their schedule how often you need that collected. That is normal. They will need to be able to store those materials until they can be collected by Biffa. It might be normal, minister, but the question that I asked was what if I do not have the space for the bins behind the counter? In any event, is it what we should be doing for staff? When we return items, they will need to be stored until they can be collected. Businesses already have storage within their businesses for various recycling materials and packaging materials. That is very similar, but it is absolutely going to have to be up to each business to figure out how they can store those materials. Businesses have an obligation to be a return point if they are selling those materials unless they are exempt. Biffa and Circulary Scotland are very happy to work with businesses to find out what that works for them. There is no particular rule about how they have to store those, that they can adapt possibly behind the counter. I have also seen some versions of that where people have designated wheelie bins that are secured in a secure area, for example. There are a variety of ways to adapt that kind of storage so that businesses can make the right decisions for themselves. On that security, those bins will have value. Do you recognise or is there a risk of crime being associated with open bins being stored behind counters? The member is correct that the items have value, so they will need to be kept securely. The shops themselves need to return those items in order to get their fees back, so they need to secure those items. There are only 20 pence each in the sense of what the value is in a shop in terms of what is kept behind the counter in a shop, bottles of alcohol, tobacco and so on. They represent only a small value of what is in the shop, but the member is quite right that those items will need to be secured until they can be picked up because they have value. In regard to the exemption that you were speaking about, in regard to the business return points, you said that they can apply for an exemption and then change their minds later, but if they do not want to change their minds later, can I ask how long an exemption will last for? Do they have to reapply every year or once they have an exemption? Is that for a certain period of time? As far as I know that, until they wish to end the exemption, I am not aware that there is a time frame on it, but I am very happy to come back to the committee with clarity on that, if that is not the case. Thanks, Jackie. The next question is from Mercedes. Minister, I have a couple of questions still around the return point operators area, but looking at the adjustments that have been made. To begin with, can I just clarify it? The exemptions for return point operators, that is an opt-out process currently. Is that correct? Return points need to register to be a return point, but that is largely so that they have an obligation to register. Anyone who sells these materials has an obligation to register, but that is so that they can enter in exactly the detail that Mr Kerr was pointing out in terms of how much storage they have and how much volume that they expect to receive so that the logistics can be organised. However, if you wish to be exempted, you need to apply for an exemption, and it is zero waste Scotland that is managing that exemption process. Return point operators might be eligible for an exemption that they can opt out of. If that was to change to opt-in, that would require a change in regulation. Is that right? No, they just need to apply to be a return point operator, so that is fine. I thought that you said that there was an obligation for everybody automatically to be a return point operator and that you would have to opt out if you were eligible for an exemption. The regulations already—those exemptions were built into the regulations, but that is not new. That was already in there. What we did is streamline the process to make that more straightforward for businesses to apply for that. We have brought in zero waste Scotland as our partner on that, so there is no change to the regulations. We are just implementing it in what we hope is an easier and more practical way. There have been some calls from some parts of industry to make it an opt-in process that you opt in to become a return point operator rather than opting out if you are eligible for exemptions. I am just trying to establish, but if that change were to be made, it would require a change in the regulations. Is that correct? Yes, that would. I do not think that we need that. When I speak to, for example, the small grossers federation, what they are saying is to help us to facilitate our members to do this. We want our members to be in and they want the footfall. I am not hearing strong calls for it to be an opt-in system. The obligation remains for anyone who sells these materials to be a return point unless they are exempt and apply for an exemption. The exemption process where we have made it as simple and streamlined as we can. Now that businesses are starting to use that process, because the registration is open for return points, I am sure that they will give us feedback and, hopefully, we can continue to make that more simple and straightforward, so that it is really straightforward for businesses. Do you know that I am exempt? It is for health and safety reasons. I am not comfortable handling glass. In my premises, I am going to apply for an exemption and they can do that in a straightforward way. Presumably, the rationale behind that is that, if you are a retailer, you would want to be part of the scheme, because shoppers who are looking to make purchases will choose for ease. For simplicity, they are more likely to choose to go to a retailer to do their shopping, where they can also return their empties, so that it is an easier process not having to go to one place to return and another place to shop. I can see the rationale for that. I just wondered whether you could explain the rationale for having that same opt-out system for exemptions for the hospitality sector, because it seems like that is a different case. I am not sure that the ability to return an empty item would influence customers when making their choice of hospitality venue in the same way that it would for a retail business, if you see what I mean. Are you able to explain a little bit of the rationale behind having that opt-out process for hospitality rather than opt-in? It is the same process, so all return points have the same process. Hospitality falls into two different categories. Sorry that this is going to start to get horribly technical on you, but there is closed-loop hospitality and open-loop hospitality. If you are thinking of a small cafe where you go in and get your sausage roll and your juice in a bottle, you are going to take that away. That is an open loop. Under the scheme, that means that that business, because you are going to be taking away that bottle, is an open loop. They are obliged to be a return point unless they are exempt, but a small cafe or a Griggs bakery, for example, has probably got a very clear ground going, I am a bakery, I cannot have broken glass in here, I am exempt, so that business would probably apply for an exemption on health and safety grounds, which means that they are not operating as a return point. Equally, it might be that that small bakery is in a parade of shops with maybe a larger convenience store down the end and they just go, do you know what, I will speak to them, they will take my return points and they would get that exemption on the basis that in the same parade of shops that is your return point down there and they can make that choice. That choice is with businesses to make the right one for themselves. The other type of hospitality venue is a closed loop venue, and that is where you are maybe at a restaurant where you order a bottle of wine for your dinner, but you do not take the bottle away with you, however much you may wish to, you leave that venue. That is closed loop hospitality, so that bottle does not incur a deposit because you are not taking it away. However, the venue itself will have paid a deposit on that when they bought that from their wholesaler, so they need to get their deposit back. That is through this closed loop system where Biffa will come and collect those materials separately, but it does not affect the consumer. We start to get into technical things, but that is two different ways that hospitality venues can manage. Am I right in thinking that closed loop hospitality venues are obliged to be return point operators unless they opt out? No, that is not right. Closed loop hospitality, they are not return points. A restaurant that only serves drinks to their table and does not give you the ball is not obliged to return point, but a cafe or small bakery where you take a seat is not obliged to. However, a cafe or a small bakery where you get a sandwich and a drink and leave the venue with that, they are obliged to. However, as I say, those venues are likely to have grounds for an exemption. However, if you are at a bar or a cafe or a closed loop system, you will not be obliged to return point. I understand that there have been a couple of adjustments made to the return points guidance. There are new guidance on exemptions, increased handling fees, proposed amendments around online sales. It would be helpful to hear to what extent those changes have addressed industry concerns that you have been receiving. Is the Scottish Government still receiving concerns from businesses? Can you tell us to what extent those adjustments have helped? Can you repeat the middle one? You said exemptions and your third one said it was online sales. What was the middle one? Increased handling fees? All that work has been done exactly in response to industry requests. One of the interesting things about this project is that the legislation that has passed by the Scottish Parliament was relatively broad. That was to allow industry to come up with the solution that they wanted. That is an industry-led scheme. Of course, there are two major halves of that scheme. One is the producers who have to pay into the scheme, and the other half is the retailers who have to implement the scheme, because it is them who will be selling your bottle and taking it back. You can imagine that there is push and pull in this relationship, because the producers want to pay in as little as possible—of course they do—and the retailers want to be paid as much as possible for the work that they are doing. That is an internal negotiation that happened that Circulary Scotland is managing to manage those tensions within industry. Specifically, the exemption was around the small businesses who said, we can see your exemptions in the regs. How does that mean for us? We have put in place this process with Zero Waste Scotland. It is on their website and, as I say, that is now active. The handling fees and the producer fees have also been addressed in the last few months. Circulary Scotland made some initial calculations based on initial estimates of what those fees might be. The industry came back and went, please think again. With the exemption process in place, that meant that they could change their modelling about how many return points there would be and that they were able to adjust those figures. The producer fees have gone down and the return point handling fees have gone up. Because Circulary Scotland itself is a not-for-profit organisation, it does not keep any of that money. All that money goes to reducing the cost of the scheme. The idea is that, as the scheme beds in and becomes more efficient, and as we get past that day-one costs and so on, the idea is that those fees can be revisited in line with that more efficiently running scheme as we go forward. The last point that the member brought up there was about online sales. That is in the regulations. However, it was flagged to myself and my colleagues so strongly that the online obligation as written in the regs just simply was not deliverable. Businesses have said that they can get on and deliver a more traditional scheme, like what we have in other countries, which is based on reverse fending machines and manual return points. However, online take-back, which no other country does to the extent that we had put into our regs, just simply was not going to be possible on the timescale. That is one where I have heard business and said, you know what? You are right. I can see that that is not going to be possible on the timescale. We have committed to removing that obligation from the regulations, so those regulations will come for amendment to Parliament, removing that obligation for online take-back and phasing it in for larger retailers starting in 2025. Minister, just before we move on, I have a quick question, just so I understand this. A lot of rural areas have one small convenience store, which will sell convenience goods. Most people use it on an ad-hoc basis, but go to the bigger towns and settlements to get their messages at a weekend and bring them back. There is no other shop in the village, so there is no proximity, so they cannot get away from being a deposit return scheme. They cannot argue environmental health because there is no environmental health, they are just selling it. They are forced to have a deposit return scheme, and they will be forced to take containers from the big shops where most people get their shopping at the weekend into the little shop, which means that they are going to end up with a storage yard probably as big as the shop. Is that the way that you see it, or have I completely misunderstood that? One of the things that we have yet to see is how consumer patterns manage. Will people do a bit like they do with bags now, since we have the 5p charge, where they keep the bags in the back of their car and take them with them when they do their big shop on the weekend? It is a concern that has been raised with me by small retailers that people will do that, that they will take all their bottles back to the big shop and therefore not do the footfall in the small shops. It is yet to see exactly how that pattern will work out so that we understand the exact volumes that each business will get, because consumer behaviour is something that we will need to observe and adapt the system for. However, there is a proportionality clause in the regulations whereby small, especially manual return points, someone ramps up with a van full of cans and tries to return it to a small shop where they have not got the space, they can turn those away. I think that I understand that. I think that my point is that you are not going to take cans in your containers back on the bus to get your shopping at the weekend, much easier to put them into the local shop before you go. I think that it is a problem and I am just interested about that. That is common for the schemes around the world. That is normally how they work. Common to replicate problems. Common to where both the local shops and the big shops take returns so that consumers can decide where they want to return them. Liam, you also have the next questions. I would like to follow up on an earlier question that convener raised. The convener talked earlier on about the cost of a basket, if you like, the cost of shopping. We know that DRS could add up to 40p per unit. Given the cost of living crisis and the increase in cost of the weekly shop, has the Government investigated, has the Government done any research on what impact the scheme might have on inflation? The research that we have done is looking at schemes around the world and similar schemes. The deposit itself is fully refundable, so it does not add to inflation because, when you pay your 20p, you get that 20p back again. You were talking about the 20p being cost-neutral, but we know that there are other costs that could, or perhaps will, be factored into that, which are not recoverable. I ask again, very clearly, has the Government got anything that I can read that can be published that shows the impact on inflation of the scheme? Is the member asking about what costs business might add because the deposit itself is the 10-20p that you pay, and then you get that back again, so that is neutral? What businesses charge for their products is not a matter for the Scottish Government? Has the Scottish Government done any research on the impact on inflation of the DRS scheme in Scotland? Yes or no? The member will recall that we have got the briar that was done before the legislation that was passed, which talked about the impact and economic assessment of that. That work that was done was fully documented at that time. I wonder then, going on to the convener's other question, the point that you just made now, I was quite concerned by the minister's response. The direct question is, has the Government got any data, or has it done any investigation on what impact adding up to 40p per container will have on consumer purchasing behaviours such as the type of products, the format of the things that they are buying, or have you not modelled what impact the scheme will have on consumer behaviour? I do not recognise the member's assertion about 40p. That is not a number that I recognise, and it is not a number that is in terms of the cost of the scheme. It is 20p, and you get that 20p back. However, in terms of the consumer behaviour and format switching, we do not think that there will be extensive format switching, for instance from small units to large units, in order to reduce any perceived markup in the deposit. As I have noted repeatedly, the deposit is fully refundable, and retailers are required to display that information, showing that that deposit is refundable. There are lots of other deciding factors for consumers such as practicality, convenience and brand preference, and the presentation of the product. Evidence suggests that product or format switching has occurred in other countries with DRS. It is rare that it can only be attributed to DRS, so we think that there really will be only limited impacts in this respect. Will you publish what it is, the evidence that you have put together, that is collated, that leads you to come to that conclusion as to what you think? I am happy to share with the member what information we have on format switching. Very grateful. Final question from me in this section, minister. Many small independent businesses have suggested that they are disproportionately impacted upon, and some have suggested that the viability of their businesses may be at risk when the scheme comes in. Minister, were those concerns factored into the Scottish Government's initial impact assessments such that they were known about and the Scottish Government knew those concerns would be? Or are those concerns new to the Government? Is the member referring to concerns from small retailers or small producers? Of course, one is in receipt of fees and the other pays the fees. I am concerned about both, but the point that I am making is that many small businesses, whether producers or retailers, have suggested that their businesses are at risk from the DRS scheme. Were those risks known about and factored in by the Scottish Government when it was putting the scheme together? Or have those concerns come as a surprise to the Government following the implementation and publication of the details of the scheme? The scheme that we have in Scotland, as passed by the Scottish Parliament back in 2020, is very much in line with the schemes around the world. In terms of nothing is a surprise, what we are doing here is exactly along the lines of what is being done in other countries. I will address the producers and retailers separately, so on the producer side, the intention, of course, is to be fair to all producers to have a fair scheme, but it is absolutely a proportional scheme. Fees to the scheme are based on—I will get the date in front of me—it is proportionately because producer fees are charged for each individual container, so it will be proportionate inherently to the size of business. A small producer such as a craft brewery will pay significantly less than a larger producer. Additional cash flow measures that Circulary Scotland announced two or three weeks ago ago now benefit all producers, but proportionately small producers more. When we passed the regulations in Scotland, we passed something that was so much in other countries and then it is up to the businesses themselves, as I discussed when answering the other member's question, to manage that push and pull between the producers who pay in and the retailers who take those fees. Let me just be clear, minister, because I asked you a very direct question. The Scottish Government knew then, from what you are saying, because you looked around the world and looked at what was happening elsewhere, that the Scottish Government knew that small retailers would be disproportionately impacted and some businesses' viability would be threatened. That is not what I said at all. So, you did not do that? I said that what we are doing is that our scheme here is similar to others. I know what you are doing, minister. I am asking you a direct question. Did you know that small retailers would be disproportionately impacted and that businesses would be threatened? Or did the Scottish Government not do that? I do not agree with the member's representation there that small businesses are disproportionately impacted. The measures that we have put in place have been to support small producers particularly. I can go through those again. The measures that we have put in place to small producers are specifically to support them. One of them is the proportionality of producer fees so that small producers have the same proportionality as large ones because it is per individual container. Equally, there are the cash flow measures that specifically help small producers. In terms of small retailers, our fees for manual return points are the highest in the world for our small retailers. Our small retailers, those who operate those manual return points, are better off than their compatriots around the world. We are doing more for small businesses with our scheme than other schemes around the world that are highly successful. I do not agree with the member's representation of that at all. I think that that has taken that as far down there as it is going to go. More questions from the deputy convener, Fiona Hyslop. I would like to ask about the March gateway review. Is that currently taking place and who conducts that? Absolutely. We have had, as you know, several gateway reviews on the project. There is currently one under way this week and we will get the results of that imminently. The gateway review teams normally speak with 12 to 15 interviewees, including relevant commercial and external stakeholders, for example prime contractors and consultants, the people who are actually doing the work. They will give their assessment and we will get to find out exactly how they think we are getting on. Who does the gateway review for you? The gateway review is basically a panel of independent people. Deputy convener, the current person who is leading has led previous reviews and he is supplemented by an expert on IT systems and another expert looking at finance and governance issues. I know that there has been previous criticism that there has not been international input into gateway review. My understanding from government gateway reviews that would not be normal in any case and any international research or comparisons would have happened at the very start of the legislation and the regulations. Is that correct? In terms of the March gateway review, it will be fairly critical in understanding how fit for purpose and ready the scheme will be. Will it be published to enable scrutiny? When will it be published? How will progress be monitored and decisions taken in the run-up? I agree with the member that we definitely are awaiting with interest the results of this review. We are going to consider carefully the recommendations from the review and we will share them and its response with the committee in due course. Can you give us any advance of in due course? What kind of timeframe would we expect to see that? I do not have any further information on the timeframe of that. I do not know if we can commit to any time. That is probably not for me, but I can take up the second part of your question. How will it be monitored and taken forward? There is a whole range of different measures. We have a system-wide assurance group, which brings together CSL, SIPA and Scottish Government. That meets monthly. We also have an executive oversight group, which meets monthly. The minister meets with the CEO of CSL monthly and others as needed. Every Monday, I sit down with the CEO of SIPA and CSL and their teams to monitor progress. For the purposes of this Parliament and this committee's scrutiny and accountability, it would be helpful for our planning if we got some indication at some point soon as to when we might be expected to see the Gateway review published if you could agree to do so. We will do what we can there, thank you. Finally, will that Gateway review identify if there are sufficient and adequate resources for SIPA and Zeroway Scotland in particular, because they are a key part of the scheme? We will have to obviously wait for what that Gateway review comes up with. The previous Gateway reviews had given us the steer, for example, for streamlining the exemption process. That was an instruction or a bit of advice that came straight out of a Gateway review that we were then able to go and implement along with their guidance. The Gateway reviews are very constructive and they are very detailed in terms of saying, look, here's where you've got some challenges, here's what's going well, and here's something you can work on, and then that enables us to take that away, which we as I say have done on previous Gateway reviews. We're all looking forward to seeing that and hopefully we'll have some constructive input for us. As we will, convener. Thank you very much. It would be helpful to have the idea of timescales for the Gateway review as the deputy convener has asked. Mark, you have some questions on that. Yeah, thanks convener. I don't think it's been useful to get clarification on a number of areas this morning, but I wanted to look forward. It is a very ambitious scheme. It's what the Parliament voted for. It would be unthinkable that there wouldn't be some teething issues post-August in terms of the operation of the scheme. Has there been any thought as to what those issues might be going forward? I think you mentioned minister this morning that there will need to be continual analysis to make sure that there's adequate return points and that will be a role for CSL to continue to do that. I'm just wondering, looking forward, can we anticipate any issues that may arise, particularly on the basis of international comparisons and how CSL might deal with those? Absolutely. The scheme, as it looks on August 16th this year, is probably going to look quite different than the scheme, for example 18 months down the line. When a scheme like this launches, the first stage after launch is what we call the cutover period. That is always a challenging period, because at that point, when you start to sell those scheme articles from the shops, most of what you have in your house, most of the litter that's on the street, for example, they are not scheme articles. From August 16th, if you go and do your citizenly duty and pick up a can from the side of the road and take it to a return point, it will get rejected on that day, because it is not a scheme article because it was sold before the date. There will be a period during this cutover period where there are some scheme articles in circulation, but quite a lot of materials that are not in circulation. It will take some number of weeks for scheme articles to become predominant. A big part of what we have to manage is this ramp-up into the scheme. There are tried and tested ways of doing this and learnings that we can have from other countries, because that is a challenging period. We have to make sure that our consumer comms are clear so that customers understand why this bottle that they bought on the 17th can go back, but this bottle that they bought on the 15th can't. That is definitely a challenging period for us to manage, because we all want people's first experience of the scheme to be a positive one for their bottle to get accepted and to get the 20p back and use that voucher to shop, or that 20p to spend as they wish. Absolutely that cutover period is critical. What we will also start to see as those materials gradually ramp up is what consumer behaviour looks like. As Mr Mountain points out, does the consumer tend to bring things back to the big shops? Do they use a mix of small and large? How does that work? That means that Befa and Circularity Scotland are going to need to be very reactive and dynamic. I am very much hoping that they will be working with them to put in process such that a small business who says, oh my goodness, my bins are full. Befa, come and get them. Have a mechanism for doing that for updating. They are saying, do you know what? I thought I was going to get 10,000 items back a week. I am actually only getting 3,000. We need to adjust our schedule and so on. There is going to need to be at a period of adjustment and optimization as the scheme sells in. I would absolutely expect that to be the case. I can absolutely anticipate already that there may be communities going, but there is not a point that is convenient to me. How can I get that? I have not been able to get collections. There will be some of those issues that we will need to be dynamic. It is my intention to facilitate a reaction force to this so that people know who to call, businesses know who to call when they say, look, my bins are overflowing or I can't return. There will be a process where they can say, here is how I find out how to get my 20Ps back. The scheme will ramp up and adapt over the first year. Indeed, the targets that we have set for recycling have come into effect after a year or two years to hit those. I will have to get correct on that, but when it is ramp up with the recognition that it is not going to be 90 per cent recycling on day 1 as the scheme beds in, we will work towards that 90 per cent recycling target. That is a clear target for CSL to be aiming for. Is that right for a driver? That is right. They are under statute blides to return that level of recycling. In terms of the black spots and the collections of stuff, CSL has to have a comprehensive network of return points to enable that to allow them to hit those points because they can be penalised as an organisation if they do not meet their statutory obligations. Have you finished on the teathing issues? There is a supplementary on that before you go on to your next one. I am very happy to take it. I realise that we are going to move on to a different area in a minute. I was just going to make the point in the community that it is important to circularity Scotland that we have got an opportunity to question them in the weeks ahead as well because there is some real nitty gritty stuff in here, which would be good to get some evidence on. Liam Kerr has asked a question on teathing, and then we will come back to you, Mark. I am very grateful, convener, on to Mark Ruskell for letting me in. I saw, Minister, one trade association warning that around 40 per cent of products could disappear from shelves in Scotland. Does the Scottish Government recognise that this is a possibility? Is this what happened in other countries when you were looking? Has the Scottish Government taken any moves, or is there something that you can do to counteract it? We already know that 95 per cent of materials by volume are signed up. The counteraction to this any risk is to make sure that we bring producers online so that they can continue to sell in Scotland. All those measures that we are doing to support producers to sign up to the scheme, including cash flow measures and labelling measures and any further measures that we agree with them, are exactly that to allow that variety of producers to continue to sell in Scotland. The labelling one is particularly of interest when it comes to the importation of wines, for example. That was a specific ask from our wine importers, because you can imagine the difficulty if you are only importing 500 bottles of wine from a vinerie in France. They are going to go, I am not putting a Scottish label on that quite reasonably. That is exactly the kind of thing that labelling was designed for. Our estimate is that about 15,000 products will use that sticky label solution. It is absolutely not the vision that our products are restricted. We are working to make sure that we continue to have a wide variety of products on the market. You suggest for absolute clarity that you do not recognise that warning that 40 per cent of products will disappear. I want to start to ask some questions and others want to come in on that as well, just around the UK internal market act exclusion. There are questions there about process and you asked what and when, but I just wanted to start off by asking you about scenario planning. If there is not an exclusion under the internal market act, what happens then? What is the consequence of that? How do you plan for that? Can you start with answering that one, please? I think that that is premature. The Scottish Government has been and continues to follow the agreed process for excluding the DRS regulations for the internal market act. Ewan is the absolute expert in this, but I am going to give you what I have on this and then Ewan can add additional detail. The exclusion is not just one of the things the whim of the UK Government or not. The exclusions for the internal market act are agreed under frameworks. The framework is an agreed process by which the devolved administrations in the UK protect devolved matters. The waste and resources framework is there to protect the Scottish Government's ability to legislate in devolved areas. Under that framework, we put together the evidence and case that this matter, which we are considering, which in this case is 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. That is the stages that we have gone through to get to an exclusion. Ewan will be able to add so much more detail than I have got. I think that the ministers sit out very well. It is important for the committee to keep in mind that the exclusion process that is agreed with the UK Government and the other devolved Governments was expressly designed to avoid this rather binary Scottish Government asks UK Government to decide model that has characterised some recent comments. The common frameworks are agreed into governmental structures that predate the internal market act and were designed to move this into a more collaborative evidence-based space. One of the many issues with the internal market act was the threat that posed to the viability of the operation of common frameworks. The fact that, late in the day, the UK Government brought forward an amendment that would allow policy diversions to be agreed through a common framework to not be subject to the market access provisions in the act is very welcome. We are nearing the end of the process, as the common framework has indicated that an exclusion should be granted. That recommendation is now under consideration by ministers in all the UK Administrations. The other point to make clear is that UK ministers alone are the only actors in the system that have the powers to give effect to that exclusion as the act confers the necessary powers only on UK ministers. The matter will be under active consideration by the lead minister, the Secretary of State for DEFRA, and we expect an answer very soon. However, that is not a question of it should not be looked at as a stage of we submit an application and it is either approved or rejected. We expect things to move in a predictable, transparent and evidence-based way. We are confident that the case has been made clearly and collaboratively with the UK Government through the common framework process. I am getting words of reassurance about the process and how the common framework has been working and continues to work. However, there is still a potential threat that the exclusion is not granted. What happens then? As the minister pointed out, we are not thinking in that way at the moment because where that to be the case without any further reasoning or reference to the evidence that has been gathered through the common framework process would represent a very significant threat to the agreed common framework process that we have in place where we collaborate as equals in that space with UK Government and the other devolved Administrations. The repercussions would be significant for a key plank of intergovernmental structures that have been put in place since EU exit. One of the, frankly, rare examples of things progressing quite well is that they have created a space for more collaboration. Where we would see a situation arise where UK ministers declined to use the powers that they have to give effect to an exclusion, we would need to understand with urgency how they came to that consideration, how they came to that view in light of the common framework, recommending that an exclusion should be implemented to remove the confusion and uncertainty that the internal market act is causing. The recommendation for the exclusion has been made on the basis of evidence. Rejecting that evidence would be outwith the framework that is intended to work. If that was the case, as you and suggest, that would be a very significant breakdown in the collaborative working of the two Governments, of all the devolved Governments. If that were the case, given the sort of big deal nature that that would be, then the Scottish ministers will set out our next steps at that point. Collette sitting very quietly there, your questions now. Yeah, Marx kind of touched upon it and thanks, convener. One of the ministers really considers the resource and waste common framework in process for agreeing the new exclusions from the UK internal market act to be fit for purpose based on the lessons that in relation to both the DRS and single use plastics, including how the provisional common framework might need to be amended to reflect much more recent developments that we have heard of today. Yes, I'll give my view and then I'll hand it over to you and who, of course, is the expert in this space. 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. As long as the framework is being used as intended, I think it is working well. I guess the question on the table is whether UK ministers will break that framework, will break that agreement, Ewan. Thanks minister. A couple of observations. Common frameworks, as I noted, predates the internal market act. There was agreement at JMC European negotiations in October 2017 to embark on work to agree these intergovernmental structures to manage by agreement some of the practical regulatory effects of the devolution settlements no longer operating in the context of EU membership. That includes UKG legislating and devolve matters for England. The framework process is underpinned by a set of ministerial agreed framework principles. Those include an agreement that common frameworks will be used to ensure the functioning of the UK's internal market while acknowledging policy divergence. A very important point, a recognition that in any internal market there is always a balance to be struck between market efficiencies, trade flows and the preservation of the rights and responsibilities to make rules locally that are fit for local circumstances. It was a very unfortunate development when the internal market bill was introduced. There was a great deal of concern from the Scottish Government, the Welsh Government, parties in the Royal Mile Assembly, wide agreement amongst academic and legal commentators in many sectors that they act posed problems, not least in how it would interact with the intended operation of common frameworks. In effect, it removes the incentive to try and manage these processes by agreement if there is an automatic application of the market access provisions in most relevant cases. The act is very unusual. It is not like other internal market regimes elsewhere. It is very rigid in its application and it also has no counter-availing proportionality principles underlying it. That is part of the reason you see this propensity for confusion and lack of clarity, because there is little that you can do to temper and balance the broad requirement to maintain mutual recognition and not discrimination in all cases. Common frameworks have started their operation in not the most auspicious of circumstances. We have, as I said, a late amendment to the act that creates a little bit of space for common great frameworks that operate as intended, and we had some welcome commitments from UK ministers as to how that will be used, which presupposes a degree of automatic flow from an agreement being reached on a common framework to manage, to agree to policy divisions and to manage that, to seek an exclusion from the internal market act as required and UK ministers subsequently using the powers that only they have to give effect to that exclusion. It is important not to chuck the baby out with the bath water here. There are lessons to be learnt about the operation of common frameworks. Those lessons are made more complex and challenging by how we manage the interaction between common frameworks and the act. They are, in many ways, if not incompatible, very difficult to reconcile approaches, but we have the opportunity to do so. It is an added reason why it is very important that we see the process run as intended through to the granting of an exclusion, in this case, to give greater confidence that the common frameworks programme has space to operate as intended. That is a very detailed statement from me, so rather than go back to Ewan, I would like to see if Collette wants to come in, sorry, go back to the minister. I would rather see if Collette wants to come in with a supplementary for the minister based on what she has just heard. Yeah, just quickly, and thanks, convener, for that. It was a very detailed response, so thank you for that. However, just in terms of the exclusion process, do you think that there needs to be a clearer definition of what form I request for a new UK internal market act exclusion should take? How should that look? I think that the question here is that there is no request. That is not part of the process. The process has been agreed, as Ewan outlines, in terms of that common framework and the process for it. That is not a question of requesting and being accepted or rejected. It is a question of working through that framework to present evidence and then working with that evidence. I think that it is very unfortunate that, for example, Alistair Jack has presented this way in the media. That is not accurate. That is not how this works. For the record, Alistair Jack has not attended any of the IMG meetings where we have discussed this matter, and he has not corresponded with me on this matter. He does not know how the framework works, and so his comments are unfortunately not very helpful. With the greatest respect, we have been trying to keep this very apolitical, and I do not think that it is the right place in the situation to call somebody out, in the same that what we have been trying to do is to understand the mechanics of the operation today. I am very happy to let you to conclude, but I try to take the personalities out and avoid making criticisms of people, as we have agreed to do in this committee. I understand, convener. As Ewan said, the waste and resources common framework is the right structure for this, and it is not helpful to frame it as a request and accept a decline. That is not how the process works. It is an evidence-based process. Liam Zarls, for a supplementary question, and I have a very quick question at the end. Thank you. On the practicalities Mercedes Villalba, I thought that I asked a very salient question about hospitality earlier on. As I understand it, Biffa is the only logistics operator in the scheme, so hospitality venues will be required to work with Biffa. Are you able to tell the committee why that contract was not put out to tender, but in any event, and perhaps more crucially, what happens to existing contracts that venues might have with other waste management companies when Biffa comes in to take over? The first part of that question in terms of the contract with Biffa Circulary Scotland is a private not-for-profit organisation. As a private company, their procurement procedures are entirely their business and not for government to be involved at all. They are not a public company, so their procurement procedures do not apply to them. In terms of existing hospitality logistics, I am certain that CSL and Biffa are keen to use existing infrastructure where possible and where companies wish to be involved in the scheme. CSL and Biffa are encouraging those infrastructure providers to contact them about how they can be involved. The overall goal of the scheme is to produce more and better quality recyclet. That means collecting the scheme articles. They need to be separate, as the member has noted. They are value and have a separate value. That does not mean that that encompasses all the recycled materials that hospitality venues will deal with. There will be other containers—for example, other glass containers, other plastic containers, which are not scheme articles. Those materials will still require collection. Indeed, with the scheme articles taken out of the system, it is true for local authorities and private providers that that opens up their bandwidth and capacity to collect other materials. For example, we can all see that collections on things like soft plastics that more work can be done in pots, tubs and trays—those are other kinds of materials. That should broaden out our ability to recycle across the spectrum, as well as increasing it specifically in scheme article materials. We are running short of time, Minister, just with both of our agendas. I was interested in your comment about small producers outwith Scotland who are producing and selling some goods in Scotland but not much of their I am just trying to understand. I think that you gave the example of wine coming in. However, if one of the big multiples wants to get a small producer in and circularity Scotland are going to give them the labels to stick it on, I do not understand what the process of sticking it on is. Is that by one of the retailers just before it goes out the door? Is it on the point of when they are imported into Scotland? How does that work? Surely that is going to add cost and reduce choice. Those labels are provided free of cost from Circularity Scotland to businesses to whom that applies. That means that the people who are importing small quantities or producing small quantities do not have to come up with bespoke labelling. That does bridge that gap. In terms of the actual organisational detail of at which point that is put on, because materials often pass through multiple wholesalers and retailers and so on, I would have to come back to the member. Or indeed, when you have David Harris here in two weeks, that sort of operational detail would be a good one to ask him as well. I am sure that that is a question that we will ask because I am sure that some of the big multiples want to get down to sticking on labels and normal convenience stores for small quantities of product. It has been a very interesting session, minister. Thank you very much for your time. I am sure that there will be further questions from the committee with Circularity Scotland, who I think are coming in on the 28th of this month to answer questions. Thank you very much. I am going to continue on, minister, because we have one item further in public. I am sure that you will be able to slip away quietly, as it were, as we move on to that. The next item is a gender item 5, which is consideration of a negative instrument, the World Road Works Reinstatement Quality Plans Qualifications of Supervisors and Operatives and Miscellaneous Amendments Scotland Regulations 2023. The instrument is laid under the negative procedure, which means that the provisions will come into force unless the Parliament agrees to a motion to annull them. I have to say that at this stage no motion to annull has been laid. Do any members have any comments on the instrument? Can I suggest that the committee agrees that it does not want to make any further recommendations in relation to the instrument, and are we agreed on that? We are agreed on that, and that is the way it will be. Thank you all. That concludes our public meeting, and we will now go into private session.