���˿���

Absolutely. Mark Ruskell is absolutely right that the Circular Economy (Scotland) Bill establishes a legislative framework to support the transition. Each provision of the bill has an associated parliamentary procedure under which secondary legislation could be brought.

Mark Ruskell specifically mentioned charging for single-use items. There is intended to be a super-affirmative procedure attached to that when it is a new charge. For example, the introduction of a charge for single-use coffee cups would be done under the super-affirmative procedure. However, if we were to subsequently modify that charge, how it worked or any aspect of those regulations, that would be done under the affirmative procedure.

Ailsa Heine might be able to provide some more detail on the super-affirmative procedure.

As far as I understand it—I will get Ailsa Heine to clarify this, if I do not have all the detail—under the super-affirmative procedure, it is not set in stone exactly what must be undertaken. We can use our judgment as to what would be appropriate for different provisions, if there is a concern, for example, about speed.

Thank you for taking the time to consider the draft Plant Health (Fees) (Forestry) (Scotland) (Amendment) Regulations 2023. The regulations would amend Scottish legislation in the field of plant health. They introduce provision to extend the duration of an exemption from the requirement to pay fees for phytosanitary certificates for forestry exports from Scotland to Northern Ireland, in certain circumstances, under the UK Government’s movement assistance scheme. That will support Scottish exporters after the transition period and will ensure that Scottish exporters retain access to the same support as their English and Welsh counterparts.

As Northern Ireland remains part of the European Union plant health system, exports from Scotland to Northern Ireland are required to fulfil EU entry requirements, including phytosanitary certificates. The movement assistance scheme, which is funded by the UK Government, temporarily removes the requirement for exporters to pay fees associated with obtaining a phytosanitary certificate for the export of plants and plant products to Northern Ireland. The movement assistance scheme has been extended to June 2025.

The draft regulations also include a minor amendment to the wording of schedule 1 of the Plant Health (Fees) (Forestry) (England and Scotland) Regulations 2015 in order to provide greater clarity on the scope of activities that may be carried out in relation to audit inspections by competent authorities of professional operators authorised to issue GB plant passports.

I consider the regulations necessary and appropriate. My officials and I would be happy to take questions from the committee.

The difference is that this is a strategic bill, where we are setting out our strategic intentions to reduce waste, to improve opportunities in recycling, and to be able to create jobs in that circular economy. That is absolutely our strategic intention, and the bill is strategic. The specific pieces of policy implementation will be part of the secondary legislation and, indeed, work on our route map and so forth as we go forward. The details of specific provisions—for example, the reporting of waste from a specific industry, such as the cosmetics industry—will be developed with that industry. That is exactly the point. At this point, this is the strategic level and, therefore, we are putting in strategic level implications.

I think that the correct process for bringing forth legislation of this complexity is to first enable, as the bill does, the start of that conversation. If one does not do that, one will end up in a situation in which councils and businesses are asked to invest a substantial amount of time to undertake the development of legislation that may never get through the Parliament; it may not happen. That would be the wrong way around. You would be asking stakeholders to design a process that we did not even have the powers to implement, and you would be sitting in a committee much like this asking councils to develop something that you would not even know whether you had the powers to implement.

We must understand that we have these enabling powers so that we can then say to councils, “We have the powers to implement this. You can have that certainty. Let us work on the detail together.” If you had it the other way around, you could do a whole lot of work without those powers in place, and how would you prioritise that work?

The bill brings forward 11 provisions—I have just counted. Several of those have provisions underneath them for bringing policy forward. There will be separate co-design processes for different elements. For example, under the single-use charges, the initial policy that we are looking to bring forward is a charge for single-use cups. The process for developing that with businesses, householders and local authorities is separate from the process for developing a common code of practice for local authorities and waste, for example. That would be separate from developing targets or, indeed, from developing the reporting for waste and so on.

The bill has many provisions. There will not be a single co-design process. As we bring forward each of the policies under the bill, each will have its own timescale. I believe that those will be enumerated in more detail in the route map. Maybe one of my colleagues can elaborate on that.

All of that would require development. The costs that are outlined with regard to the bill include those relating to the development of those policies and the engagement that is required for them, as well as enforcement costs down the line. The framework bill sets things in place so that we can develop processes for the next time a product like a single-use vape is produced.

There is no day on which this will be finished; we will always be on the journey towards a circular economy. The bill takes us to the next step by creating the enabling powers. The financial memorandum shows the funding for the next step in relation to the horizon that we can see. For every step after that, as each regulation is brought to the Parliament, there will be impact assessments and the details will be scrutinised.

Absolutely. Extended producer responsibility for packaging, which, I am afraid, does not roll beautifully off the tongue, is a groundbreaking provision that is being brought in, as you correctly said, at UK level. It is a polluter-pays scheme. The idea, at the simplest level, is that all producers of packaging will pay fees to a UK-wide scheme administrator, which will take those fees and allocate them to local authorities all over the UK so that they can run efficient and effective household packaging and collection services.

Those matters are still very much under discussion, and I understand that the discussions are going well. I have been pushing for the process of allocation to be transparent and to take into account the geographic nature of regions—I am thinking, for example, of the additional challenges that lower-density population regions such as islands and rural areas face—so that each council gets a fair allocation. My understanding of the process so far is that that has been accepted by the four nations and that the allocation of the funding will go directly from the scheme administrator to local authorities. That is my understanding of the state of those discussions. I am very keen that that is additional money, and I have discussed that in the conversations that I have had with my ministerial counterparts in the UK and the other nations. If we are asking councils to do more, they need that additionality so that they can implement the scheme.

I understand that. Councils have been on a journey towards the existing code of practice. Looking ahead, we absolutely need to go through the co-design process. One of the challenges of co-design is that one has to wait for the outcome of that process. In the financial memorandum, we have given some illustrative examples of where we would like to start, such as the single-use coffee cup charge, and food waste and food reporting. Where we know that that is the provision that we intend to work with initially, we have provided funding around those initiatives.

The open question is, after those initial initiatives, how would all of us, collectively, like to move forward? After reporting on food waste has been achieved, what other sectors would be interested? Members have talked to me about textile waste, construction waste and so on. We could take forward reporting on those things after we have brought in reporting on food waste. In the financial memorandum, we have presented all the information that we have about how we are going to start the journey strategically, and about specific provisions, where we already know what those will be.

From the bill?