���˿���

There is no request—that is not part of the process. As Euan outlined, the common frameworks process has been agreed. It is not a question of making a request that is then accepted or rejected; it is a question of working through the framework in order to present evidence and then working with that evidence. It is unfortunate that Alister Jack has presented it in that way in the media, as it is not accurate. It is not how the process works. For the record, Alister Jack has not attended any of the interministerial group meetings at which we have discussed the matter, nor has he corresponded with me on the matter. He does not know how the frameworks process works, so his comments about it are, unfortunately, not very helpful.

I understand, convener. As Euan has said, the resources and waste common framework has the right structure, and it is not helpful to frame the process as involving a request that needs to be accepted or declined. That is not how the process works. The decision-making process is evidence based.

On the contract with Biffa, Circularity Scotland is a private, not-for-profit organisation and, as such, its procurement procedures are entirely its business and are not for the Government to be involved in. It is not a public company, so public procurement procedures do not apply to it.

On existing hospitality logistics, I know that CSL and Biffa are keen to use existing infrastructure where possible and that they are encouraging providers that wish to be involved in the scheme to contact them to discuss that.

The overall goal of the scheme is to produce more and better-quality recyclate. That means collecting the scheme articles separately—they need to be separate because, as the member has noted, they have separate values. That does not mean that the scheme encompasses all the recycling materials that hospitality venues deal with. There will be other containers, such as other glass and plastic containers, that are not scheme articles, and those materials will still require to be collected.

Once the scheme articles are taken out of the system, that will open up the bandwidth and capacity for local authorities and private providers to collect other materials. For example, I think that we can all see that more work could be done on the collection of materials such as soft plastics and pots, tubs and trays. The scheme should therefore broaden our ability to recycle across the spectrum as well as increasing recycling specifically in relation to scheme article materials.

The labels will be provided free of charge by Circularity Scotland to businesses to which that circumstance applies. That means that people who are importing or producing small quantities will not have to come up with bespoke labelling. The labels will bridge the gap.

On the organisational detail about the point at which the labels are put on, given that materials often pass through multiple wholesalers and retailers, I would have to come back to the member on that. Alternatively, when the committee has David Harris here in, I think, two weeks’ time, it would be good to ask him about that sort of operational detail.

In relation to the convener’s comment, it is important to remember that the biggest threat to wildlife and to birds is climate change. When you get colony collapse, whereby a colony of tens of thousands of individual birds collapses down to only a few members, that is due to climate change. That is the biggest threat to birds, and our energy transition is an important part of how we protect all species, including birds.

Yes. We expect it to be published this year.

That is absolutely an approach that I would welcome. It is not necessarily a question of competing interests, particularly in the sea space. One of the groups that I met at COP15 was the representatives from California. They have had no-take zones for many years, which is the equivalent of our highly protected marine areas. When they implemented those zones, there were concerns from fishers about how they would impact on their work and business, but they have found that the no-take zones allow for species to breed and thrive uninterrupted, which improves their yields as fishers.

This is not necessarily an either/or thing. The member is absolutely right that we need to consult, to ensure that we put such areas in the right places and to ensure that stakeholders and communities are absolutely engaged.

It is not necessarily part of the vision that such things are in conflict. Highly protected marine areas, with a no-take zone, give fish a place to breed, thrive and increase their numbers. As they move out from those zones, they are then available to fishers. Such areas can be an advantage that works for everyone.

We would have to consider exactly what would happen in that situation. I am happy to write to the member with details on exactly how that would work.

Clearly, the business registrations process has to be on-going, because new businesses start up all the time, so that is necessary, but I am happy to write to the member with detail on exactly how that will work and on what the delay will be between being registered and being able to sell on the Scottish market.

You can register at any time. However, that also means that, if businesses are not sure that they will be ready for 16 August or they have not decided, they can apply for an exemption, if that is applicable to them. For example, if the owner of a small cafe thinks that they cannot deal with the scheme this year and they apply for an exemption, they could reapply later to be a return point. It is not a permanent decision.

The member is absolutely right. The scheme has to work for every person in Scotland because every person in Scotland will pay their 20p and so they need to be able to get it back easily and conveniently. That is how the scheme is intended to work.

At the moment, exemption is an opt-out process. By default, all businesses that sell the containers are obliged to be return points. Therefore, any convenience store in a small town or on an island where you can buy drinks also has to be a return point unless it is exempt.

It is absolutely the intention that that will be the mechanism in small rural and remote areas. The place where someone buys their juice should also be the place where they return the item. The proximity exemptions are much more likely to apply in urban areas where a group of shops are close together. They will not apply in rural areas where there is only one shop, for example.

Circularity Scotland and Biffa are very conscious of “black spots”, which is the industry term. As the registrations for return points come in, they will monitor the situation very closely and engage with any businesses that appear to be in a black spot to ensure that there are adequate return points. I believe that Biffa is also looking at the possibility of mobile return points to collect from very rural areas.