Meeting of the Parliament

Meeting date: Tuesday, March 21, 2023

Official Report 983KB pdf

---

Topical Question Time

The next item of business is topical questions. As ever, short and concise questions and responses are appreciated.

---

Circularity Scotland (Chief Executive’s Salary)

To ask the Scottish Government what its position is on whether it is appropriate for the chief executive of Circularity Scotland to be paid a reported annual salary of £300,000. (S6T-01276)

Circularity Scotland is a not-for-profit company that is delivered and funded by industry in line with the polluter-pays principle. That structure is based on successful schemes elsewhere in Europe and was approved by the Scottish Parliament in 2020. Circularity Scotland is, therefore, separate from Government and we have no role in the recruitment of staff or their pay levels. Decisions on pay are made by the Circularity Scotland board, which is made up of members with a range of experience across a range of sectors. That is appropriate for a private company that is delivering an industry-led scheme.

The minister said that the scheme is business led, but let us be clear: it is being big business led at the moment. Only big businesses can become individual members of Circularity Scotland, and it would appear that only big businesses such as Biffa can get contracts for collecting bottles.

Let us also be clear that it was the minister who approved Circularity Scotland. It was not businesses but the minister who made that decision. Was she aware of the proposed wage structure for the company’s senior executive when she appointed Circularity Scotland as the scheme administrator? If not, when did she become aware of the plan to pay such excessive salaries, and has she at any time expressed concern about them? It seems that this monopoly has a licence from the minister to print money not for the benefit of producers but for the benefit of its bosses.

Circularity Scotland is a private, not-for-profit company, and it would be inappropriate for ministers to interfere with or comment on—[Interruption.] It is a private company.

Thank you. We will hear the minister.

Members of Circularity Scotland include the Scottish Grocers Federation, the Scottish Beer and Pub Association, the Society of Independent Brewers, the National Federation of Retail Newsagents and the Association of Convenience Stores. Those are the bodies that make up Circularity Scotland, and small businesses are powerfully represented.

The minister needs to learn to answer the questions that she is asked. I asked her whether she was aware of the wage structures when she appointed Circularity Scotland as the administrator, when she became aware and whether she has, at any time, expressed concern.

Given the importance of ensuring value for money, small producers are deeply worried about the cost of the scheme. Surely the minister should have asked for the information before she made the decision, because the regulations that the Parliament agreed are clear that applications

“for approval as a scheme administrator must be made to the Scottish Ministers”

and must

“include any ... information requested by the Scottish Ministers.”

Why was that information not requested? Given that the minister now knows what the excessive eye-watering salaries are, how does she expect small producers to sign up for a scheme when they are so clearly being ripped off and part of their fees is being used for the excessive salaries of bosses who are using Scotland as a stepping stone for their wider aim of running deposit return schemes right across the United Kingdom?

Circularity Scotland’s application to become scheme administrator was approved on 21 March 2021. Any other organisation can also apply to be scheme administrator provided that it can meet the requirements set out in the Deposit and Return Scheme for Scotland Regulations 2020. The DRS regulations were passed by the Parliament and CSL was an applicant that met those requirements.

Producers and small retailers have been an important part of designing and putting in place Scotland’s deposit return scheme, and Circularity Scotland has worked closely with them, including in improving cash flow from day 1 and having the highest return-handling fees for manual return points in the world.

It is clear from the minister’s failure, once again, to answer straightforward questions that Circularity Scotland Ltd is a creature that is entirely out of control. It is deciding its own policies, is deciding its own salaries and will decimate small businesses throughout Scotland, whether those be shops, pubs, clubs, brewers, distillers or recycling companies. In creating Circularity Scotland Ltd, has the minister not, on behalf of the Scottish Government, created a monster—a modern-day, 21st century Frankenstein—that is entirely out of control?

Circularity Scotland has been created by industry to support Scottish businesses to comply with the regulations that were passed by the Parliament. The approach of an industry-led scheme that is paid for by industry was supported by Scottish Labour and the Conservatives, and it is the same as schemes around the world. We are not reinventing the wheel here. Scotland’s scheme is in line with successful schemes around the world.

The minister cannot be serious. It is an insult to the Parliament that she comes here, is asked questions and then reads a scripted answer, whether or not it is relevant to the question that has been asked. Is she seriously saying that this not-for-profit company whose creation she has facilitated has nothing to do with her and that it can do what it likes? The people of Scotland will have formed their own views of those monstrous salary figures and of the incompetence of the minister, who is patently not fit for purpose.

I did not hear a question in there. Significant progress has been made towards Scotland’s deposit return scheme as we work towards our go-live date in August this year.

The Scottish Government has confirmed that Circularity Scotland is to be exempt from the Freedom of Information Act 2000. Does the minister agree that freedom of information should be extended to cover all providers of public services, including private firms that provide public services, such as Circularity Scotland?

Circularity Scotland is, indeed, a private not-for-profit company, and it is not subject to freedom of information legislation because it does not provide a public service as described by the member. Therefore, as a private company, it is not subject to freedom of information requests.

The minister has been dragged into the chamber, week after week, because of the secrecy that has shrouded this Scottish Government-led company. It took a leaked document for us to find out about the extraordinary salaries that are being paid by CSL. We cannot find out anything about CSL because the Scottish Government will not us allow us to FOI something when it does not want to answer a question. Lorna Slater has made CSL a private company so that she does not have to be held accountable and admit how badly the scheme is being rolled out. Is it not about time that she lifted the shroud of secrecy and allowed the Parliament and us parliamentarians to understand what is really going on with this DRS?

I have said it before but I am happy to repeat it over and over again: Scotland’s deposit return scheme is being delivered and funded by industry, and Scottish Labour and the Scottish Conservatives supported that approach, including the creation of an industry-led scheme administrator. Many of the questions that are being answered in the chamber could be answered by simply using Google, because CSL has an excellent website. I encourage members to look at it if they are unsure of the membership and board members of CSL.

Can members please resist the temptation to speak over ministers when they are responding?

---

Highly Protected Marine Areas (Impact on Fishing Industry)

To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation’s recent warnings about the potential impact of highly protected marine areas on the fishing industry. (S6T-01270)

I begin by acknowledging that I expect this issue to generate interest among many stakeholders. As with a lot of the issues in my environment and land reform portfolio, there is a spectrum of views on these issues, and views are often polarised to either end of that spectrum.

Just as I have tried to handle other similar matters, I give a cast-iron assurance that the process will engage broadly and deeply, including with all those who will be affected by the policy. I believe strongly in that approach.

However, I cannot answer the question without referring to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report that was published yesterday, which has been called a “survival guide for humanity” and which makes absolutely plain the urgency of the need to take action on the climate and nature emergencies.

We are in the early stages of developing highly protected marine areas. Our consultation is on-going and we are seeking views on what they should look like and how they should be selected and implemented. Fishing communities should be reassured that their views will be heard as part of that consultation, and the socioeconomic factors that affect the resilience of marine industries, fishers and coastal communities will be taken into account.

Last night, Scotland’s finance secretary echoed the words of Elspeth Macdonald from the SFF, who has said that the proposals are unevidenced and

“have been hijacked by the Greens and will push the fishing industry into the red.”

The Scottish National Party health secretary has different views and believes that the Greens are right.

Which of the two leading candidates to become Scotland’s First Minister does the environment minister agree with: the candidate who quotes industry experts, or the candidate who panders to Green party ideology?

I am not clear how that question is relevant to the issue of highly protected marine areas. I encourage Rachael Hamilton to focus on the issue at hand, which is something that is likely to be far more important to coastal and fishing communities than exchanges between candidates in the SNP leadership contest.

My position is exceptionally clear: we are in the teeth of a climate and nature crisis and the window within which we can take action commensurate with that challenge is narrowing. We must be bold, and the introduction of HPMAs is a bold proposal. By the same token, I am equally clear that everyone who will be affected by the policy will be deeply and widely consulted as we develop that policy.

Màiri McAllan is absolutely right: the SNP is indeed in crisis. Councillor Norman MacDonald said:

“It is clear, that Edinburgh-based Government Ministers and policy makers have no understanding of the devastating consequences these disgraceful HPMA proposals will have on the economy and community of the Outer Hebrides”.

The chairwoman of Tiree Community Development Trust has said that the island was

“perilously close to being non-viable”

with a local fisherman adding

“If this ... is landed on top of us, we would be wiped out overnight with one stroke of the pen on a chart.”

Furthermore, the SFF has been clear that the proposals, which would decimate a vital industry, are entirely unevidenced.

Will the Government listen, and will it commit to taking an evidence-based approach to HPMAs, or are we going to see a national-scale repeat of the Clyde cod box debacle, as was demanded by the Green party in return for its support for independence at the expense of the livelihoods and lives of fragile rural communities?

I am sure that my colleague Lorna Slater will not mind me speaking for her when I say that the Green party’s support for independence predates the issues that Rachael Hamilton has raised.

I hope that it has been demonstrably clear from my responses that consultation is at the core of how we are developing the proposal. That is why, on 12 December, I published a consultation paper, a policy framework, site selection guidelines, a partial island communities impact assessment, a partial business and regulatory impact assessment and initial sustainability appraisals. That is also why we have a significant programme of stakeholder engagement, beginning with the consultation and including taking some stakeholders through the process of responding to the consultation. I commit to continuing that process throughout the development of the policy.

The evidence, not least from the no-take zone in Lamlash Bay, is clear. Protected areas benefit both fishers and fish, and one hectare of protected ocean in which fishing is not permitted produces at least five times the quantity of fish that is produced by an equivalent unprotected hectare. Those fish can then swim into unprotected areas to be caught.

In the minister’s discussions with the fishing industry, will she continue to emphasise that highly protected marine areas ultimately serve the interests of fishers, as well as helping to restore marine biodiversity?

Kenneth Gibson is absolutely right. At the heart of our proposals, there are plans to do more, as he says, to protect essential fish habitats. We believe that a properly designed network of HPMAs will provide benefits to fishers and that the best way to realise those benefits is to work with fishers when designing the proposals. We are committed to a participatory process, some of which I have set out, that listens to the views of fishers, makes our coastal communities more resilient and absolutely recognises that the sustainability and health of our seas are good for fishers and for coastal communities; the process also listens to the imperative to tackle climate change.

The minister will be aware of the devastating consequences of the proposals and their impact on rural and island communities. Banning sustainable fishing and marine activity that has safeguarded our waters and their future for generations is nonsensical.

Harris Development Ltd summed up the views of many island communities when it said:

“It is sheer arrogance for desk bound ‘experts’ to suggest that we are not looking after our environment and protecting our stocks. The whole basis of the HPMA is that locals are clearly not doing what they should and need to be told how to look after it. You take no cognisance of the evidence that is available of sustainable fisheries and local, voluntary measures put in place before marching in wiping out our communities.”

Will the minister listen to our communities and support their work in protecting their marine environment rather than taking a top-down approach?

I am only sorry that members are not listening to what I am saying. If they will not take it from me, perhaps they will look at the multitude of papers that I published in December and at the work that I and Marine Scotland officials are currently doing to talk stakeholders through those papers and help them to submit their views to the consultation. There is no part of this that I do not want the views of stakeholders to be embedded within.

On the reason why we have to do this, I mentioned the IPCC, which has been absolutely clear that there is a narrowing window. Equally, the Scottish marine assessment tells us that we have much more to do to achieve good environmental status and to protect ecosystems and habitats, including from damage by fishing. All of that underpins the policy, which will be developed hand in hand with stakeholders.

I am pleased that the minister is prepared to listen. She will be aware of a column that was written by her Green party colleague that outraged communities from Shetland to Tiree and our fishing fleet, who know our seas well. The 10 per cent figure for HPMAs in the Bute house agreement seems concocted. Will the minister explain the scientific basis for the figure and consider evidence-gathering pilot projects?

There are a lot of useful points in that. I have spoken about the scientific underpinning of this. I have spoken about the IPCC report—there can be no clearer depiction of the crisis in which the whole world finds itself and of the very specific need for us to up our efforts. I also mentioned the Scottish marine assessment.

On the point about the timeline and the 10 per cent figure, I draw members’ attention to the fact that the European Union biodiversity strategy for 2030 requires member states to step up their conservation efforts to protect 30 per cent of Europe’s land and sea by 2030, of which 10 per cent will have to be strictly protected. Therefore, Scotland is not out of step.

I am glad to hear the minister outline the benefits of HPMAs. We have heard about Lamlash Bay in Arran. England’s Lundy island no-take zone shows evidence of increased tourism spend and larger lobsters, which benefit the local shellfish fishery. There is evidence and learning to be gained from more-established no-take zones. Is the Scottish Government in communication with other territories, such as California, New Zealand and Norway, to learn how their fisheries and coastal economies have benefited from no-take zones?

Ms Burgess is absolutely correct. Scientific studies tell us that we can expect fish stocks to increase in HPMAs, providing spillover benefits for fishers. A good example of that is evidence from southern California of the benefits from marine protected areas for the spiny lobster fishery. The experiences of New Zealand and Australia have helped to inspire our vision that recreational users will visit coastal HPMAs for their enjoyment and appreciation, bringing economic benefits to communities as they do so. I will be very happy to provide Ms Burgess with the published evidence on that, which has informed our position.

Will the minister explain why fish habitats have already been listed as a priority for site designation when there is little available existing research and the report that was commissioned on the subject remains unpublished and in draft form? Will she acknowledge that current research work is not sufficiently far advanced, robust or reliable enough to form policies that could result in the lights going off in our coastal communities?

I am sorry, Presiding Officer, but I am not even sure where to begin with that question. There is much vagueness in it, which makes it difficult to respond with the specificity with which I would want to respond.

First, we are at the very early stages of this work, and we are taking the opportunity to ask people what they think should form the basis of the HPMAs. We have suggested a number of things, including blue carbon and essential fish habitats; strengthening the Scottish MPA network; protection from storms; research and education; enjoyment and appreciation; and other important ecosystems. If Finlay Carson has views on which of those should be prioritised, I encourage him to fill in a consultation response. As I have said in all my responses to today’s questions, I want to be clear that we will take all the consultation responses into account, and I absolutely agree that fishers and our coastal communities have a strong stake in the issue and need to be involved.