Seòmar agus comataidhean

We already know that 95 per cent of materials, by volume, are signed up to the scheme. The way to counteract any risk is to bring all producers online so that they can continue to sell in Scotland. All the measures that we are using to support producers to sign up to the scheme, including cash-flow measures, labelling measures and any further measures that we agree with them, are meant to do exactly that—to allow that variety of producers to continue to sell in Scotland.

The labelling measure is of particular interest when it comes to the importation of wines. It was a specific ask from our wine importers, because you can imagine the difficulty if they were importing only 500 bottles of wine from a winery in France. They would not want to have to put a Scottish label on that number of bottles, which is quite reasonable. That is exactly the kind of situation for which the labelling measure was designed. Our estimate is that about 15,000 products will use the sticky label solution.

It is absolutely not the vision that our products will be restricted. We are working to continue to have a wide variety of products on the market.

That is no problem. I will tackle both of Jackie Dunbar’s questions.

The Scottish biodiversity strategy ties in with other strategies. It is essential that biodiversity considerations are mainstreamed in all our policy development, and that is one of our key aims. Given the breadth of matters that the Government deals with, there is a wide range of strategies 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 crises by creating an overarching framework for Scotland as well as strategies and plans on the environment and climate change, and by strengthening the connections between environmental policies and policies across Government. It helps us to identify priorities and opportunities and to drive the transformative change that we need.

We know that healthy biodiversity underpins our prosperity, wellbeing and ability to reach net zero. I know that all the committee members are aware, because of the evidence that you have taken, that we need to mainstream this piece. Tackling biodiversity cannot be done in a silo; it needs to be done across all of society.

Specifically on wild salmon, they are an indicator species, so things that we do to protect wild salmon will also protect other species that have similar life cycles or share their natural environment, such as those that Jackie Dunbar mentioned.

As members will know, wild salmon are in decline. In response to the decline of those populations, in January 2022 we published Scotland’s wild salmon strategy, which is a collective vision for flourishing populations of wild Atlantic salmon. In that, we set a high level of ambition and a direction of travel. We followed up the strategy with an implementation plan, which was published last month, and which sets out more than 60 actions that we will take over the next five years to protect and restore salmon populations. The strategy and plan were developed in close collaboration with stakeholder groups, including representatives from Government, NGOs and agencies. We are clear that positive outcomes can be achieved only through a co-ordinated and collaborative approach.

I have been lucky enough to visit some of the nature restoration work that is being done along some of the rivers, such as removing weirs and, where the weirs cannot be removed, putting in passes to allow the salmon past, and of course those will apply to other species as well.

I want to mention another great river restoration project. One problem that some rivers in Scotland have is that they are too clean—there are no trees along the banks, there is nothing in the water, and they run too fast, too clear and too hot, because the sun shines on them all the time. This particular project takes fallen trees and embeds them in the riverbed. That not only slows the water but creates shaded spots and eddies where fish can spawn and invertebrates can breed. That is the kind of practical on-the-ground action on which the nature restoration fund is having an impact and that specifically targets those important species.

Schools may interact with the deposit return scheme in several ways. Large schools that have, for example, a cafeteria that sells drinks would be part of the scheme. They would charge the 20p, as any shop or cafeteria of that style would, and they would have an obligation under the scheme to decide whether they would operate as a return point. They would have the same options as any other cafeteria or similar venue: to operate as a manual return point, to install a reverse vending machine or to apply for an exemption from being a return point based on health and safety grounds or any of the other grounds that are available.

Schools that, for example, do free school meals and provide a free bottle have a couple of options. They could run as a closed-loop system, as many restaurants will. For example, when you buy a bottle of wine in a restaurant, you do not take that bottle away with you—the restaurant takes it back—so you will not pay a deposit on it. That is called a closed-loop system. If schools were to offer an open-loop system with free school meals, they would have to incorporate the price of the deposit in the cost of the meal, because the child would be able to take the container away and collect the 20p when they returned it.

There are different ways in which schools may interact with the scheme. Of course, if schools moved away from using single-use plastics as a way of providing drinks, specifically water, that they are required to provide, they would not be required to participate in the deposit return scheme.

The member raises excellent points. Those are exactly the sorts of tools that we have as we move towards a circular economy and begin to get rid of waste. We are talking particularly about plastic waste, but waste of any materials or energy in our society is no good.

The extended producer responsibility scheme for plastic is a UK-wide initiative. It was two weeks ago, I think, that we passed at the committee the Scottish statutory instrument to start collecting data for the scheme. From 2024, large packaging producers will need to report on what their packaging is made of and how much packaging they produce—that sort of thing—and in 2025 they will pay fees based on how much packaging they produce. Those fees will be collected and distributed to local authorities to help them pay for recycling. It is another producer responsibility scheme in which the cost of handling materials at the end of their use will be passed to the producers of the materials, rather than being borne by the public purse. It is an exciting initiative that will, I hope, transform our recycling and the design of packaging materials, because it will incentivise producers of packaging to use more sustainable materials, more recyclable materials, and, I hope, less material altogether. It will be advantageous to them to do that under the fee scheme.

The other thing that you touched on was the circular economy bill, which is largely about establishing new powers. One of the things that was consulted on for the bill was powers to put charges on single-use items, and one of the things that we will look at next in the single-use space is single-use beverage cups. The bill is intended to establish powers so that we can be adaptable as we go forward and use targeted approaches, much like was done with plastic bags under our current powers. We know how effective that was in reducing litter and damage to the environment.

Callum Isted’s petition is specifically about a proposal to replace single-use bottles, which were what were being used in his school. Many schools already have in place solutions to that, such as water fountains or jug and cup schemes. That provision is already in place and we do not want to solve a problem that has already been solved in many schools. We know that schools are working towards the sustainability objective. We also have in place national programmes to tackle single-use plastics, such as our deposit return scheme. The process to move away from single-use plastics is well under way.

I recognise Callum Isted’s hard work on the issue and the work that he has done with his school, but it is not necessarily the correct solution for every school, and it is up to schools and local authorities to put in place the correct solution for them.

I do. Thank you very much.

I congratulate Callum Isted on the incredible effort that he has put behind the petition and the campaign, and for raising £1,400 to buy reusable bottles for his school. His work has been an inspiration to us all.

I and this Government are committed to this agenda and are seeking to dramatically reduce the amount of single-use plastic products that we consume and throw away in Scotland. That is why we are working hard right now to implement Scotland’s deposit return scheme, have banned some of the most problematic single-use plastic products and are introducing a minimum charge on single-use beverage cups by 2025.

Scotland’s deposit return scheme, which will cover the kinds of single-use bottles that we are talking about today, will alone reduce littering by a third and cut emissions by the equivalent of 4 million tonnes of carbon dioxide over 25 years. That is an average of around 160,000 tonnes of CO₂ each year, which is the equivalent of taking 83,000 cars off the road in the United Kingdom. However, I agree that that is only part of what we need to do. Education authorities and schools have a key role in leading the way.

Callum’s petition has requested that the Scottish Government provides local authorities with funding to enable schools to give reusable metal water bottles to schoolchildren when they start in primary 1. Although I welcome the spirit of the request made in the petition and absolutely share the same ultimate goal—to reduce to a minimum the consumption of single-use plastics in schools—it is for local authorities, as autonomous and democratic organisations, to agree their annual budgets, taking into account their statutory duties and national and local priorities.

The law says that all schools must make sure that drinking water is available free of charge for all pupils at all times of the day, including at meal times. It is for each education authority and school to decide how drinking water is provided, and it is important that we respect that, so that they can provide water in the way that works best for their school and their pupils.

The Scottish Government is clear that that decision, like others made by schools, should support our broader environmental goals. I know that those who provide catering in schools actively consider sustainability as part of their thinking about the delivery of their services. Sustainability is also reflected in the learning for sustainability cross-curricular theme, which encourages schools to take a whole-setting approach to it. That means that all school buildings, grounds and policies in the school should support learning for sustainability, including making sure that the school is taking steps to be more sustainable, which includes reducing the use of plastic.

I know that, in practical terms, local authorities use sustainable approaches to reduce the use of single-use plastic in schools. That includes the provision of water fountains, ensuring that water jugs and reusable cups are available in dining halls, and encouraging pupils to bring in and use reusable bottles. Furthermore, in direct response to the petition, my colleague Shirley-Anne Somerville wrote to the directors of education at all local authorities, drawing their attention to the petition and their obligations to provide drinking water to pupils, and further encouraging them to do so in an environmentally friendly way. We will continue to build on that progress.

Thank you for inviting me here today. I look forward to answering your questions.

I do not think that that is an accurate representation of the situation at all. There are other sustainable ways of providing water and it is up to schools to provide it in the way that works best for them. For example, if schools and local authorities have invested in water fountains and their maintenance and upkeep, that is how they have decided to meet the statutory requirement to provide water and that is how they have decided to spend their budgets. It is for them to make that decision. Equally, if schools have invested in jug and cup schemes, it is absolutely within their purview to decide how to spend that money and how to make the provision. It is not for us to impose upon them how to interpret the requirement to provide water.

We know that water is being provided, as my colleague said, because of our on-going conversations with education authorities.

I would just say thank you very much to Callum Isted for bringing the matter to our attention. He is absolutely right: we should all be working towards using fewer single-use plastics and using reusable, long-term containers and packaging. I thank him so much for his work.

I am happy to pass that to my colleague Laura Meikle.

I do not know the answer to that.