Seòmar agus comataidhean

Okay—I will move on. Time is short and I want to cover three brief but important issues.

The British Glass federation advised that the scheme would result in a diminution—a reduction—in the amount of glass recycling into new bottles and jars. The reason for that is that there is no remelt target and that Biffa has procured and will use crushing machines, which means that the glass will be crushed into fragments so small that they cannot be recycled into bottles or glass. That means that the carbon saving that comes from recycling into bottles, which is 580kg per tonne, will be reduced to around 4.5kg per tonne, which is a reduction in carbon savings of more than 99 per cent.

Given that, back in 2017, Zero Waste Scotland estimated glass recycling into bottles and jars as being between 70 per cent and 90 per cent, is there not a serious concern? British Glass’s advice was taken by the UK Government, which then exempted glass from its proposed DRS. You do not set the policy, Mr Harris—I understand that—but you will operate it. Is there not a real concern that the scheme will result in less recycling of glass, not more?

I would not want to do that, convener.

I will ask my final question. Plainly, small companies throughout Scotland, whether producers, retailers or in the waste management sector, are now worried that their businesses will be seriously adversely affected. Some will have to close; some will issue redundancy notices—which some are already planning to do—and close depots.

Mr Harris, they have recently read reports that you have a salary of £300,000. That is a matter of public concern, as you said at the beginning. Do you recognise that anger and concern? Can you clarify for me whether £300,000 is the total remuneration or whether there are pensions and other benefits above that, and is it correct that you work part time because you have very substantial other commercial interests, to which, presumably, you have to devote some time? Will you answer those questions and perhaps give an indication about how many hours per week you devote to the job of CEO of Circularity Scotland at a salary of £300,000?

One of the main concerns about the DRS is that the public will have to pay more than 20p extra for individual beverage items. Mr Harris, can you provide any assurance to the public, who will be increasingly concerned about that? I refer especially to those who are elderly, infirm and do not have access to a car and, therefore, will have to hulk heavy, bulky goods back to a shop that may be some distance away from their home.

Can you give assurance about what level of price inflation there will be above the 20p? Some industry figures tell me that it will be 40p, others that it will be around 30p and some that it will be even more than 40p. Can you give any assurance about what the average increase will be above the 20p?

I, too, read the petitioner’s description of the experience that a member of her family underwent and was struck by how serious it was, and must still be, for that family.

I note the reference in our papers to the independent Scottish Mental Health Law Review, which was chaired by John Scott KC and which published its final report on 30 September. The Scottish Government states in its response to the petition that it is taking time carefully to consider the recommendations. That is fair enough, because the issues are by no means straightforward.

It would make sense for the committee to inquire as to when the Scottish Government expects to respond to the mental health law review. As I understand it, the review recommended that a human rights approach be taken to these matters but it acknowledged that there may still be instances where treatment may require to be administered without consent—for example, for health reasons, as has been alluded to. It would be useful to ascertain—I am sure that the petitioner would like to know this—when the Government is going to respond. I think that its response will very much dictate how the petitioner will wish us to proceed in relation to any possible recommendations that may arise from the Government’s response to the review.

National planning framework 4 has been published. Funding streams are available, such as the vacant and derelict land investment programme and the regeneration capital grant fund, which provide, in principle, what the petitioners are looking for, namely a means to incentivise the restoration of brownfield sites as opposed to always going for new greenfield sites. When we considered the petition previously, Paul Sweeney said:

“the renovation and retrofitting of existing buildings is subject to 20 per cent VAT, but demolition and new builds are zero rated, so a handicap is imposed on what should be the right thing to do.”—[Official Report, Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee, 26 October 2022; c 35.]

That is a fair point, but it is not really within the power of the Scottish Parliament to deal with the VAT on that, as I understand it.

I failed to capture what he said.

Yes. I was just going to make a distinction—perhaps a fine distinction—which is this: although it is not really open to us to investigate individual circumstances, nonetheless a couple of general points arise, namely why a urine test was not carried out and whether one should have been carried out. Is that an issue to which we should get a reply? If a urine test was not carried out because the police formed the view that there was insufficient evidence to proceed, that delimits any later possibility of establishing that there was spiking, because the medical evidence, which would have come from a urine test, would not be available if the test had not taken place fairly promptly. We should therefore be asking the police whether urine tests should be routinely taken. Is that part of the advice that they have got? To be candid, I am not quite sure, but I would like clarity on that.

The petitioner also states that hospital personnel appeared to form the view that spiking may well have taken place, so, although we cannot look at that particular issue in that particular case, where there is apparently some corroborative evidence, or potential corroborative evidence, surely that should make the conducting of a urine test almost routine.

It is our duty to pursue properly petitioners’ pleas. When a very serious incident has occurred, that duty is a higher level of duty. I am therefore keen that we investigate the matter further and ask the Scottish Government and the police whether a urine test is something that should be routinely carried out or carried out where there is any evidence available or where more evidence may emerge. Evidence is not always necessarily available from the first 24 or 48 hours, and, after that, it is too late to conduct a urine test.

In addition, I did not catch anyone suggesting it, but a good recommendation in the briefing paper is that we should request a SPICe summary.

He said that?