Seòmar agus comataidhean

I am curious about how this relates to where we currently are with deposit return schemes. I presume that the EPR regulation also incorporates bottles, cans and glass. I am interested in looking at that and getting your views on it. Do you see there inevitably being a DRS across the UK in the run up to 2028?

I have a brief comment, convener. I am really looking forward to Zero Waste Scotland growing into the role. It has been a long time coming, and I think that it will enable Zero Waste Scotland, as an organisation, to drive forward progress in the circular economy in a way that is fully accountable. I look forward to Zero Waste Scotland attending the committee in the future.

My question is based on what the cabinet secretary said about timescales. You are seeking a four-nations approach and want all the nations to move at the same time, which sounds sensible. If timescales diverge and there is a need for discretion, do you have an exemption under the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 that would allow you to make a decision about Scotland going first or going later?

If manufacturers could bring the price of rechargeable vapes down to the same price as disposable vapes, would people not just buy rechargeable ones but continue to chuck them away? In that case, would it not be more sensible to have some kind of minimum price, even for rechargeable vapes, so that we do not just perpetuate the current disposable culture, in which people have vapes that are technically rechargeable and refillable but which are so cheap that they just chuck them away, as they are doing now?

To be clear, if there is no DRS, businesses will have to pay through the nose for EPR post-2028. A wine and spirits company, for example, that is using glass extensively may be looking at the lack of a DRS scheme for glass right now and thinking, “Well, we’ve got out of that.” However, come 2028, if there is no DRS for glass bottles, it will have to make a payment through the scheme to enable local authorities to collect all of its glass. There is no way to get away from paying for the cost of collection; it is just a case of which mechanism it might go through. Is that a fair assessment?

What do you think will happen with the DRS, given the context of the EPR being brought in with a backstop of 2028?

That is useful.

I have a question about open access operators, such as Lumo and Grand Union, which are coming in and utilising space in the rail network. Will those contracts continue?

I absolutely welcome that. I suppose that it is a question of whether we trust the vaping industry, given where it has been and what it has developed into, to work in the spirit of the regulations that are being put in place and to establish a genuine market for rechargeable, reusable vapes that might have a role to play in smoking cessation but which are not more widely available to a market that is huge and growing. I have my doubts that smart people somewhere will not find a way around what is proposed by targeting the price point. People on the boards of vaping companies will be thinking, “Let’s go for the price point—that way, we’ll keep our market alive.” Why would they not do that?

That is great. When will the draft circular economy 2030 route map be finalised? Lorna Slater provided an earlier version of that, which the committee saw in January. It would be useful to know when that whole picture can be finalised and brought forward.

I join other members in giving my best wishes to the cabinet secretary. I, too, am looking forward to working with Dr Allan in the months ahead.

The minister asked us at the beginning of the debate to recommit to the declaration of the climate emergency and I am happy to do that. Of course, I am happy to celebrate the work that was done in the Sturgeon era on climate justice, particularly the whole debate about loss and damage at the 26th UN climate change conference of the parties—COP26—and the commitments that were made there.

However, the minister has to acknowledge that the debt that Scotland owes to countries that are not responsible for climate change but are now bearing the brunt of the crisis is now spiralling out of control. It is many orders of magnitude beyond what the Scottish Government put on the table for the loss and damage fund at COP26. That should inspire us to take more meaningful action to reduce our emissions and meet our global obligations.

The minister went on to challenge the chamber to back action, which I absolutely agree with. However, I also ask the Scottish Government to reflect on how we have got to the point at which the 75 per cent target has had to be dropped.

In 2020, as Sarah Boyack mentioned, the UK CCC wrote to the Scottish Government and identified a range of areas that the Government had to move on then—not now, but then—in order to get anywhere close to meeting that target. One of those areas was heat pumps, which is within the Scottish Government’s devolved responsibilities, and it could have acted on it then. The reality is that the climate plan that came on the back of that target was not fit for purpose, as numerous parliamentary committees told the Government. However, the Government did not make the necessary changes that were needed. I hope that the Government recognises and learns from that experience.

The minister went on to mention the UK Government’s cut to capital infrastructure funds. She is absolutely right that those cuts have been devastating. When we talk about the interests of members around the chamber—solar panels for Sarah Boyack, tree planting for Edward Mountain, bus infrastructure for Alex Rowley, EV charging points for Douglas Lumsden—we see that they all require capital infrastructure and for us to build our way out of climate change.