Seòmar agus comataidhean

As I already said to the convener, it is absolutely possible to run schemes without glass. That was not why we had to halt our scheme. That happened because of the rule changes, particularly regarding labelling and the deposit level, which would have made us unable to tell Scottish businesses what the scheme would look like.

The level of deposit is core to how the scheme operates, because it is tied into the business model of how the scheme is funded. If you do not know what the deposit level is or what the labelling requirements are, you cannot operate a scheme. Had we known those things, and had the UK Government said that the only thing that it was doing was removing glass from the scheme, we would have been able to go ahead because there would still have been a case for the scheme. The case would not have been as strong or as good, but we could have made it.

I am in no way involved with the Scottish National Investment Bank, and I do not know what it will be reporting.

Circularity Scotland is in administration, and I am not familiar with what the administrators will be able to manage through that process.

The UK Government made this decision. It was its decision to undermine our scheme, and it is responsible for the impact that it has had. I and everybody at Circularity Scotland was fully committed to making the scheme work. As David McPhee has just pointed out, big businesses and big producers were also fully committed. You will have seen reverse vending machines going in in many supermarkets. We were fully set up to get operational in August this year, but when those conditions came in, even the big producers that had invested millions, and Circularity Scotland, said, “We can’t do it; these are not conditions under which we can launch the scheme.”

There are two points to make in response to that. First, I do not think that the common frameworks are working—because they allow for a lot of work to be done over years then for ministers to swoop in at the end and say yea or nay. There is a larger project, therefore, not just within my portfolio, about how the common frameworks work between the two Governments. I suspect that that will mean having to get ministerial agreement at various points in the process, so that people can have confidence as they move forward. Throwing out two years of working together by officials is not an efficient way for any of us to work. There is therefore a bigger picture about making those common frameworks work properly, because clearly, in this case, the UK Government has not done so.

Secondly, my understanding is that, because the Circular Economy (Scotland) Bill is a framework bill, there are no inherent internal market issues. I ask Ailsa Heine to come in and correct me if I have that wrong.

On whether we should take forward specific measures in the bill, you will know from your session this morning that, for example, we want to take powers to put charges on some single-use items. That in itself is not an issue; however, if, for example, we look at putting charges on single-use coffee cups, that specific piece of legislation could then have internal market act implications. It depends on exactly how that is implemented. As you heard in your discussion, there are lots of ways in which that could be implemented. There are lots of places that the money could go to when it is collected. There are lots of models, Exactly what model we chose might have more or fewer internal market act implications. Ailsa Heine may have more to say.

I understand the frustrations around a framework bill. When it comes to the circular economy, I take the example of disposable vapes, which have become an issue very quickly—only in the past couple of years. We can all see that, if we had to pass primary legislation every time that a new product becomes a challenging problem, that would tie up a lot of parliamentary time. By taking a framework power, we are able to react more dynamically to things such as emerging products and to manage those things much more quickly and efficiently. We do not know what products might be developed in the future, or the environmental impact that those might have. Having that suite of tools means that we can react and put in place measures for the products of the future that we do not yet know might exist.

I can get my officials to talk about the consultation dates. I think that Brodie Wilson can talk about that.

I am not comfortable with the framing that the proposal will result in the killing of deer willy-nilly. That is not the situation. We are proposing to remove an administrative burden. As we have discussed, male deer are already being shot year round. People just need some paperwork in order to do that. No one is obliged to do that, but we know that land managers want and need to manage deer in that way, which is why they apply for hundreds of permits to allow them to do that every year.

The point about venison is a good one. Managing deer, which involves building and maintaining fences and hiring professionals to do the stalking, is costly and expensive. As Hugh Dignon outlined, only a very small number of carcases are left on the hillside to rot. That is not a common practice and I would not want the member to think that it was.

I have had several meetings with the venison industry about this and it did not have any particular concerns about the change to the close season. It thinks that it might even help because it will expand the shoulder seasons. The stags may be in good condition earlier in the year, which could provide a steadier stream of venison.

One of the challenges with the venison market is that it is so seasonal. Removing the close season will give land managers a bit more flexibility to be able to level out the season and make the venison market steadier and easier to handle. It will also be easier on the infrastructure that is required, such as the cool rooms and other facilities. The venison industry has not had any particular issues with the proposal and it should open up such options.

As we cull more deer in Scotland because we need to do so, that will increase the supply of venison. As I outlined earlier, we are investing in making sure the infrastructure is in place and that, as the member says, the excellent, organic, healthy meat gets on to people’s plates.

I hope that the relationship is strong and based on mutual respect. I have engaged with gamekeepers on many occasions and on many visits—we have had some excellent visits. We have a lot in common in wanting to increase the venison industry, help managers to have more choice in how they manage their land and ensure that we are managing deer for healthy herds while having consideration for the welfare of the animals. Where we have those things in common, we have been able to engage very fully.

Members of representative organisations, including both the British Association for Shooting and Conservation and the Scottish Gamekeepers Association, have been engaged at every step of the process from 2020, when the recommendations were published, through 2021, when the Scottish Government submitted its response. They have written to us as part of our consultation and we have considered those responses. I have had meetings with those organisations, including most recently on 7 June with BASC. Officials have met the Scottish Gamekeepers Association alongside NatureScot this year as well. There have been recent meetings in that space and they will be on-going.

I recognise the expertise of land managers. The legislation that we are proposing allows them choice. We are not dictating how they may manage their land. If they wish to continue to observe a close season, they may do so. However, where land managers wish to have more flexibility, the legislation will allow them to make the decision using their expertise.

Absolutely—I am always open to hearing new evidence. If there were incidents of poor animal welfare management, I would be very interested in hearing about them. We absolutely share that interest. As I said earlier, animal welfare groups have been consulted on the SSI and have been included in the discussions. No welfare issues were raised with respect to the close season for male deer—none at all.