Official Report 695KB pdf
Welcome back. Item 5 is an evidence session with Consumer Scotland as part of our stage 1 scrutiny of the Circular Economy (Scotland) Bill. I am pleased to welcome back Tracey Reilly, head of policy and markets for Consumer Scotland, and Fraser Stewart, its research manager. I thank them for providing a written submission to the committee. I will start off with a couple of questions on that. Let us see whether I have got them right.
The witnesses said in their submission that consumers have bought into the bill’s requirement for circular measures but that there is some confusion between, or dubiety about, consumption and sustainability. Does the bill deal with those two things, which might butt up against each other a bit?
It is important to say that we welcome the bill. It will support consumers and businesses to reduce consumption and use resources more efficiently.
In broad terms, we know that consumers are concerned about climate change. They want to do more and sometimes do not know what they need to do. We want the bill and the strategy that will be developed under it to focus on the actions that have the highest impact on sustainability.
Fraser Stewart might want to speak a little bit about our recent research in a moment, but we found that two thirds of consumers did not know or were not sure about what they needed to do to help Scotland reach its net zero targets. That is a concern to us. On the back of that research, we think that there remains significant scope to build consumers’ understanding of what they might do and what actions they might need to take and to look at the role that consumers have in helping us meet our climate targets. We want to ensure that consumers are at the heart of that transition and that the impacts on small businesses and consumers are considered when net zero and climate-related policies are assessed.
The bill is framework legislation. Are you saying that it is as important to see what is behind it as it is to see what it enables?
The bill is very much a framework measure. It sets a broad suite of measures that the Government may then introduce further measures to implement, whether by regulation or by strategies.
A strategy is desirable. In preparing for the bill, Zero Waste Scotland undertook international research on comparisons, which showed that having statutory measures rather than voluntary ones helped to prioritise the key measures to adopt and provided a framework for interrelated policies. There are a lot of policies that need to work together, and a strategy is one way of ensuring that they do so, whether that be the national performance framework, the climate change plan, the sector plans that underlie that, packaging regulations or price marking orders. All of those things need to operate in alignment for consumers to get the best out of the bill. Therefore, although it is a framework bill, the things that come under it will be just as important as the bill itself.
Fraser Stewart, do you want to come in briefly on that?
We have shared with the committee the research report on the survey work that we recently completed. It shows that consumers are concerned about climate change. They see it as one of the big challenges for us as a society and a country, but what comes through from that work is that there is a lot of confusion as well. Consumers do not know what they need to do to be able to make a contribution to achieving the targets. What makes that more complex is that it depends on the market that we are talking about, and the level of interest and engagement around what people are being asked to do. Our evidence shows that at present, there can be a lack of information.
We often hear from local authorities that they provide information on how to take part in recycling or reuse schemes, but when we speak to our consumers, that is not always the message that comes back from them, so there is probably a need to simplify things and ensure that the core message is getting across. We would see the bill as an opportunity to get some of that stuff done.
11:30
You suggested that targets are going to be a way of helping people to buy into this and inspiring them to be part of the solution. Can you highlight some areas in which you think that targets would be particularly helpful, in a bill that appears to be quite frameworky?
I know that the committee has had quite a detailed session with Zero Waste Scotland. Recycling is one of those areas in which quite a lot of progress has been made, but that progress is now beginning to plateau, which is one of the reasons that we think that legislation is necessary, rather than just leaving it to a voluntary approach. I think that some targets in that area will continue to need to be met, in particular on the percentages for waste going to various ways of disposing of it, whether that is—as we talked about earlier—incineration, landfill or recycling.
One way in which the bill can help to drive sustainable changes is by helping to increase the degree to which we focus not just on recycling but on moving things further up the waste hierarchy, so that we are talking about reusing and repairing things, and extracting the value from these resources more effectively and keeping them in use for longer. Targets around those types of measures that are quite strictly related to the waste hierarchy would be of definite benefit.
Fraser, are there any areas on top of those ones in which you think that targets might be helpful, or are you happy with those?
Targets are useful for getting over the message that we are trying to head somewhere, but we need to be realistic. When it comes to people making decisions day to day, a Government target is probably not at the forefront of people’s minds. They are probably thinking, “I’ve got all this stuff and I don’t actually know what to do with it.” Clearer messaging is useful, but there also needs to be the correct infrastructure and the facility to do something simply in a way that fits in with the rhythm of people’s everyday lives, given that they have a lot of competing things to achieve day to day.
I have one more point before I bring in Monica Lennon. You are saying that if there is a target that is easy to achieve, it becomes second nature, so that is what we should aim for, rather than something aspirational that says that we are going to have 100 per cent of waste recycled. Is that what you are saying?
Fraser Stewart will correct me if I am being too broad in what I am saying. The two areas that come through strongly in our research when we ask consumers why they are not making more sustainable choices are convenience and cost. There need to be affordable alternatives to things that are not currently sustainable.
As Fraser said, there need to be things that people can fit into their everyday lives, which is why we have made reasonable progress on recycling. It does not require as much effort as, say, seeking out a repair shop and physically taking something there, whether that be a small electrical item or a piece of clothing.
There are some great initiatives out there such as the Edinburgh Remakery and the Edinburgh Tool Library—a lot of things are in the deputy convener’s constituency—but we would like those things to be second nature, not just to people who live in that area but across the rest of the country. Rather than just buying new things constantly, perhaps people can approach a consumption decision differently by looking at whether the thing that they buy would actually last longer or could be repaired rather than just buying the newest, shiniest version of the thing every time it is available. There are all sorts of ways in which we need consumers to change their consumption patterns.
In fairness to other members of the committee, there are great places outside of Ben Macpherson’s constituency that do recycling.
I do not want to get in the middle of that debate.
Thank you for your written submission. On powers for single-use charges, your written submission emphasises the need to consider impacts on people on lower incomes and vulnerable people. How should single-use charges be introduced, and how should they be balanced with other measures or supports to ensure that they are fair?
As I alluded to, single-use charges are probably most effective where there are accessible, affordable, sustainable and available alternatives to the product that you are charging for or considering banning. For example, there were relatively affordable available alternatives to plastic carrier bags. Whether consumers in vulnerable circumstances, such as those in low-income households, will be disproportionately impacted by charges such as that will depend on how that system is designed, and we know that that will come through secondary legislation.
The fairer Scotland duty assessment suggests that measures might be needed to support households to purchase longer-lasting goods. Although those are cost effective in the long term, they could be initially unaffordable unless there is targeted support. In the case of more expensive items, it is possible that more targeted financial support might be needed.
As you allude to, charges are only part of the solution. We need to look at how we can improve consumer awareness about the impacts of choosing single-use items. We also need to work with manufacturers to develop more sustainable products, consider using alternative materials and exploit the technological advances that are now available. There is a range of measures—at one end, working with manufacturers and at the other end, working with consumers. That type of action will need to be taken at both ends of that spectrum.
When you say targeted support, do you mean, for example, grants funded by central or local government, or something else?
It could be about working with existing community organisations to supply alternative products to the people whom they work with. That is perhaps particularly important in relation to hygiene for groups that have health needs or in food-related settings. It is often easier for those types of initiatives to be successful if you are working in environments where people already go. If you are working with a community group and people are already visiting the location, it is easier to make those products accessible to consumers, whether that be a food bank, library, community centre or any other community-based organisation or support service.
In order to achieve a just transition for consumers, would you suggest any other changes to the bill?
As the convener said, it is very much a framework bill, so at this stage it is difficult to identify any issues of that nature. We would be more likely to be able to identify them when, for example, the strategy is brought forward for consultation and we can look at importing it, or when there are regulations on single-use charging. We are in touch with the Government team that is working on single-use charging, and we would be very happy to work with it.
Is there a disadvantage to that “frameworky” approach, as the convener called it, or are you happy that the strategy will pick up a lot of the operational stuff?
It is always a balance. If you put too much in primary legislation, it can have the effect of fossilising the approach, meaning that you need to go back and introduce more primary legislation to amend what you have just brought in. At a time when there are a lot of technological advances, it probably makes sense to leave some flexibility to the implementation.
The challenge that then arises, as you heard from the hospitality and food and drink panel, is that businesses, including small businesses, want clarity and consistency and need to have a long enough timeframe to adapt to those changes. Ultimately, whether that balance is right is probably a question for the committee. It is a difficult balance.
It is a discussion for this committee.
I will pick up on the disposal of unsold goods. Can you talk us through what the risks and opportunities are for consumers and business of introducing restrictions on disposal of unsold goods? Have you looked at examples from other countries, such as redistribution schemes for food or other goods, to understand the impacts?
We have not had a chance to do that research yet. As was mentioned earlier, we are in only our second full year of operation. We might consider in future years looking at international comparisons of what has and has not worked.
I note that there was some discussion with a previous panel of the definition of “consumer goods” and the width of that. It is fair to say that it has a very broad definition. Different considerations might apply to different types of goods. For example, the considerations for textiles or electronics, which are longer life, will be different from the considerations for food or beauty products, which might have a shorter shelf life. It is important that businesses and retailers are able to understand what exactly will be caught by the definition of “consumer goods”.
On the plus side, the measures can probably help reduce overproduction and encourage more sustainable stock control measures, once they are in place and businesses have had a chance to adapt to them. If they are delivered effectively, they should be able to help reduce raw material usage and ensure that we get maximum usage of the materials that have been brought into life. They might also, as other panels alluded to, allow for the development of new economic opportunities to connect different parts of the supply chain, in terms of distributing goods that will no longer be able to be destroyed for onward use.
One of the risks that we would like to see addressed is the risk that goods that are subject to recall or that are unsafe or counterfeit might be at risk of entering the supply chain again. The provisions will simply need to be constructed in a way that ensures that that does not happen. We would recommend that trading standards bodies be brought into those discussions, because they have considerable expertise, along with the Office for Product Safety and Standards, which works on product recalls.
Those are my headline thoughts on that. I am happy to answer anything else.
Thank you.
Ben Macpherson has some questions.
Good morning. Building on what you have already said in response to my colleagues, are there other areas of the bill, such as the proposed powers in relation to waste and surplus reporting by business, that could be used to support the sustainable consumer choices that you have talked about, for example by making information about environmental impacts more transparent and accessible? In general, what information do consumers need to make sustainable choices, and to what extent is that information currently available?
The question about reporting surpluses is not one that I have previously heard. Zero Waste Scotland is probably better equipped to answer it.
At a very broad level, I can say yes, having that type of information available would help to identify where surpluses were and whether further action needed to be taken. I am sure that the witnesses on your previous panels would tell you that you need to be mindful of the burden of reporting requirements as well. I would defer to any thoughts that Zero Waste Scotland might have.
Sorry—what was the second limb to your question?
What information do consumers need to make sustainable choices? That question feeds into what Mr Stewart said about people being busy and having other things on their mind. Let us put ourselves in the shoes of the consumers. What information do they need, and to what extent is information currently available that can be highlighted?
In all honesty, that area is difficult and confusing. Many of us want to make the right decisions, but it is very difficult to judge green claims. I know that the Competition and Markets Authority and the Advertising Standards Authority are continuing to work on the issue of greenwashing to ensure that consumers can expect transparent and accurate information.
Generally, consumers need reliable and trustworthy information. They need to be able to get a sense of how long something will last and whether that is value for money. They need a sense of whether, if they are buying a longer-life item, that item can be repaired. They need to be able to understand labelling. If they are buying textiles and the label says something about sustainability, what metrics are employed in that? Are those metrics trustworthy? Information about repairing and recycling can be quite confusing, as can recycling labels themselves. It can be difficult to know whether something can be recycled, particularly when different arrangements are in place across different local authorities.
Those are the types of information that I can think of that would help consumers to make a more sustainable choice in the moment. I do not know whether there is anything else from our report, Fraser, that you would like to highlight.
11:45
As has come through from our research, consumers tell us that they want the information, but it needs to be understandable and it needs to be something that they can put into action. It is not just a case of having an extensive list of unfathomable information on the back of all products that has no bearing on what facilities are available in the local community. The message that we are getting is that people want to know more, but it needs to be simple information, which they can then put into practice, and that fits with their family life.
We are trying to get across the point that this is not just a matter of providing huge amounts of information to people and then leaving it to them to make up their minds about what they can do or how they go about it. The information needs to be appropriate, and it needs to be delivered in the right way at the right time. That allows people to see themselves as part of the solution.
Building on that point, you said in your written evidence that the new consumer duty will likely be relevant to measures under the bill, including strategic decisions on waste infrastructure and targets. Could you expand on that? How could the new duty interact with the new circular economy regulations, if the bill is passed? How can the guidance support best practice in that situation?
The consumer duty will come into force at the end of this year. We have a statutory power to issue guidance to public authorities under that duty, and that guidance must be approved by the Scottish ministers. Regulations designating the bodies that the duty will apply to will be laid by the Scottish Government nearer to that time.
We are working on the guidance, but it will effectively require public bodies to consider consumer interests when they take strategic decisions. That might apply, for example, to the provision of recycling schemes and to considerations about local businesses, how public bodies support local businesses and what the priorities are in that respect.
Until we have that guidance, which is still being worked on, it is difficult to know in practice. There will be a one-year period of implementation before the arrangements really begin to be enforced. There are opportunities to bring the needs of consumers closer to the top of the agenda to ensure that they are considered more as part of decision making, rather than just considering the convenience or the operational nature of decisions.
We think that there are opportunities to streamline things so that the needs of consumers are not the last thing to be thought of at the end of the process, and so that they are built in much more from the start. We are talking to the Government about how, for example, the consumer duty approach will integrate with some of the impact assessments that are already being made and with business impact assessments. We hope that we can begin to develop a more coherent approach to all those things through integrating the different sources of information.
Do you have any other comments on the bill that you have not had the opportunity to make or to emphasise in your answers to our questions?
I do not think so. Our plea would be for the needs of consumers to be thought about as part of the processes. That involves consistent messaging and thinking about whether there are accessible and affordable alternatives and how those alternatives can be delivered, particularly to consumers who might be vulnerable. Those are the things that we would really like to highlight to the committee at this stage.
We think that the bill will provide significant opportunity for dealing with some of those issues, but the strategy will be crucial in aligning a very complicated landscape and in trying to ensure that the different layers within that landscape are sitting in harmony.
Those are such important points. It is not just about affordability, which is significantly pertinent, but about accessibility and being able to transport yourself to where alternatives and facilities are available. Those things are certainly on my mind.
We need to learn lessons from previous things that have been done, particularly when it comes to charging for and banning single-use plastics. We have examples, such as the banning of single-use cutlery, which had unintended consequences in the initial stages, with implications for disability groups. Those were addressed and dealt with.
We had a relatively successful introduction of plastic carrier bag charging, and we have lessons that can be learned from that in terms of communities understanding why the charge is being brought in, what effect it will have and what is being done with the money that is being generated under those schemes.
There are some really good lessons that can be drawn on from previous things that have been done. It is just about taking those into account in the design of any new schemes.
It is about taking people with you, effectively.
Exactly.
Sarah Boyack has some brief questions.
In paragraph 21 of your submission, you suggest that there could be legal targets for the transportation and packaging of goods. Do you want to comment on that? Obviously, a huge amount of Scotland is rural and there has been a huge increase in packages being delivered since the pandemic. What would those targets look like? You suggest that there should be mandatory reporting of transport emissions. That would raise awareness, but how should the Government do that?
That is a difficult one because, as consumers, we have all become accustomed to clicking a button to get next-day delivery at no extra cost when we order goods. There will be some work to do to test consumer perceptions of whether they are willing to consider alternatives, whether that be grouping deliveries into batches, using parcel lockers, looking at aggregating deliveries or potentially integrating parcel deliveries with other things that are already there. We know that that happens in the Highlands, for example.
Later this year, we will be doing research that looks at consumer attitudes to decarbonisation. Fraser Stewart might be able to add something on that. One of the issues that we would want to test is how consumers feel about such a delivery charging model and what potential there is for change in a sustainable sense.
I do not have much to add on that, other than that our post policy team is commissioning an attitudes survey this year. As Tracey said, that will look at decarbonisation of the parcel sector in a bit more detail than we were able to do in our survey work and, specifically, try to get on top of the issues around decarbonisation in the postal and world parcels market.
That is useful. The bill process is on-going, and we are moving towards the amendment stage, so it would be useful for the committee to be kept updated on that issue.
As there are no other questions from members, I will ask one. As advocates on behalf of consumers and representing consumer interests, in your written evidence you said:
“It would be beneficial for strategies to be aligned as much as possible with strategies from other UK nations”.
One of the things that we have to understand is whether the bill will create problems for the United Kingdom internal market and what would happen if it does. What are your views? Is it all clear cut and simple, with no conflict, or are there potential areas that we should be looking at?
The Office for the Internal Market is relatively new still, so it is challenging to ascertain what the implications of that office will be. We know that trade between the UK nations is certainly important in economic terms, and we know that, in carrying out that trade, businesses will be looking for certainty, clarity and consistency.
Generally speaking, businesses are still reporting that trade is working well within the UK nations. If you look at the Office for the Internal Market’s recently published annual report, it is important to recognise that only a minority of UK businesses trade within the nations. Where requests under the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 are made, we think that very early engagement is the key factor that can influence the success or otherwise of those measures. All that we would want to say is to urge that the implications of any decisions for consumers and small businesses are identified at an early stage during those intergovernmental discussions and that they are considered as part of the assessment process.
It strikes me that, if targets and regulations are placed on products up here and not south of the border, it is not that inconvenient to make sure that you do not have to pay the extra costs that may be incurred by buying those products in Scotland. Do you think that that is a realistic issue?
It is too early for us to tell what business behaviour will be as a result of the operation of the Office for the Internal Market at this stage. It may be that the office is in a better position to answer that. We would not have any evidence either way.
But you would encourage early dialogue.
We would encourage early dialogue and an identification of the implications for consumers and small businesses, both financial and otherwise.
I was going to say that that was a perfect point on which to end, but Mark Ruskell is going to trump me.
Your comments have inspired a further question. Has regulatory innovation from devolved Administrations been useful in this space? You talked earlier about single-use plastics and carrier bag charges. There is the issue of the operation of an internal market, but what is your assessment of policy innovation?
It would not always have been a bad thing to have some nations taking the lead. The legislation recognises that there are times when Governments might want to diverge in order to reflect more local needs or differing strategic priorities within the nations. Certainly, there are things that have been done by one nation that have gone on to be adopted by other nations once they have seen how they work. For example, Wales put forward some measures that have then been adopted. The Office for the Internal Market has been considering detailed proposals including in relation to peat-free compost. That can lead to the development of more UK-wide solutions that are based on seeing how things work in practice in one of the nations, or at least it can ensure that, where divergence develops, that is based on evidence.
Does that outweigh any potential confusion from consumers when, for example, they go to Wales and say, “I didn’t realise that this wasn’t on sale, because it has been banned”?
It would be difficult to speculate on that at a general level. You would have to look at an individual measure in order to say how much confusion or otherwise that would cause. It is probably more difficult for businesses. If they are operating UK-wide, they need to be able to plan and they need certainty to encourage that planning. However, as we know, not every business is going to trade either within Europe or within the UK, so it is difficult to give a broad answer in that respect.
That was a very useful session, and we are now at the end of it. Thank you very much for coming, for sitting through both sessions and for answering our questions in the latter session. It was very helpful for us.
11:59 Meeting continued in private until 12:23.Previous
Water Industry