Chamber and committees

Because the bill is largely a framework, it does not have any implications for the internal market act. However, Bob Doris is right that the enacting of some of its provisions may have such implications.

The single-use cup charges are substantially different from the deposit return scheme. The deposit return scheme covered items that cross borders—imported goods and things that are carried across the border between Scotland and England. The single-use cup charge is for someone who is physically in Scotland selling an item to someone who is physically in Scotland. No border crossings are involved. We therefore believe that we can draft the legislation for single-use cup charges in a way that does not affect or come into contact with the internal market act and would therefore not require an exemption.

I ask Ailsa Heine to explain our thinking on whether matters around the reporting of the disposal of unsold goods might require an exemption to the internal market act.

I will make a quick comment then hand over to Ginny Gardner again.

The intention of the common frameworks is to manage divergence. The challenge over the past year has been that the UK Government has discarded the common frameworks and made decisions outwith them. There is a question about how functional the common frameworks process is if UK ministers discard the work that is done under it. That is a frustration for us. I am not sure that the UK Government would be happy with me discarding the common frameworks, but it feels free to do so. The intention is to manage divergence, but that depends on all UK nations having some tolerance of divergence, and the political landscape has shifted in that regard.

There are some examples of the process working. For example, we were granted an exemption in relation to single-use plastics, but we were not granted one in relation to the deposit return scheme, and the UK Government went ahead with the consultation on wet wipes outwith the common frameworks process. I have clearly been struggling with that process.

I do not know whether Ginny Gardner wants to come in.

I have not said that everybody has to meet the same target or that everybody would be meeting the same target or that local authority targets would exactly map to national targets. The national target is 60 per cent, but developing specific targets that are appropriate for local authorities is a different matter.

We need to develop that. We are starting that process now, as we begin developing the code of practice and start to understand the extended producer responsibility funding model. As the code of practice develops, we will understand what infrastructure investment Scotland will need. We are at the start of that process.

I do not think that we need legislation in order to undertake that particular exercise, but the member is absolutely right that we do have to do it. As you rightly said, the national litter and fly-tipping strategy sets out measures to improve data collection by creating a stakeholder data sharing agreement to support the gathering of data and to work with stakeholders to improve the consistency of data collection. We are exploring the idea of incorporating data into a national database and ensuring that we have fit-for-purpose mechanisms for citizen reporting of fly-tipping. That work is under way, but I do not think that we need to legislate for that.

I am open to discussing charging for services as part of the discussion that we have with local authorities about the code of practice. The first circular economy and waste route map consultation in 2022 suggested that we identify at least three priority products for further action on producer responsibility schemes. Through the UK Environment Act 2021, Scotland has extensive powers to put in place Scotland-based producer responsibility schemes. We are looking at things such as textiles, mattresses, sofas and tyres. That is part of the consultation, and we are absolutely considering taking that forward.

Understood, convener—I absolutely agree.

Thank you for the opportunity to come to speak with the committee.

The Circular Economy (Scotland) Bill will establish the legislative framework to support Scotland’s transition to a zero waste and circular economy, significantly increase reuse and recycling rates, and modernise and improve waste and recycling services.

The powers in the bill will give ministers and local authorities the tools that they need in order to achieve our ambitions for a circular economy. Those represent a package of new powers and responsibilities that will be underpinned by support and investment, such as the £70 million recycling improvement fund. That builds on more than £1 billion of funding provided through the former strategic waste fund between 2008 and 2022 to assist local authorities with the implementation of a zero waste plan.

The bill is necessarily narrow in the topics that it covers. It sits in the space where the Scottish Government needs new powers to take action between powers that are reserved and matters that are devolved but for which we have already taken powers.

At the heart of many of the bill’s provisions is the recognition that co-design, based on the principles of the Verity house agreement and the new deal for business, will be central to delivering the transformation that is needed.

Regulations that are made under the enabling powers in the bill will be subject to further consultation, parliamentary scrutiny and impact assessments, including business and regulatory impact assessments.

I note that the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee has reported to this committee that it is content, in principle, with the powers and the proposed procedures, although I also note that it has suggested some improvements to a couple of the powers.

Legislation is, of course, only part of the solution and a wide range of other measures is in train. Alongside the bill, we are developing our circular economy and waste route map, which will provide strategic direction to deliver our system-wide, comprehensive vision for sustainable resource use and for Scotland’s circular economy to 2030. An updated draft route map will be published shortly for further consultation and will be finalised in 2024.

Extended producer responsibility for packaging, which we are introducing alongside other United Kingdom Governments, will require producers to pay local authorities the full net cost of operating an efficient and effective household packaging collection service. That will provide substantial funding of an estimated £1.2 billion per annum to local authorities across the UK.

I finish by underlining the fact that building a more circular economy is an environmental imperative, but that it is also an economic opportunity for Scotland. It will open up new markets, improve productivity, increase self-sufficiency and provide local employment.

I look forward to answering members’ questions.

Absolutely. On the data collection point, I said in my response to Mr Fraser that we are working on creating a national database and ensuring that we are pulling that data together. We agree that the work needs done; I just do not think that legislation is required to do it. That is fine.

With regard to changing the fixed-penalty notice in the SSI that is in front of us, we are not seeking to change the crime at all—we are not changing who will be fined. I clarify that, in relation to the householder’s duty of care in the Circular Economy (Scotland) Bill, which were talking about earlier, the fine for the householder is £200 and will remain at that level. This SSI is different and is to do with existing fly-tipping offences under section 33A(9) of the 1990 act. It is those offences for which the fixed penalty will be going from £200 to £500. The fixed penalty in relation to the householder’s duty of care will remain at £200.

Certainly. From my point of view, the report made two substantive points, which we can go into in further detail if you would like. The first was that there was dissatisfaction with some of the assumptions that were made for specific numbers in the financial memorandum. I am content to take away that feedback, review those numbers and, as previously discussed, publish updates if I feel that that is necessary.

The second point was to do with frustration—which I know that you share, convener—about the nature of a framework bill and what that necessarily means for how the secondary legislation that follows on from such a bill can be scrutinised, in particular by the Finance and Public Administration Committee. The FPAC’s comment was that, although it sees the primary legislation, the secondary legislation does not come to it. Although that secondary legislation would come to committees such as this one and would be accompanied by impact assessments and similar information, it does not go to the FPAC. That is a matter of parliamentary process—maybe the issue is one that we should address, so that that committee can provide such oversight. That process is for the Parliament to decide.