Chamber and committees

Correct.

As this is an enabling bill, it puts us in the position of being able to start that process.

That is a really good question, because a lot of the overall principle of moving to a circular economy is about the polluter-pays model. As previously discussed, a lot of the materials produced by companies have to be cleaned up at the expense of local authorities; that has to be handled, whether they send the materials to incineration or landfill or pick them off the street as litter. As we move to a polluter-pays model—for example, with extended producer responsibility, which is a UK-wide thing—businesses will need to pay into the extended producer responsibility model, so that we have the funding for local authorities to deal with it.

Applications to the recycling improvement fund are made by local authorities. A local authority develops an initiative—a proposal—that comes to the recycling improvement fund board, which established the fund. The board works with the local authority to establish whether the proposal will achieve the outcomes that we need—nationally, we need to hit our net zero targets—how feasible it is, the timescale and so on. Then, the board advises me on whether it feels that the application should be awarded.

The challenge with Glasgow is that, because it is our largest city, the impact of recycling in Scotland is largely affected by what we do there. Basically, if we get recycling in Glasgow right, we impact on our national targets, so it is really important that we get it right in Glasgow. We had discussions around the proportion of the recycling improvement fund going to Glasgow, because I wanted to understand exactly why it was worth doing; it is because it has that impact at national level. To meet our net zero targets, we have to make sure that money is being spent most effectively to reduce our emissions and increase our recycling, and that was the right place for the money to go to achieve that result.

I do not have a particular vision for that. It is for the SNIB to decide what it invests in.

This morning, I counted 11 different provisions in the bill. Many of those provisions will require co-design. I think that the member imagines that, if we were to do co-design on single-use cups and other products that we do not even know about yet in different industries in respect of reporting, we would then have primary legislation on each of those provisions—

I absolutely understand that businesses and local authorities need certainty. That is why we have committed to the co-design process. I cannot second-guess what the outcome of that process will be, but the policies will be developed over many months following the co-design process, after which they would have the opportunity to come through Parliament, whether that is through a Scottish statutory instrument affirmative procedure or negative procedure, so that they can be scrutinised. All the details for each specific policy introduced would be worked through and developed with councils, businesses and, indeed, householders so that there would be clarity for each policy as it comes through. We will definitely work with the councils to deliver those outcomes. This is not something that will be imposed centrally.

On enforcement costs, as we go through the financial memorandum in detail, we can look at which provisions allow councils to increase their fixed-penalty notices, for example, so that they are given more opportunities to balance their costs. However, all the enforcement costs for local authorities are at their discretion. Each will look at how much it wishes to spend on enforcement versus the benefits that it might receive from the enforcement. For example, the household requirements for waste are about contamination of the recycling stream. The powers in the bill are for the councils to use should they decide to do so. There is no requirement for councils to enforce in any particular way, but they may decide that their recyclate is becoming so contaminated that they are losing money because they are having to pay for it to be incinerated or to go to landfill, or they cannot sell it for its full value. In such cases, the amount of money that they are losing would make firmer enforcement more worth while, but that would be entirely a calculation for local authorities to make.

Thank you, convener, and thank you for the opportunity to speak with the committee today.

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 bill takes powers to 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 over £1 billion of funding provided through the former strategic waste fund between 2008 and 2022 to assist local authorities in the implementation of a zero waste plan.

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 we need.

Regulations 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. As a result, the financial memorandum provides strategic-level cost-and-benefit data. That will be refined as part of on-going work with local authorities, householders, businesses and other stakeholders through, for example, the development of the waste route map.

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 on which we have already taken powers.

Legislation is, of course, only part of the solution. A wide range of other measures is in train. Alongside the Circular Economy (Scotland) Bill, we are developing our circular economy and waste route map, which will provide strategic direction for how we will deliver our system-wide, comprehensive vision for sustainable resource use and Scotland’s circular economy to 2030. An updated draft route map will be published later in 2023 for further consultation, and it 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 to local authorities, which is estimated to be £1.2 billion per annum across the UK.

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

I look forward to answering your questions.

I know that members will understand that the bill, as a framework bill, sets out strategic intentions and actions. The costs in the financial memorandum are therefore also at that level. At the detailed level of policy implementation, there would be another full set of business and regulatory impact assessments for Parliament to scrutinise. Those are part of the co-development processes.

From what you are saying, some of the concern is specifically about the code for local authorities and the household requirements. That seems to be what you are alluding to. There is an indicative cost of £88.4 million in paragraph 48 of the financial memorandum, which is an estimate by Zero Waste Scotland. The paragraph details how the estimate was reached. That would bring all our local authorities into alignment with the existing code of practice. That is a reasonable indicative figure of the investment that is required in Scotland to move us substantially in that direction.

The indicative figure of £88.4 million is quite good, and it is comparable to the £70 million that we have invested through the recycling improvement fund. The difference divided through the local authorities is a relatively modest amount. Members can see that the level of investment is proportionate to the kind of changes that we are looking for.

I absolutely understand that councils have concerns about future planning. We are all looking ahead, and we know that budgets are tight and that we need to make the just transition to net zero.

In response to that, I will say that the main point of the bill is that it is very much a framework bill. It is the start of a journey for us to go on to bring our recycling and reuse rates up to the levels that we know that we can achieve and that we know are needed for net zero.

You are absolutely correct, convener: councils are on board with the journey that we need to go on. I have committed in writing and through the Verity house process to co-designing with councils. Each of the provisions in the bill will have underneath it detailed policies to be introduced on things such as charges for single-use items.

At this time, we are looking at an enabling framework to allow the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament to bring forward such legislation, but the exact items to be included, how they would be managed, exactly how the charges would be collected and implemented, and what benefits and savings for litter and waste management those charges would bring for local authorities are to be developed in detail with local authorities as we move forward. The recent discussions about single-use vapes, for example, have brought to our attention that such matters can come up quite quickly, and they need to be handled quite urgently. We cannot see exactly all the different ways in which the framework may be used down the line. We have the costs for looking strategically at the framework and indicative costs for some of the initial policies that we intend to introduce with the framework.