Chamber and committees

Indeed, because it is at a strategic level. The FM is clear on the assumptions that are made and on the ranges that we are looking at. Given that most of the bill’s provisions are about setting up frameworks and developing processes and legislation, the costs that are provided are as indicative and as accurate as we can possibly make them for those things.

The question, I suppose, is what the member means by “final”. For example, on charging for single-use items, the bill provides an enabling power that the Parliament could use again and again. We do not know when the next product like a single-use vape might be invented; it could be 30 years from now.

That is the challenge with a framework bill. We are putting in place structures and taking the initial step of creating enabling powers. We are not detailing in the bill how those powers might be used. That will be done through secondary legislation, as the member rightly points out. I was recently involved in secondary legislation that generated substantial debate in a committee, even though the negative procedure was used. I had a lengthy session in front of the committee answering questions about the legislation, and it was also discussed in the chamber. Depending on how members interact with secondary legislation, there can be extensive scrutiny, if MSPs decide that that is needed.

Those powers will be available as the legislation is brought forward. I have a list in front of me—for example, the affirmative procedure will be used when the Parliament considers the legislation on restrictions on unsold goods. There will be the chance to scrutinise each piece of legislation.

Because the financial memorandum sets out how we will do these things. For example, as my colleague Alex Quayle said, the first step of the co-design process is to agree what that process is. We know that it will take some time and we will be working with local authorities. That is all set out in good faith, and we are providing the best information that we have at this moment. I am certain that we are providing you with the best information that we have at this time.

I absolutely accept that we are all looking at the best numbers that we can provide with the information that we have available to us now, and I know that that information is the best information that we can provide to you now. Yes, if the situation changes in the future, as Michelle Thomson said, the committee is welcome to invite me back. I would be happy to give an updated financial memorandum and look at that, if the situation changes further down the line. This is the best information that we have now, so it is, of course, what I am providing to the committee. The memorandum is clear about the assumptions that are involved, and, yes, the co-design process means that the outcomes of that will be developed through the process. That is exactly what co-design should do.

As I have said, I am confident that the financial memorandum lays out the strategic costs, as it intends to do. Where there may be some uncertainty is where people want to know what the detailed costs of the secondary legislation will be, and, of course, we do not have that information, because that has yet to be developed. If there is a discrepancy, I assume that it is because local authorities and businesses and so on are looking for the detail that will come with the secondary legislation but is not part of the bill.

I will pass that question to Alex or Janet.

That is absolutely not the case. The legislation is only one piece of what we are doing. Our waste route map contains all the provisions that we are looking at, including matters around education, design, investment and research and development. Legislation is only one part. As I outlined in my opening statement, the bill sits in a very specific place between powers that we already have devolved in Scotland to do things—for example, as far as I am aware, we do not need any new powers to deal with a potential ban on single-use vapes; we already have those powers—and powers that are absolutely not devolved. We would not be able to bring in something such as extended producer responsibility for packaging in Scotland, because that is not a devolved matter. The bill is specifically narrow; it contains enabling powers to start work on legislation and provisions that fit within our devolution settlement for the very specific purposes of helping us on our journey to net zero, reducing waste and unlocking business opportunities for local authorities and the business community. The powers in the bill are to unlock those.

Once we know what those provisions are, we can target them very specifically on some very urgent matters. You will see from the financial memorandum how much handling disposable cup waste costs councils. We can all be outraged that perfectly good food and clothing is being sent to landfill and incineration instead of to those who desperately need it. The bill unlocks powers to take those things forward. It is right and effective that we unlock those enabling powers and target those specific areas of need efficiently, nimbly and proportionately.

It is correct, according to the best estimates and the best information that we have. The assumptions in the financial memorandum are spelt out and we are providing the committee with the best information that we have available.

We have not started the co-design process. Councils may decide that that is an outcome that they would like to go for. Through the co-design process, councils would need to decide that that is where they want to get to. We would then have to come up with a plan for how councils get to that point. I cannot anticipate what might come out of the co-design process.