Chamber and committees

We will always do that. When the regulations land and once they are enforced, we will keep an eye on how they are working. If any issues come up that have not been considered, of course we will look at that again. However, that point has not been raised—hence my initial confusion as to your question. I hope that my officials have been able to give you certainty that that has not been an issue.

We have absolutely been in touch with COSLA throughout the whole process. I am really pleased that the UK Government has brought forward these regulations, and I hope that the committee will agree that they really represent a step change in the management of waste; instead of its being a burden on the taxpayer and on the public purse, there will be a vehicle for the manufacturers of products to pay for the management of their packaging waste. I think that it will mean a number of things, and I think that COSLA is supportive of it.

What effectively will it mean? It is expected that £1.2 billion a year will come to local authorities UK wide, and with the consequentials, that will translate into £120 million a year for Scotland. That is what is anticipated; it might be more or it might be less, but that is what it is anticipated will come to local authorities from the scheme administrator as a result of its handling of waste packaging.

What that will mean, initially, is that authorities can invest that money in improving their recycling processes without—and this is crucial—putting the burden of dealing with the waste on council tax payers or on the funding that they get from Government. Initially, there will be two streams of funding, because authorities will have to put in place a certain amount of adaptation with regard to the waste management that we ask them to do. Effectively, though, the money that will come to them as a result of EPR is going to help them to significantly improve their waste management.

It is exactly that. You point to the fact that, if the regulations are passed, the ban will not be in force until 1 April. There has in fact been more notice, because the retail industry has known about, and seen, the regulations, which went out for consultation. We have had live consultations with retailers as part of the process. In addition, the proposal was in the programme for government last year, and it has been a topic of conversation in the Parliament for quite some time, with many MSPs lobbying for a ban on these products for very good reasons.

There is the official notice period: if Parliament agrees to pass the regulations, retailers have six months to run down their stock. There will always be an impact associated with not allowing retailers to sell a profitable item—there is no getting away from that. In the past four years, these items have exploded on to the scene. Initially, I think there was a single digit percentage of people using them, but that has gone up to about 50 per cent of people. They have become extremely popular.

If we look at the demographic of people who use them, we see that—as the convener said—many are younger people. I am quite shocked to hear that people can get a vape with their ice cream—that takes me back to the 1980s, when the rogue ice cream guy would sell you a single cigarette and a match when you went out to get an ice cream. I think we all recognise that that kind of thing used to happen—I did not realise that it was happening with vapes, but I am steeped in that experience.

The flavours associated with vapes mean that they are attractive to younger people. Of course, I am not saying that retailers are selling them to young people; young people are just doing the same as has been going on since time immemorial. Kids outside the shop get hold of a guy who is going in for his messages and say, “Can you buy me one of these?”, or older siblings or friends, or whoever, are buying them. That is just the way that teenagers operate—we know that.

With regard to the business case—yes, retailers will no longer be able to sell that profitable item, but they have notice in order to run down their stocks. They can decide whether they want to start selling the reusable products instead, alongside the refills for those; there is another stream of income in servicing the demand that might come from people who used to buy single-use vapes, legally, as their preferred model. There will be a market there, and it is for retailers to make that business decision.

I will give you a bit of background. We contacted every vape retailer in Scotland. We identified those through the register of tobacco and nicotine vapour products retailers. Seven thousand retailers in Scotland are registered. We contacted them all and invited them to provide feedback on the draft regulations, as part of the development of the business and regulatory impact assessment. We conducted the Scottish firms impact test—the SIFT—and we interviewed 11 businesses that came forward. With them, we worked through some of the potential impacts on them. The themes that were identified included funding for enforcement and the potential for illicit sales—going underground. A variety of businesses responded.

Of course, that is not the end of the consultation. Once the regulations are approved—as I hope they will be—by the Parliament, we will get in touch with every single one of the 7,000 members on that register, to alert them to the fact, if they have not already seen it, that the regulations have been passed.

Thank you, convener. I understand the intentions behind your amendments. It is not appropriate to throw litter from a vehicle, and I understand the frustration that we all feel about the amount of litter on our roadsides.

The bill as drafted creates flexibility for the Scottish ministers to set the civil penalty charge at an appropriate amount and will also allow for consultation with local authorities and other stakeholders in respect of the amount. For those reasons, I cannot support the amendments.

Proposed new section 88C(5) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, as inserted by section 14, provides a regulation-making power to ministers to set—and to increase—the amount that may be imposed by way of a civil penalty charge. The civil penalty regime provided for under section 14 allows the registered keeper of a vehicle to be issued with a civil penalty charge where an authorised officer is satisfied to the civil standard—that is, on the balance of probabilities—that a littering offence has taken place from the vehicle.

Amendment 119 would set the civil penalty vastly higher than the current fixed-penalty charge amount for a littering offence; I understand why you would want to do so, convener, but I note that the penalty is currently fixed at £80 and can be increased by secondary legislation to a maximum of £500. The amendment, therefore, would make the civil penalty amount for a littering offence from a vehicle disproportionate in respect of the nature of the offence—

The amendment is a result of local authorities asking the previous minister to have it in place. As I mentioned, their only recourse was to get the police involved and they wanted to be able to issue fixed-penalty notices. I do not have any information about a resourcing implication arising from that. It was local authorities that came to us and said that they wanted that power, so I am making the assumption that they have the resources in place to do that. They are obviously having things reported to them and they feel powerless.

Trading standards already enforce the powers, but the amendment gives local authorities the tools to do the same. If there were any resourcing implications, I imagine that local authorities would have brought that to my, or the previous minister’s, attention and they have not done so.

I was finished already.

Amendment 169 agreed to.

Amendment 170 not moved.

Section 17—Duty to make information publicly available

Amendments 171 to 173 not moved.

Section 17 agreed to.

After section 17

Zero Waste Scotland is Scotland’s circular economy expert. Over the next decade, it will play a pivotal role in accelerating and inspiring transformation in our economy and society, so that resources are valued to their maximum extent and market opportunities are opened up in Scotland as a result. Zero Waste Scotland will work with businesses, local authorities, public body partners and communities, on behalf of the Scottish ministers, in the development and delivery of key policies, such as those that are set out in the circular economy and waste route map and the circular economy strategy that is proposed in the bill.

Amendments 174 and 180 will ensure that relevant legislation that is applicable to Scotland’s other public bodies will now also apply to Zero Waste Scotland. That follows a decision made by the Office for National Statistics in April 2023 that Zero Waste Scotland be classified as a public sector organisation as it is largely funded and directed by the Scottish ministers. Work is well under way to transition the organisation to become an executive non-departmental public body of the Scottish Government.

The amendments insert a new schedule into the bill to bring Zero Waste Scotland into various pieces of legislation that apply to public bodies and will bring its governance and accountability requirements into line with other public bodies. Those requirements have been agreed with the Zero Waste Scotland board and are consistent with duties placed on environmental and economic public body delivery partners that work alongside the organisation to deliver environment and economy outcomes of the national performance framework.

In particular, Zero Waste Scotland will be subject to the requirements of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002, its ministerial board member appointments will be regulated by the Commissioner for Ethical Standards in Public Life in Scotland and its board members will be required to comply with a code of conduct. It will be required to maintain or improve women’s representation on its board and carry out impact assessments for island communities when exercising its functions. It will also be required to have a records management plan, to provide information on expenditure and the exercise of functions and to comply with statutory public procurement requirements.

It is our intention also to ensure that Zero Waste Scotland is subject to equalities duties, but those cannot be imposed via amendments in the bill and will be imposed separately under secondary legislation.

I will have to get my officials to give me that information. I am happy to write to you. I do not have information on any cost in particular. Zero Waste Scotland is keen for the transition to happen. I am looking at my officials. [Interruption.] I will write to you.

Yes.

Amendment 174 agreed to.

Yes, I will.