Chamber and committees

This has been a really interesting discussion. Although I cannot support amendment 128, which Ben Macpherson is not pressing anyway, I recognise the resource limitations that local authorities and other bodies face. The Scottish Government faces its own limitations, as we know.

I will just outline some of the work that we are doing to support local authorities in their efforts with regard to the circular economy. We have supported 25 councils to reduce waste and increase recycling rates through the £70 million recycling improvement fund, and we expect those projects to deliver significant results locally over the coming years. Moreover, co-designing the new household recycling code of practice with local authorities offers a platform to discuss the issues raised in the discussion that we have had about finding new ways of working, as well as the associated costs, feasibility and affordability.

Adjustments to waste management, recycling and reuse services, alongside the transition to a mandatory code of practice, will be closely tied to the implementation of the extended producer responsibility with regard to packaging. That initiative will assist in financing those services by ensuring that producers, not the taxpayer, are responsible for the costs of packaging. It is expected to be a significant funding source for local authorities—indeed, the estimate is £1.2 billion across the UK—and it will help improve quality, consistency and, therefore, the value of the material that local authorities are collecting.

Convener, I see that you are winding me up, so I will do so.

The point of the co-design in each local authority area is for us to be able to set targets and a strategy to achieve them through working with the people who will be achieving them. We want to set those targets for local authorities. In certain local authority areas, we could go further than we said that we would go under the targets that Mr Golden mentioned. Certain local authorities could say that they can make a substantial leap to go well beyond the targets that they were aiming for previously.

It is important that discussion, consultation and a co-design process should take place. Before me, Ms Slater was working on developing the strategies, and I will continue that work with COSLA and local authorities. We could aim to go further.

I have a point of clarification, convener. In response to amendment 12, I said that I had already moved amendments in which we proposed to remove penalties to local authorities. I was away ahead of myself. I have not done that yet; that point will be dealt with in group 11.

I agree whole-heartedly that preventing human rights harm and ensuring environmental due diligence are values that should be upheld. Our national performance framework has a very clear commitment to a Scotland in which rights are respected, protected and fulfilled and a significant body of rights, derived from the European convention on human rights, is already hard-wired into the devolution settlement. In fact, it is already unlawful for Scottish public authorities to act in way that is incompatible with those rights. Strengthening our rights framework will be the subject of the Government’s forthcoming Scottish human rights bill.

Our national procurement legislation, the Procurement Reform (Scotland) Act 2014, established a national legislative framework for public procurement to support sustainable economic growth by delivering economic, social and environmental benefits. The sustainable procurement duty in the act requires contracting authorities to consider and act on opportunities to improve economic, social and environmental wellbeing. Contracting authorities with a procurement spend of £5 million or more in any financial year must set out, in an organisational procurement strategy, how they intend to comply with the sustainable procurement duty and their policy on the procurement of fair and ethically traded goods and services. They must also report on compliance with this strategy in their annual procurement reports. In the interests of transparency, both procurement strategies and annual procurement reports must be published.

In addition to national procurement legislation, legislation that is derived from European directives already includes a range of mandatory and discretionary grounds on which economic operators can be excluded from procurement. In transposing the directives, Scotland took a distinct approach from other parts of the UK, requiring contracting authorities to include conditions that relate to performance of the contract, to ensure that the economic operator complies with environmental, social and employment law, specifically the International Labour Organization standards and other international conventions, such as the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer and the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants.

The Scottish Government slavery and human trafficking statement, which was published in December 2023, outlines the strategies and actions that we have taken to identify, prevent and mitigate slavery and human trafficking in our own operations and supply chains. We support compliance with procurement law through on-going guidance and training that alert a contracting authority to supply chain risks and provide a route map to addressing such risks and ways to improve working practices and environmental impacts in their procurement activity.

Therefore, given the range of legislation that is already in place, which I have outlined, and the Scottish Government’s proposed human rights bill, our view is that this new duty on public bodies would be unnecessary as well as potentially confusing and burdensome for public bodies.

I will first deal with the Scottish Government’s amendments in the group—amendments 165 and 166, which relate to recommendations from the committee and COSLA. I hope that the amendments will reassure members that we have listened carefully to those views and have shown willingness to address an issue that became clear at stage 1.

Section 13 of the bill inserts a new section 47B into the Environmental Protection Act 1990 to give ministers the power to make regulations to set household recycling targets for local authorities. Amendment 165 will remove the power for the Scottish ministers to include in such regulations a provision to impose financial penalties on a local authority that misses the household recycling targets.

Amendment 166 makes a consequential change to new section 47B by removing wording that would have allowed ministers to make provision for local authority appeals against the imposition of targets, as such provision is no longer required. That follows constructive engagement between the Scottish Government and COSLA on the development of an improvement programme in relation to household recycling.

I am satisfied that the principles that have been agreed for that programme will help to meet the bill’s aims of improving recycling and increasing accountability. In a letter of 16 April, Councillor Gail Macgregor, who is COSLA’s spokesperson for environment and economy, confirmed the political commitment of COSLA members to that approach—when I was given responsibility for the bill, my first meeting about it was with Councillor Macgregor, and she reiterated that commitment when I met her on 30 April.

I turn to Mr Golden’s amendments 15 to 18. I understand his intentions with those amendments, but I will set out why I cannot support them. They would pre-empt the detailed consideration and consultation that will be required before any future statutory national targets are set.

Amendment 164 proposes that the Scottish ministers should be required to impose household waste recycling targets for local authorities by way of regulations that are made under new section 47B of the 1990 act, which section 13 of the bill inserts. The bill does not impose on ministers a duty to use that power. That reflects our intention—again—to jointly consider and co-design such targets with COSLA and the local authorities, which directly reflects the principles of the Verity house agreement.

That seems to me to be the right approach to take, and it is the approach that COSLA and local authorities want. It is incumbent on us in the Scottish Government to work with our local authority partners in order to realise their ambition and to support them in it. I therefore cannot support amendment 164.

Amendment 60 proposes that the Scottish ministers should be required to report annually

“on local authorities’ progress towards achieving”

any household recycling targets that regulations under powers that are introduced by section 13 of the bill set out. I agree that it is important for information on progress towards targets to be transparent and accessible. SEPA already publishes comprehensive annual waste statistics, including data on local authority household recycling rates, so amendment 60 is unnecessary. I hope that Maurice Golden will be reassured that annual statistics are in place and that he will not move his amendment.

Amendment 90, from Douglas Lumsden, proposes that the Scottish ministers should make regulations to impose waste management targets on local authorities. The regulations would also have to specify what additional funds or resources were to be provided to local authorities.

I have noted that the Scottish Government is committed to working with COSLA, in the spirit of the Verity house agreement, to co-design an appropriate and effective approach that would require collaboration on how targets were set and on how they are funded and achieved. I mentioned that in relation to Mr Macpherson’s amendment 128, which he sought to withdraw. We have agreed the principles of a planned improvement programme, including that it would provide a practical route for local authorities to plan to meet targets and to explore what will be required to deliver those targets, which includes potential funding implications. I therefore encourage members to vote against amendment 90.

I am nearly finished, convener; actually, I am not—I have two more pages of notes.

I will not be supporting amendment 167. Targets under new section 47B of the 1990 act will be imposed on local authorities, and targets that are set under section 6 of the bill will be imposed on ministers, so the amendment would have limited legal effect.

Amendment 168 would modify new section 47B of the 1990 act by requiring the Scottish ministers to solicit the views of the public in relation to draft regulations to set targets for local authorities. However, section 47B already requires ministers to consult the public.

I cannot support Sarah Boyack’s amendment 206. It does not appear to be in the spirit of the Verity house agreement, as it could potentially prevent the setting of different local authority recycling targets in consideration of individual local authority circumstances.

As for amendment 91, local authorities are responsible for their own procurement and contract management. As I have said, it is for them to be cognisant of any potential long-term changes that relevant policy will make. It is not clear to me why local authorities would require to cancel contracts in relation to the new provisions that section 11 of the bill inserts. I cannot support that amendment.

I am not dismissing that, and I think that it is an issue, but there are other apps that let people know exactly where they are. I take the point, and I think that Mr Simpson’s ambition is laudable, but I do not think that the proposal is workable. Different local authorities have different mechanisms, and it is incumbent on them to improve their reporting mechanisms.

I reassure the committee that there will be opportunities to improve information on the disposal of waste through the development of the new statutory household recycling code of practice, which is provided for under section 12. On reporting illegal waste, we have amendments on fly-tipping coming up later.

I cannot support Graham Simpson’s amendment 72, although this has been a very useful discussion.

Yes—hint taken.

I understand the sentiment behind amendment 104, but I cannot support it as it has been written. I do not think that it is workable, at the moment, for food to be defined in the bill, but I offer to work with Ms Boyack ahead of stage 3. Therefore, I will keep it brief and we can have that discussion offline.

I cannot support amendments 83 and 85, from Douglas Lumsden, although I take the point that he really wants clarification. The purpose of the new regulation-making power is to prevent the disposal of unsold goods—for example, clothing or electrical items—and instead see them being reused by those who need them. When a retailer is left with unsold goods, it does not mean that they become defined as waste. Options that prevent goods from becoming waste are those that ensure that goods are redistributed or donated, and those are the sort of outcomes that we are seeking to achieve. Section 8 provides for regulations that would focus on prohibiting or restricting the disposal of particular goods, instead of their being defined as waste, and doing so would not be required to make the regulations work. Therefore, I do not think that the amendments are necessary.

Turning to amendment 84, I acknowledge the sentiment, but in practice it is difficult to define “value” in legislation. Setting a value in regulation is not necessarily straightforward. Mr Lumsden appreciates that the value of goods can fluctuate, so it could even lead to unintended consequences. For example, if costs were reduced significantly for a short time, those goods might not be affected by the regulations. Therefore, it is very difficult for me to agree to amendment 84, and I cannot support it.

As the amendment is set out, it could lead to unintended consequences such as a retailer reducing the sale value of something, for example, in order to get round that. I am uncomfortable with the potential for unintended consequences.

I apologise to Mr Lumsden, but I cannot support amendment 86 either. I agree that setting out exemptions is important—for example, when products have been withdrawn for safety reasons—but that is already provided for in the new power in proposed new section 78A(5) of the 2009 act, so the amendment is redundant.

On Monica Lennon’s amendments, textiles are one potential candidate for regulations restricting the disposal of unsold goods. It would not be appropriate to make express provisions in the bill, because it is already open to us to do that through regulations. I imagine that textiles will form part of the co-designed regulations, for the reasons why Monica Lennon has campaigned on the issue. The intention of the provision is to increase reuse. Ultimately, it would be for affected businesses to decide how best to comply with any regulations that prohibited or restricted the disposal of unsold goods, rather than for the regulations to specify whether those goods should be donated to specific organisations or recycled, reused or repaired.

Amendments 155 and 156 refer to the export of goods, which, sadly, is a reserved matter, so I cannot support them either.

On amendment 198, I agree that a requirement to develop guidance might be appropriate in relation to section 8, but I cannot support the amendment as drafted. The effect would be to require Scottish ministers to “prepare and publish guidance” before any draft regulations were laid before Parliament. In my view, that would not be appropriate, because it would pre-empt parliamentary approval and scrutiny of the regulations. Although I cannot support amendment 198, I am happy to work with Sarah Boyack to develop an amendment that would require the development of guidance at an appropriate juncture.

On amendment 88, budgets are set via the Scottish budget process. As we discussed in relation to councils, enforcement bodies are the appropriate resource to deliver the duties that are expected of them. That will include enforcement requirements stemming from the bill, as well as any other areas that affect them. Therefore, I cannot support the amendment. However, we will engage with SEPA on matters arising from the bill and will ensure that they are resourced appropriately. I know that SEPA will be happy to engage with MSPs directly on whether it thinks that it is well enough resourced to deal with the impacts of the bill.

Amendment 23, in the name of Graham Simpson, is legally ineffective, so I cannot support it and I ask him not to move it. I do not think that it would have the effect that Graham Simpson wants to achieve, which is to commence the new section 78 power in relation to the restrictions on the disposal of unsold goods upon the bill receiving royal assent. I do not think that the amendment is workable, so I ask him not to move it.