Chamber and committees

The Scottish Government is happy to support amendment 81 in the name of Douglas Lumsden. Given the transformative change that is required to move from a linear to a circular economy, statutory targets will provide a strong focus for action and certainty in direction of travel across policy. Any targets would be set by future regulations, would be subject to detailed consultation and would sit alongside a monitoring framework that would inform policy choices and allow us to prioritise action on areas such as consumption reduction. On that basis, we are content that there should be a duty and not just a power for ministers to set targets.

We are also very happy to support amendments 147 and 150, in line with the committee’s recommendations at stage 1 to provide enhanced parliamentary scrutiny of initial targets by means of a super-affirmative procedure. I want to give the clarity that Mr Lumsden required about the meaning of “as they consider appropriate”. That is the usual wording for that type of provision. It just means that ministers can choose how to publish that information, which nowadays would generally be on the Scottish Government’s website.

I would like to make a little progress. Mr Golden had a long time to go through his amendments, and I would like to comment on why I am not going to support them.

Setting relevant statutory targets for the circular economy will help to provide a strong focus for action and make clear our intention in terms of policy and ambition. We have set out our intentions in that regard.

I note that, in its stage 1 report, the committee supported the need for a robust approach to setting targets, as well as the need for rigour. I also note the Climate Change Committee’s previous advice to the Scottish Government and Parliament regarding consideration of separate waste streams and of carbon-based metrics when setting future targets. That is why the Scottish Government’s view remains that it would be inadvisable to set future recycling targets now in the bill; instead, we have set out an approach to targets that is based on developing a comprehensive monitoring and indicator framework, to ensure consistency and certainty of the data on which targets can be based.

I will take Maurice Golden’s intervention.

It is neither, Mr Golden. Sections 6 and 7 of the bill already enable the Scottish ministers to set targets by regulations. Such regulations will

“provide for targets in relation to ... increasing recycling”

as well as “reducing waste” and “increasing reuse”.

The powers in the bill do not require the Scottish ministers to specifically set national targets for recycling. The aims of amendments 15 to 18 could be achieved by existing provisions, once appropriate targets are developed and agreed. The important point is that those targets will be developed and agreed in consultation.

I am responding to one intervention at the moment—let me respond to Mr Mountain’s point. Amendments 15 to 18 do not take account of and would pre-empt the co-design process. I keep coming back to the importance of that. Each geographical area has its own circumstances; it is only right that improvements should be designed locally and that the targets should be local. I reassure the committee that the development of appropriate statutory circular economy targets, including consideration of the potential for future recycling targets, will be a key priority.

I will take Mr Lumsden’s intervention now, if that is okay, convener.

Finally, convener, the Scottish Government cannot support amendments 9 and 10, which are in the name of Maurice Golden. In the stage 1 report, the committee said that it understands the need for a robust approach to setting targets. I agree with that, because targets would have significant implications across policy and for stakeholders, so they should be informed by further consultation in all parts of society.

That is why I have set out an approach to setting targets that is based on development of a monitoring and indicator framework, as I have said many times and will not rehearse. Amendments 9 and 10 would replace the ability for Scottish ministers to set targets by regulations following that robust analysis and consultation. For the reasons that I have rehearsed many times, I do not want to do that, so I urge the committee not to support amendments 9 and 10.

I will not take Mr Lumsden’s intervention. In the interests of time, I should probably wind up.

Recent statistics show that the recycling rate in Scotland is 62.3 per cent, which is the highest level since recording began in 2011. There is a mixed picture across Scotland, and it is important to reflect in the co-design process that there must be a local approach with local partners, so that those who feel that they can go well above a target have the ability and are empowered to put their strategies in place, and so that we can support those who are not doing well enough to do better.

For similar reasons to those that I have given previously, I will not support Ms Boyack’s amendment 205. Sections 6 and 7 of the bill already provide the means to set national

“targets ... relating to”

the

“circular economy,”

which might include targets in relation to increasing reuse and recycling. Section 13 provides a power to set local authority targets for household recycling, including the power to set different targets for different local authority areas, if that is what comes out of the co-design process. Work is under way to establish an agreed monitoring and indicator framework that can be used to track different aspects of the circular economy.

I therefore encourage members not to support amendment 2,005—I mean amendment 205; thank goodness it is not amendment 2,005.

I am happy to meet Mr Doris to discuss the matter ahead of stage 3.

Amendment 72 concerns the app that Graham Simpson would like to be in place nationally. First, I commend Mr Simpson on changing his mind in real time, based on the debate—as he says, there is probably not enough of that. However, I agree with Monica Lennon’s points on the issue more than I agree with the need for an app. Local authorities already provide information. I do not know whether the way in which various local authorities do that is good enough. The fact that Mr Simpson has lodged the amendment suggests that he does not think that it is, and I am not sure that I do, either. We all know of instances where we think that local authorities could improve the information that they provide and, in particular, the way in which the public is able to engage with them. I will not single out any council in particular, but I take Mr Simpson’s point and I note that, a couple of years ago, when I witnessed tyres being burned in my constituency, I struggled to find where I could report it on the local authority’s website. However, it is up to each local authority to decide its approach and I am sure that they will listen to the criticisms that have been made today.

Again, Ms Lennon’s point about digital inclusion is important.

That is where the co-design and the strategy almost engender that kind of sharing of good practice.

A survey on fly-tipping was carried out by Zero Waste Scotland, and 3 per cent of respondents said that they would prefer an app, 45 per cent preferred online reporting, and 26 per cent preferred to use email. There is something about the online reporting aspect that councils might need to consider. How deep into a council’s website is that function? That is an important point.

I must move on, as the convener is giving me a raised eyebrow.

Absolutely. Given all the comments that have been made, it is obvious that we are all agreed that the process needs to be accessible, user friendly and known about by the public.

I understand the intentions behind amendments 171 to 173, and I agree with the aims to update the existing powers in paragraph 14 of schedule 2 to the Regulatory Reform (Scotland) Act 2014. I agree that it could be helpful for reporting to include details of the origin and destination of food items, building awareness of the ways in which food surplus and waste could be used.

I also support the desire to understand more about the end destination of material that has been collected for recycling, and the consultation on the draft circular economy and waste route map sets out our intention to develop options and to consult on the introduction of end-destination public reporting. Similarly, there might be a benefit to considering the storage and disposal of textiles, as per amendment 173. However, those aims can already be achieved by means of section 17 of the bill.

In respect of recycling, existing powers include the electronic waste tracking powers under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and the power in paragraph 14 of schedule 2 to the 2014 act.

The enabling power under new paragraph 14A, which is being inserted in schedule 2 to the 2014 act under section 17 of the bill, does not specify any particular sectors or types of waste, as it is an enabling power that is intended to provide flexibility to determine what kinds of waste and surplus are suitable for public reporting. However, that would include the items indicated in the three amendments. For example, food waste may be the first candidate for the use of the power, which also enables the making of regulations requiring the publication of information, in contrast to the power in paragraph 14 of schedule 2 to the 2014 act.

The committee expressed concerns about the impact of the reporting requirements on small and medium-sized businesses, so providing a power in addition to what is already included would be duplicative and could risk creating additional burdens.

In summary, I believe that some of the amendments in this group are unnecessary, and they are also potentially burdensome. For those reasons, I urge the committee not to support them. However, I do agree with the sentiment behind them.

The Scottish Government cannot support any of the amendments from Graham Simpson or Maurice Golden in this group. I understand that people want action to happen quickly, but I will deal with the practical reasons why the amendments will not work.

I will deal first with the many amendments that seek to impose time limits of one or two years, although I thank Graham Simpson for saying that he will not move the amendments pertaining to one year. The arguments relating to the amendments for two years are similar. Many amendments relate to regulation-making powers that are subject to the affirmative procedure, such as those relating to the circular economy targets and household recycling targets for local authorities. Others, such as regulations to impose charges for single-use items, are even subject to the super-affirmative procedure. Making those regulations depends on parliamentary approval and the scheduling of parliamentary business, so the amendments are at risk of not being workable, as the timing of parliamentary procedure is outwith Scottish Government or ministers’ control. [Interruption.]