Chamber and committees

Thank you. Aileen McHarg, do you want to add anything on that?

I thank you all very much for your time and insights and for being with us today and also down the line. The insights that you have given us will be really helpful in our stage 1 consideration. I let the session run on quite a bit today, but we wanted to give you time to answer on the various issues that were raised.

Our stage 1 report will be published in January, and we look forward to sharing that with you. If there is anything that you did not get a chance to feed in today or if, in the days ahead, you wish that you had said something or pointed out a specific matter, please get in touch with us.

That concludes the public part of our meeting.

Louise Hunter, we have spoken about collaboration and engagement and about ensuring that the voices of those who are involved and affected are being considered. Are there any current models of practice that the Government could learn from, consider or implement? Might lessons be drawn from the experience panels that have been used by Social Security Scotland?

Just briefly. We have heard in previous evidence that, particularly in urban environments, some of the most commonly fly-tipped items are sofas and mattresses, and it has been suggested that, if the bill could place obligations on providers of, say, new mattresses to take away the old ones, that would be of great assistance. If we were able, through the bill process, to enhance our system so that the producers and suppliers of those frequently fly-tipped materials in urban areas took responsibility for that waste, could we then move to a properly funded position in which, as Jackie Dunbar rightly suggested, miscellaneous bulky items placed around bins could be picked up free of charge by the local authority? That seems like the place that we want to get to, because a lot of the fly-tipping that is happening is because people are either unaware that they are fly-tipping, because they are just disposing of smaller items, or they find it difficult to either pay the removal of the items or get to the waste sites, which are usually on the periphery of cities.

That is an important point.

On the thematic point about the balance between standardisation, commingling systems and kerbside segregation, we heard evidence on our visit to a recycling centre that it would be most helpful if waste was segregated into three groups: glass, plastic and metal, and paper and cardboard. Would such standardisation across the country, at least at a high level, be a useful and consistent approach that could lead to higher recycling rates?

That is helpful. You say that fining households is less of a priority than educating households, but do you support holding to account carriers of waste to a higher degree?

I will move on to a related, but slightly different area. You will appreciate that, when some stakeholders have engaged with us in the bill process—businesses in particular—they have been cognisant of considerations about alignment to a UK-wide approach where possible when powers in the bill are to be used. They have been mindful of the situation with the deposit return scheme and the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020. Do any of you have any feedback that you would like to share with the committee on whether regulatory divergence within the UK affects your sector? Is there anything that you would like to bring to our attention in that regard?

It is interesting to hear your thoughts, because a lot of considerations around alignment—whether in the European Union or the UK—are about producer responsibility and products being sold in the market. However, you are saying that the ability to trade waste that comes from the processes into other markets is also something to be cognisant of in the bill’s process and implementation.

Does anyone want to add anything to what Mr Freeland said?

As they do not, I think that we can move on, convener.

It is invaluable to get your insight today, because the practicalities on the ground, particularly when it comes to implementation and enforcement, are so crucial in this area of consideration. How useful do you consider to be the proposed new household waste enforcement mechanisms in the bill of fining households through fixed or civil penalties for misuse of waste services? What about the proposed new criminal offence in relation to the household duty of care to check the credentials of waste carriers? Do you see those as gaps in your current enforcement toolkit? In other words, will the bill as drafted make a meaningful difference?