Chamber and committees

Convener, does anyone else want to come in on that issue before I move on?

I am happy to wait until later. If there is any follow-up that might be helpful for the committee—

We would appreciate that, as appropriate; I know that it is a sensitive area.

And the use of secondary legislation gives that flexibility.

Absolutely. I have a final question on charges for single-use items. You talked about the success of the carrier bag charge that was introduced in 2014. That has been an undoubted success environmentally, but also from the point of view of behavioural change.

Last week, it was argued by representatives of the business community that the fact that the money that is raised from the plastic bag charge can be put towards local causes has helped with collegiate buy-in to the policy, from the point of view of both implementation and seeing the benefits. Do you have any comments to make on how the net proceeds from charges for single-use items should be used? As things stand, the bill proposes a different approach from the one that has been taken in relation to the 2014 plastic bag charge.

If no one wants to add to that, I will move on.

It definitely is part of a puzzle and, of course, one advantage of a deposit return scheme is that it helps to reduce contamination. There is not just the challenge of the 60 per cent of materials that go into landfill but that could be recycled; it is also about how we improve the quality of the recyclate that goes into recycling provisions as they are. To me, the puzzle is about deposit return and the considerations in the bill, but it is also about public awareness and cultural change.

Regarding the provisions to put the recycling code on a statutory footing and to enable the setting of local targets, what evidence is there to suggest that taking a statutory approach in those areas will drive up standards? What are the key opportunities in making systems more consistent across the country? How do we drive up standards and make the systems more consistent, and how important would those elements be?

Yes, and it is also about consistency of practice and how it is implemented.

If there is no other feedback on that, I want, finally, to come back to a point already raised by Mr Gulland about our facilities to meet the bill’s requirements and the shared collective aim of reducing waste and increasing recycling. What investment in waste, whether it be in recycling, reuse, redistribution or infrastructure, will be needed to support the bill’s aims? I would be grateful if you could elaborate on what you said earlier, Mr Gulland, because I think that it is really important.

If you could follow up on that, it would be helpful. Your points about inward investment and job creation are absolutely of interest, including the point that having consistency and a uniform position across local authorities on processing would attract such investment.

Mr Halfhide, do you want to say anything about any of the questions that I have asked?

I will press on and ask about considerations around household waste, which we have touched on briefly already. What impact will the strengthening of enforcement measures regarding the disposal of household waste have? How should high levels of compliance with household waste and recycling systems be achieved? Is what is in the bill enforceable?