Chamber and committees

That is an interesting provision in the bill. If the convener will allow me, it is worth my going into that in some detail, as it is an important point. I have the letter from COSLA in front of me. Councillor Gail Macgregor says:

“There is no need to make the Charter for kerbside collection services mandatory. All 32 Councils have signed up to it.”

However, only a third of the councils actually implement the charter. That is the problem with a voluntary charter: there are no consequences for not implementing it. You can sign on the dotted line and then not do it.

The bill proposes a move to a mandatory code of practice to be developed by councils so that we know that it is feasible and that it provides for different geographies, tenancy types, building types and built environments. It needs to have all those provisions, and it needs to take into account where councils currently are. As we know, some councils are very nearly at their 60 per cent target and some are a long way away from it.

Given all the development that needs to be done, the bill proposes a mandatory target. The reason for that is evidence based—it is because that is what works elsewhere. We have international examples of that. Wales is, of course, our closest example. That is how Wales has driven recycling to the levels that they are at there.

In Scotland, recycling levels have stalled at just over 40 per cent on average—between 40 and 45 per cent. We have stalled, so we have to do something new. We have to bring in what works. The Verity house agreement commits to co-design, but it also commits to being evidence led, and the evidence tells us that we need to do this.

I do not have the data on that but, if the information is with SEPA, I presume that we can write to the committee with it.

The question, as I understood it, was about the timescale for national targets.

Absolutely. We need to work with local authorities to set out what we want local authorities to deliver and what they are prepared to deliver, and then, of course, we need to set out how that investment will take place.

Do you want to come in, Janet?

Absolutely—you are exactly right. Measuring circularity in Scotland, never mind measuring circularity in different places around the world, is difficult. Monica Lennon is right that we should consider that. Exporting of our carbon footprint and our waste is not the goal. Our goal is to reduce consumption of materials overall, so that we reduce our impact here and globally. You are right that getting the detail on that is challenging, just as it is in developing specific targets, because this is all new and cutting edge.

I want to make clear that Douglas Lumsden is discussing two different provisions.

I will first cover section 11 on household waste requirements. It is already a criminal offence to not respond to a notice to desist from contaminating recycling. No new offence is being created there. The overall aim of the creation of a fixed-penalty notice for the offence is to give local authorities a more proportionate and civil offence route to go down, as opposed to the criminal sanctions, which are the only option right now. Local authorities already have an obligation to enforce that, but, obviously, criminal proceedings for contaminating recycling would be appropriate only in some pretty extreme circumstances. Having a fixed-penalty notice regime gives local authorities a much more proportionate response. Contamination of recyclate is a big problem for local authorities and is very costly for them, which means that having effective powers for dealing with that offence is helpful to them.

On the other matter, it is useful that we have Mr Fraser with us today, because the provision is similar to what he proposes in his member’s bill. The provision is about creating a new criminal offence relating to the householder’s duty of care. Householders already have a duty to ensure that their waste is dealt with properly and that it does not become part of a waste crime. Currently, however, although the person who tips the waste can be accused of a criminal offence, there is no offence associated with that for the householder.

The provision will put in place for Scotland a provision equivalent to that which already exists in England and Wales. It states that a householder can be charged with a fixed-penalty notice if the local authority

“has reason to believe that”

the householder has breached the duty of care and has not taken “reasonable steps” to ensure that the waste handler to whom they have given their waste is licensed.

Yes, convener. I have committed to revisiting the numbers in the financial memorandum that the FPAC highlighted to me.

That will need to be developed through the code of practice. I do not intend to impose an approach on councils; I intend to co-develop it with them. However, you are right. There are some really good international examples in that area. For example, the Scandinavian countries—not just within the countries, but across multiple countries—have standardised bin colours and labels so that, whether someone is at a train station, at home or at their place of work, the same colours are used for the same materials. We could aim for that if local authorities are interested in doing so.

No. We are looking at using the super-affirmative procedure for charging for single-use items.

My reassurance is that we will follow the Verity house process and do the co-design together. It is not entirely a question of imposing things on local authorities and expecting them to get on with it. Together, we need to understand what local authorities want to achieve and how best to achieve that. As I highlighted earlier, it is not just about what we want local authorities to do for us in the waste space; it is about the opportunities that we can help them to unlock so that they get better value from their recyclate and get income streams to reduce the costs that are associated with litter and handling waste. Monica Lennon made a good point on reusable nappies, for example. By taking items out of the waste stream, we save local authorities money.

Douglas Lumsden will understand that there are lots of different moving parts. There are different scopes for savings and different revenue-raising opportunities. Of course, a big thing that will be coming into play is the extended producer responsibility for packaging. That will result in substantial funding for councils, but we do not have the details yet. All those resources can go into the mix, alongside developing an approach that ensures that we will be successful.