Chamber and committees

Thank you, convener, and thank you for the opportunity to speak with the committee today.

The Circular Economy (Scotland) Bill will establish the legislative framework to support Scotland’s transition to a zero waste and circular economy, significantly increase reuse and recycling rates, and modernise and improve waste and recycling services.

The bill takes powers to give ministers and local authorities the tools that they need in order to achieve our ambitions for a circular economy. Those represent a package of new powers and responsibilities that will be underpinned by support and investment, such as the £70 million recycling improvement fund. That builds on over £1 billion of funding provided through the former strategic waste fund between 2008 and 2022 to assist local authorities in the implementation of a zero waste plan.

At the heart of many of the bill’s provisions is the recognition that co-design, based on the principles of the Verity house agreement and the new deal for business, will be central to delivering the transformation that we need.

Regulations made under the enabling powers in the bill will be subject to further consultation, parliamentary scrutiny and impact assessments, including business and regulatory impact assessments. As a result, the financial memorandum provides strategic-level cost-and-benefit data. That will be refined as part of on-going work with local authorities, householders, businesses and other stakeholders through, for example, the development of the waste route map.

The bill is necessarily narrow in the topics that it covers. It sits in the space where the Scottish Government needs new powers to take action: between powers that are reserved and matters that are devolved on which we have already taken powers.

Legislation is, of course, only part of the solution. A wide range of other measures is in train. Alongside the Circular Economy (Scotland) Bill, we are developing our circular economy and waste route map, which will provide strategic direction for how we will deliver our system-wide, comprehensive vision for sustainable resource use and Scotland’s circular economy to 2030. An updated draft route map will be published later in 2023 for further consultation, and it will be finalised in 2024.

Extended producer responsibility for packaging, which we are introducing alongside other United Kingdom Governments, will require producers to pay local authorities the full net cost of operating an efficient and effective household packaging collection service. That will provide substantial funding to local authorities, which is estimated to be £1.2 billion per annum across the UK.

Let me finish by underlining that building a more circular economy is an environmental imperative, but it is also an economic opportunity for Scotland. It will open up new market opportunities, improve productivity, increase self-sufficiency and provide local employment opportunities.

I look forward to answering your questions.

I know that members will understand that the bill, as a framework bill, sets out strategic intentions and actions. The costs in the financial memorandum are therefore also at that level. At the detailed level of policy implementation, there would be another full set of business and regulatory impact assessments for Parliament to scrutinise. Those are part of the co-development processes.

From what you are saying, some of the concern is specifically about the code for local authorities and the household requirements. That seems to be what you are alluding to. There is an indicative cost of £88.4 million in paragraph 48 of the financial memorandum, which is an estimate by Zero Waste Scotland. The paragraph details how the estimate was reached. That would bring all our local authorities into alignment with the existing code of practice. That is a reasonable indicative figure of the investment that is required in Scotland to move us substantially in that direction.

The indicative figure of £88.4 million is quite good, and it is comparable to the £70 million that we have invested through the recycling improvement fund. The difference divided through the local authorities is a relatively modest amount. Members can see that the level of investment is proportionate to the kind of changes that we are looking for.

I absolutely understand that councils have concerns about future planning. We are all looking ahead, and we know that budgets are tight and that we need to make the just transition to net zero.

In response to that, I will say that the main point of the bill is that it is very much a framework bill. It is the start of a journey for us to go on to bring our recycling and reuse rates up to the levels that we know that we can achieve and that we know are needed for net zero.

You are absolutely correct, convener: councils are on board with the journey that we need to go on. I have committed in writing and through the Verity house process to co-designing with councils. Each of the provisions in the bill will have underneath it detailed policies to be introduced on things such as charges for single-use items.

At this time, we are looking at an enabling framework to allow the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament to bring forward such legislation, but the exact items to be included, how they would be managed, exactly how the charges would be collected and implemented, and what benefits and savings for litter and waste management those charges would bring for local authorities are to be developed in detail with local authorities as we move forward. The recent discussions about single-use vapes, for example, have brought to our attention that such matters can come up quite quickly, and they need to be handled quite urgently. We cannot see exactly all the different ways in which the framework may be used down the line. We have the costs for looking strategically at the framework and indicative costs for some of the initial policies that we intend to introduce with the framework.

Indeed, because it is at a strategic level. The FM is clear on the assumptions that are made and on the ranges that we are looking at. Given that most of the bill’s provisions are about setting up frameworks and developing processes and legislation, the costs that are provided are as indicative and as accurate as we can possibly make them for those things.

The question, I suppose, is what the member means by “final”. For example, on charging for single-use items, the bill provides an enabling power that the Parliament could use again and again. We do not know when the next product like a single-use vape might be invented; it could be 30 years from now.

That is the challenge with a framework bill. We are putting in place structures and taking the initial step of creating enabling powers. We are not detailing in the bill how those powers might be used. That will be done through secondary legislation, as the member rightly points out. I was recently involved in secondary legislation that generated substantial debate in a committee, even though the negative procedure was used. I had a lengthy session in front of the committee answering questions about the legislation, and it was also discussed in the chamber. Depending on how members interact with secondary legislation, there can be extensive scrutiny, if MSPs decide that that is needed.

Those powers will be available as the legislation is brought forward. I have a list in front of me—for example, the affirmative procedure will be used when the Parliament considers the legislation on restrictions on unsold goods. There will be the chance to scrutinise each piece of legislation.

Because the financial memorandum sets out how we will do these things. For example, as my colleague Alex Quayle said, the first step of the co-design process is to agree what that process is. We know that it will take some time and we will be working with local authorities. That is all set out in good faith, and we are providing the best information that we have at this moment. I am certain that we are providing you with the best information that we have at this time.

I absolutely accept that we are all looking at the best numbers that we can provide with the information that we have available to us now, and I know that that information is the best information that we can provide to you now. Yes, if the situation changes in the future, as Michelle Thomson said, the committee is welcome to invite me back. I would be happy to give an updated financial memorandum and look at that, if the situation changes further down the line. This is the best information that we have now, so it is, of course, what I am providing to the committee. The memorandum is clear about the assumptions that are involved, and, yes, the co-design process means that the outcomes of that will be developed through the process. That is exactly what co-design should do.

As I have said, I am confident that the financial memorandum lays out the strategic costs, as it intends to do. Where there may be some uncertainty is where people want to know what the detailed costs of the secondary legislation will be, and, of course, we do not have that information, because that has yet to be developed. If there is a discrepancy, I assume that it is because local authorities and businesses and so on are looking for the detail that will come with the secondary legislation but is not part of the bill.

I will pass that question to Alex or Janet.