Chamber and committees

I understand Ms Webber’s intention in lodging the amendments in the group, but I cannot support them and I will outline why. The amendments would require the Scottish Government not only to consult with COSLA, which we do regularly, but to seek its approval for any draft regulations under those powers. I want to be clear that the approval of the regulations lies with Parliament.

The Verity house agreement already underpins the approach to engagement between the Scottish Government and COSLA and the Scottish Government remains committed to that agreement. I do not see the provisions as necessary for the continued joint working that COSLA has described. It is not my understanding that COSLA had asked my predecessor for that and I certainly have not been asked for that. In fact, COSLA has said that the collaboration in the bill is

“an excellent and leading example of working in the spirit of and implementing the Verity House Agreement”.

Full kudos goes to my predecessor for her engagement with COSLA leaders.

We will continue to take that approach to the co-production and development of the regulations to support the bill. In many cases, there is already a requirement to consult local government in the bill. For example, section 12, which relates to the code of practice, and section 13, which relates to targets, already set out that Scottish ministers must consult publicly and seek the views of local authorities.

Amendment 160, in the name of Jackie Dunbar, is a requirement to consult local government on the development of guidance relating to section 11 and new enforcement powers for waste contamination. We will support that amendment. More generally, our approach would be to consult local government on any regulations and we expect that that would involve COSLA.

However, for all the amendments in the group, there is a technical concern about naming COSLA in the bill. It is not common practice. Typically, when outlining consultation duties in legislation, the phrase “local authorities” is used. Although, in practice, that often leads to COSLA being consulted, it also allows for consultation with individual local authorities or with any other organisation that is representative of local authority interests. In the past, COSLA has not been the only body that has been representative of local authorities, so it would not be correct to name it.

Before I do so, Mr Lumsden, I will continue with my point.

First, a written warning would be issued. Then, only if the failure to comply continues or there is a new but similar failure to comply, a notice of intent to require payment of a civil penalty is issued, with a period of time for representations to be made as to why the civil penalty charge should not be required. After consideration of any representations, a final notice to pay a civil penalty may be served. Again, it is about tackling persistent and deliberate contamination of waste.

A penalty would apply not to a situation where somebody has put something in the wrong bin by mistake but to a situation where there has been evidenced, deliberate contamination.

In any situation where somebody is given a penalty, there has to be evidence behind that. A penalty would be a result of evidence of an individual being identified as deliberately contaminating or failing to comply with the legislation. Mr Lumsden describes a situation where there is a big blanket penalty on the whole block, but that could not be evidenced. Therefore, after consideration of any—

I will continue my point and then I will come to Mr Simpson.

Local authorities, Mr Lumsden, would use those new powers only as a last resort, after other options to engage with and support householders have been attempted. Should the written warning be heeded, there will be no penalty to pay.

Guidance on the approach to enforcement, including the approach to communal bins, will be created in consultation with local authorities. Some local authorities are probably doing well with their levels of contaminated waste, so it is important to share good practice in how they manage that. That is the right way to go about it, rather than a top-down approach from me. It is about enabling co-production in the spirit of the Verity house agreement.

My argument, which you have articulated well, Mr Ruskell, is that we do not want to do anything in primary legislation that is inflexible, does not take into account innovation and would cause a problem if there was a change in the trends in the types of recycling that are required. I absolutely take on board that point. You just made my argument even stronger. We all agree that local authorities and those involved in the co-design process need flexibility, but they also need to bring their experience to bear in that process.

Amendment 65, from Maurice Golden, proposes that the Scottish Government provides resources for an audit of household waste receptacles. I am not sure what benefits would be derived from such an endeavour or, indeed, what the costs to the public purse would be. As part of the co-design process with COSLA and local authorities, research requirements and any gaps in our knowledge will be identified. That could include an audit of the number and types of waste receptacles, but I will leave that to them to identify those gaps. Legislating for such a project before the design process has even begun is counterproductive and potentially a waste of resources.

This has been a really interesting discussion. Although I cannot support amendment 128, which Ben Macpherson is not pressing anyway, I recognise the resource limitations that local authorities and other bodies face. The Scottish Government faces its own limitations, as we know.

I will just outline some of the work that we are doing to support local authorities in their efforts with regard to the circular economy. We have supported 25 councils to reduce waste and increase recycling rates through the £70 million recycling improvement fund, and we expect those projects to deliver significant results locally over the coming years. Moreover, co-designing the new household recycling code of practice with local authorities offers a platform to discuss the issues raised in the discussion that we have had about finding new ways of working, as well as the associated costs, feasibility and affordability.

Adjustments to waste management, recycling and reuse services, alongside the transition to a mandatory code of practice, will be closely tied to the implementation of the extended producer responsibility with regard to packaging. That initiative will assist in financing those services by ensuring that producers, not the taxpayer, are responsible for the costs of packaging. It is expected to be a significant funding source for local authorities—indeed, the estimate is £1.2 billion across the UK—and it will help improve quality, consistency and, therefore, the value of the material that local authorities are collecting.

Convener, I see that you are winding me up, so I will do so.

The point of the co-design in each local authority area is for us to be able to set targets and a strategy to achieve them through working with the people who will be achieving them. We want to set those targets for local authorities. In certain local authority areas, we could go further than we said that we would go under the targets that Mr Golden mentioned. Certain local authorities could say that they can make a substantial leap to go well beyond the targets that they were aiming for previously.

It is important that discussion, consultation and a co-design process should take place. Before me, Ms Slater was working on developing the strategies, and I will continue that work with COSLA and local authorities. We could aim to go further.

I have a point of clarification, convener. In response to amendment 12, I said that I had already moved amendments in which we proposed to remove penalties to local authorities. I was away ahead of myself. I have not done that yet; that point will be dealt with in group 11.