Chamber and committees

If there is data on that, I do not have it in front of me. However, just to go back to fly-tipping, I point out that, as part of that strategy, the Government has funded SEPA to analyse the issue and to tackle illegal online trading. That work has already been done, and it will give us a fuller picture.

On amendment 130, an FPN for a breach of the householder’s duty of care may be issued only where there is a reason to believe that the householder has breached the duty by failing to “take reasonable steps”—

Convener, I very much enjoy our private conversations in the lunch queue, and it would be a shame if we could not have those conversations without me being misrepresented. I say that gently because the convener, as a gentleman, has allowed me the chance to come back on that point, and I will address it. I think that I said something slightly different, but we can discuss that when I come to it.

The amendments in this group relate to two themes that have been a specific focus for the committee: first, the importance of ensuring that the new regime for enforcement of household waste requirements is fairly applied; secondly, the potential to standardise the colour of receptacles that are used to collect household waste and recycling. I will address those themes in turn.

Amendment 46 from Maurice Golden and amendment 105 from Sarah Boyack would introduce exemptions from the civil penalty regime, and I will explain why I am not going to accept those amendments.

I agree that, in guidance, we need to consider carefully the intended enforcement approach for communal bins because, clearly, specific factors need to be taken into account. Members have expressed their concerns, and Mr Macpherson expressed his concern about the contamination of waste by passers-by in urban areas. Places such as Edinburgh have a lot of tourists, who might not be familiar with the regime, particularly if the instructions have worn off the bins, as happened in the area of Edinburgh where I live when I am down at Parliament. Some neighbours and I got in touch with the local council to ask whether we could have better signage on the bins, because even I was beginning to get confused about where I should put my waste. Therefore, I completely take that concern on board.

However, I cannot support amendments that would simply exempt a type of householder. If amendment 105 created a blanket exemption for everyone who lives in tenement housing, that would go against the purpose of trying to increase recycling rates. It would be quite a loophole. The provision in relation to civil penalties outlines a clear process and requirements. First, a written warning is issued. It is about tackling persistent, gross, deliberate contamination.

Convener, are you open to me taking more interventions?

I agree with Mr Macpherson on that point, but I also agree that local authorities know best how to work together on how they enforce that.

I come back to Mr Macpherson’s earlier point: all those householders are doing their best to wash the items to be recycled, to ensure that they are not contaminated, and to put them in the right bins, so there will be considerable anger when individuals are contaminating that waste. However, it is right that that is evidenced.

Householders will not be fined for simple mistakes or if someone else puts the wrong item in a bin. That would be completely disproportionate. A civil penalty or a written warning will be issued as a result of an individual’s having been identified as responsible for failing to comply with the requirement. I come back to that deliberate, gross and wilful contamination. The powers would not allow for an enforcement officer to issue warning notices or penalty notices for simply everyone who uses a particular communal bin. This is about persistent, gross, deliberate contamination and evidence thereof.

I move to the issue of the consistency of the colours of bins throughout Scotland. Convener, I want to clarify the arguments that I gave you privately when you initially talked about that. I said that I was concerned about a couple of things. First, a mainland Scotland approach, in which, no matter which local authority area you are in, everyone knows the score with regard to which bin to put things in, is laudable. The co-design process might arrive at that point, and I would congratulate local authorities on arriving at it, but it would be for them to decide whether that is the approach that they want.

I said to Mr Mountain that I would be concerned about the associated plastic waste if that consistency were compelled. Ms Lennon made the point in the debate about the plastic waste of councils if they were compelled to change their bin colours by a certain point. The co-design process might come to a point at which all local authorities agree that they want to standardise the colour, but they might need to take into account when that is done.

For example, Aberdeenshire Council has recently introduced a separate colour of bin—an orange bin. It is newly rolled out, and we are all getting used to it. We have three recycling bins—four including food waste. Those are new bins. If the council had made a procurement choice for all those bins and decided on that colour, and I said that we would now standardise everything—that everything would have to be the same colour and there would have to be the same number of bins as in another local authority—the council would justifiably turn around and say, “That is our decision to make, so why are you taking away that power from us? How much plastic waste will be made as a result?”

First, the code of practice is voluntary at the moment. Whatever is decided, the bill will make that code of practice mandatory.

Secondly, I have faith that those in local authorities will react to incentives around statutory targets and to a code of practice that is mandatory, not voluntary. They will decide together how best to achieve those targets, and we need to give them a chance to do so.

All too often, in this place, the Scottish Government gets criticised for a top-down approach on things. That is not in the spirit of the Verity house agreement; it is not in the spirit of working with our local authority partners or of empowering local authorities. However, the arguments that everyone has made today about standardisation were made very well, and those involved in the co-design will probably listen to them. I would be surprised if standardisation were not a main focus of the co-design process.

In general, it is about a balance between having things in the bill that compel, and trusting and enabling a co-design process in which the people who will have to deliver better recycling rates on the ground are actively involved. That is what I am striving to do and what my predecessor strived to do, and that is what the committee recommended that we do.

I will talk about amendments 161 and 162. Reuse and repair are, of course, important to achieving a circular economy—and, frankly, there is not enough of it going on. That has been a common theme over the past three weeks, as it was at stage 1.

The bill already makes provision for the code to address preparation for reuse. I envisage that the development of the new code, alongside wider work through the route map, will enable further consideration of how we can maximise local authorities’ contribution across and further up the waste hierarchy, including reuse and repair.

A number of members have made that point throughout the process. It would not be appropriate for the new code to provide mandatory requirements in relation to the provision of wider reuse or repair services, as those do not fall within local authorities’ statutory waste management functions. That is why I cannot support the amendments as written, and I hope that Mr Golden understands that.

The committee should note that, in the current voluntary code of practice, there is guidance on desirable reuse activities, approaches and communication that local authorities should consider in their ways of working. I would be keen to build on that approach through the planned co-design of the new code and to explore opportunities to enhance local authority activities to promote reuse and repair on a voluntary or recommended basis, even if those do not become statutory.

We are currently developing the improvement programme as an alternative to financial penalties for local authority recycling targets. That could offer a more practical route to share best practice on waste prevention measures, which I think are the first line in a circular economy—it is about prevention of waste in the first place. For those reasons, I will not be able to support amendments 161 and 162.

On amendment 89, local flexibility is very much in the spirit of the Verity house agreement, so I will support the amendment, and I urge the committee to support it as well.

On amendment 58, I understand the desire to ensure that the new code of practice is available as soon as possible. However, I cannot support the amendment, because I do not want to set a statutory deadline that could potentially prevent meaningful co-design and consultation on the new code. Again, it comes back to the balance.

Will Mr Golden take an intervention?

Yes.

As Mr Lumsden has been in the Parliament for a few years now, he will know that a committee can have any deliberations that it wants on what evidence to take on an SSI and that the Government will go out to consultation. Mention of business impacts has been made a number of times now, and I point out that it is our duty to consult with businesses ahead of any changes that would be made. Any speculative throwing around of examples—say, chip papers—does the process a bit of a disservice, as there would be an opportunity for scrutiny as well as consultation. After all, we would not want to do anything disproportionate.

We will consider carefully the policy interactions and implications of any future deposit return schemes and charges for single-use items. Although we might agree in principle that any item that is subject to a deposit should not be subject to a charge, too, we do not yet know what the DRS is going to look like; we are still having discussions with the UK Government and other devolved Governments, and at this point, it is not possible to evaluate all the future policy interactions. I cannot agree to anything that will restrict something that we might need in the future.

Amendment 25 seeks to exempt “items that are biodegradable”. Without a specified environment or time frame and a proper definition, the term “biodegradable” is problematic, as it is unclear. Mr Simpson mentioned compostable and biodegradable products, but those are two very separate things. Typically, products that are referred to as biodegradable are single use, with their own set of waste management charges. The majority of materials that are found in any litter stream are, eventually, biodegradable, but we need to consider how many years those products take to degrade. Exempting biodegradable items from charges would create a significant potential loophole for suppliers to continue supplying single-use items without charging for them, which would undermine the purpose of the charge.

More important, because of that loophole, any actions that we could take to reduce the number of single-use items would not work. After all, the bill is aimed at improving recycling rates and, with regard to the waste hierarchy, at removing wasteful items from the economy, in general. Unfortunately, Mr Simpson’s amendment 25 provides a loophole, and I do not want that to happen.

Despite what Mr Simpson said in his opening comments, I am open to discussing anything that has a laudable intention. I understand why Mr Simpson has lodged his amendments, and I am happy to work with him on this matter, but I do not want to be in a situation where the use of certain language would create a loophole. Perhaps we can discuss the matter ahead of stage 3.