Chamber and committees

Thank you, convener. I understand the intentions behind your amendments. It is not appropriate to throw litter from a vehicle, and I understand the frustration that we all feel about the amount of litter on our roadsides.

The bill as drafted creates flexibility for the Scottish ministers to set the civil penalty charge at an appropriate amount and will also allow for consultation with local authorities and other stakeholders in respect of the amount. For those reasons, I cannot support the amendments.

Proposed new section 88C(5) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, as inserted by section 14, provides a regulation-making power to ministers to set—and to increase—the amount that may be imposed by way of a civil penalty charge. The civil penalty regime provided for under section 14 allows the registered keeper of a vehicle to be issued with a civil penalty charge where an authorised officer is satisfied to the civil standard—that is, on the balance of probabilities—that a littering offence has taken place from the vehicle.

Amendment 119 would set the civil penalty vastly higher than the current fixed-penalty charge amount for a littering offence; I understand why you would want to do so, convener, but I note that the penalty is currently fixed at £80 and can be increased by secondary legislation to a maximum of £500. The amendment, therefore, would make the civil penalty amount for a littering offence from a vehicle disproportionate in respect of the nature of the offence—

The amendment is a result of local authorities asking the previous minister to have it in place. As I mentioned, their only recourse was to get the police involved and they wanted to be able to issue fixed-penalty notices. I do not have any information about a resourcing implication arising from that. It was local authorities that came to us and said that they wanted that power, so I am making the assumption that they have the resources in place to do that. They are obviously having things reported to them and they feel powerless.

Trading standards already enforce the powers, but the amendment gives local authorities the tools to do the same. If there were any resourcing implications, I imagine that local authorities would have brought that to my, or the previous minister’s, attention and they have not done so.

I was finished already.

Amendment 169 agreed to.

Amendment 170 not moved.

Section 17—Duty to make information publicly available

Amendments 171 to 173 not moved.

Section 17 agreed to.

After section 17

Zero Waste Scotland is Scotland’s circular economy expert. Over the next decade, it will play a pivotal role in accelerating and inspiring transformation in our economy and society, so that resources are valued to their maximum extent and market opportunities are opened up in Scotland as a result. Zero Waste Scotland will work with businesses, local authorities, public body partners and communities, on behalf of the Scottish ministers, in the development and delivery of key policies, such as those that are set out in the circular economy and waste route map and the circular economy strategy that is proposed in the bill.

Amendments 174 and 180 will ensure that relevant legislation that is applicable to Scotland’s other public bodies will now also apply to Zero Waste Scotland. That follows a decision made by the Office for National Statistics in April 2023 that Zero Waste Scotland be classified as a public sector organisation as it is largely funded and directed by the Scottish ministers. Work is well under way to transition the organisation to become an executive non-departmental public body of the Scottish Government.

The amendments insert a new schedule into the bill to bring Zero Waste Scotland into various pieces of legislation that apply to public bodies and will bring its governance and accountability requirements into line with other public bodies. Those requirements have been agreed with the Zero Waste Scotland board and are consistent with duties placed on environmental and economic public body delivery partners that work alongside the organisation to deliver environment and economy outcomes of the national performance framework.

In particular, Zero Waste Scotland will be subject to the requirements of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002, its ministerial board member appointments will be regulated by the Commissioner for Ethical Standards in Public Life in Scotland and its board members will be required to comply with a code of conduct. It will be required to maintain or improve women’s representation on its board and carry out impact assessments for island communities when exercising its functions. It will also be required to have a records management plan, to provide information on expenditure and the exercise of functions and to comply with statutory public procurement requirements.

It is our intention also to ensure that Zero Waste Scotland is subject to equalities duties, but those cannot be imposed via amendments in the bill and will be imposed separately under secondary legislation.

I will have to get my officials to give me that information. I am happy to write to you. I do not have information on any cost in particular. Zero Waste Scotland is keen for the transition to happen. I am looking at my officials. [Interruption.] I will write to you.

Yes.

Amendment 174 agreed to.

This is not something that I had in my notes, but my officials tell me that it is funded via existing grant aid. If there is any more detail that I can get the committee, I will.

I hope that everyone understands the reasons for the change in the status of Zero Waste Scotland. It speaks to the fact that so many amendments that we have had over the past four weeks have sought more accountability. Giving Zero Waste Scotland the status of an executive NDPB will improve accountability for its data and actions.

There are no material additional costs to the running of Zero Waste Scotland. Zero Waste Scotland will just be more accountable, as I set out in my remarks. It will have a duty to have a board that has equal representation, for example, and it will have more accountability and public sector duties associated with it. However, operationally, there will not be additional costs.

Thank you for that, convener. Obviously, if there is not a material difference in the budget that is required for something, it will not be in my notes or in the presentation that I give you. The amendment is really about the material difference that it will make in the responsibilities and the accountabilities of Zero Waste Scotland. If there is not an associated cost with that, of course the cost is not something that I will have highlighted. Obviously, convener, you have every right to ask me whether there is an associated cost, and I did not have that in front of me. My officials have very kindly given me detail of that. There will not be any material cost in that change. Zero Waste Scotland receives almost 100 per cent of its funding from the Scottish Government, and operations are based around Scottish Government priorities and processes.

The committee is about to decide on the amendment. As a result of that decision, there will again be a reflection on whether it means a change to the financial memorandum ahead of stage 3, although it is not expected that it will do so.

To reply to Mr Doris, as he and the committee know, the Scottish budget takes into account what is required of public bodies, and budgets are set accordingly during the budget process.

I do not accept Mr Simpson’s criticism of the way in which I work and the interactions that I have with my officials, but I also do not accept that I am putting—

Can I continue?