Chamber and committees

Yes, thank you, convener. I listened carefully to Maurice Golden and I respect the intention behind amendment 207. I support the ambition to increase the visibility of existing and planned waste reprocessing infrastructure. I can see the benefits that it can bring for drive and investment but, at the moment, I do not consider that, as it is drafted, the requirement should be in the bill. I would value having time to consider the amendment more carefully, including evaluating costing, timing, the feasibility of developing a report, the impact on other commitments and whether commissioning an independent review would be a more appropriate strategy.

We mentioned the report that was undertaken in relation to incineration that was referred to by a couple of members, particularly Mr Golden. Within the draft circular economy and waste route map, data and infrastructure are identified as key areas of focus that will underpin the circular economy transformation that we need to deliver. That underlines the importance of identifying future strategic infrastructure requirements for Scotland as a whole and, taking a place-based approach, for local needs. That is linked to national planning framework 4.

Yes, I will.

As I have already said, the appropriate amount would be determined in consultation with local authorities and there would be a certain degree of scrutiny of that through secondary legislation. It would not be for me to say at the moment what I think the level should be, because that would be determined in consultation. At the moment it is £80. Whether the amount should be higher can be addressed as a result of what we are putting into the bill.

I will leave the matter there, in the interests of time. I am sorry that I cannot support your amendments in this group, convener. I understand the reason behind them, but I believe that setting the minimum charge at £500 is disproportionate.

Amendment 169 responds to requests from local authorities for powers to issue fixed-penalty notices in relation to offences and regulations under section 140 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, which ban the supply of environmentally harmful items. That was initially raised in the context of the single-use plastics ban, and it was raised by trading standards during the consultation on the draft regulations banning the sale and supply of single-use vapes.

At present, the only option for local authorities is to report any offences under those kinds of regulations for prosecution. Amendment 169 would add a new provision to the bill to provide a regulation-making power for ministers to enable local authorities to issue fixed-penalty notices to individuals or businesses for offences in those kinds of regulations. It would allow for more effective and proportionate enforcement of those offences and would give powers to local authorities that already exist in the rest of the United Kingdom.

I move amendment 169.

Mr Golden has been here so much that I have almost begun to think of him as part of the committee. That is probably what happened.

I move amendment 174.

I did not intend to chide Mr Simpson; I intended to answer him. If there was any material difference as a result of the amendment, I would have brought that to the committee. There is not and, therefore, I did not have the information in front of me. I hope that the committee is now satisfied that it has all the information that it needs to make a judgment on the amendment.

I will come to that, but I would rather address the issue at the end of my response to Mr Golden. I hope that Mr Lumsden is happy with that.

Recycling co-design is an example of our approach. Local government will give explicit consideration to future infrastructure requirements to support the delivery of high-performing services, alongside there being an assessment of the potential for multiple local authorities to collaborate or partner and an assessment of the potential efficiencies and economies of scale that are on offer, which is relevant in relation to attracting further inward investment. That is part of the recycling co-design process, which is fundamental and runs throughout the bill. That will complement the development of Scotland’s residual waste plan to 2045, which will investigate and make recommendations on Scotland’s long-term infrastructure requirements to manage waste. There are processes and collaboration in place that address the issue directly.

If Mr Golden does not press his amendment today, I would be happy to work with him to consider the merits of publishing a report such as the one that he mentions. I am not yet convinced that a provision for that has to be included in the bill, but I am willing to consider whether such a report is required as part of our broader work on the circular economy.

It is possible that Mr Golden missed what I said about an assessment of the potential for multiple local authorities to collaborate or partner, in order to avoid the scenario that he described.

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.