Chamber and committees

In our evidence, we heard feedback on higher education. Will the Government use the powers under the bill to improve the provision of Gaelic-medium further and higher education?

Will the minister take an intervention?

Thank you, convener. I thought that the minister might speak first, so I apologise, minister, if this covers some of the things that you might want to say.

Mr Simpson has brought some important points to the debate. Having heard the voice of small business during the stage 1 proceedings, we should consider what impact charges for single-use items would have on small businesses when they are in competition with larger companies—sometimes multinational companies. That could prove to be difficult in that single-use item charges—for example, on coffee cups—would disincentivise people to purchase on the go and would create a logistical challenge for smaller businesses.

That said, I think that the Government is right to want to take that power in a piece of primary legislation. The considerations thereafter would be on deployment and utilisation of the power. I know that the Government, and future Governments, would be careful and cautious about impacts on businesses when utilising the power. Therefore, there is a debate to be had on when and for what that power should be used. As things stand, it is important to take that power in a circular economy bill, but I urge the Government and future Governments to think carefully about putting the cost and emphasis of creating a circular economy on to the individual consumer, rather than on to businesses.

I thank Mr Simpson for lodging the amendments, but I urge him not to move them at this juncture and to have further dialogue with the Government to see whether there is a better position that can consensually be arrived at for stage 3.

Does Graham Simpson agree that, as we discussed at stage 1, it is important to consider single-use item charges with regard to the particular circumstances of different items? For example, the charge on plastic bags was, from memory, more to do with the damaging effect of plastic bags as a pollutant in the natural environment—whether in rivers or woodland, or from wildlife choking on plastic. A disposable cup is a different item. For consumers, putting a reusable bag in their pocket is a different consideration from putting a reusable cup in their pocket. We would all do well to consider the circumstances of different items, rather than being wide-ranging in using the plastic bag charge as a justification for saying that charging would be beneficial when it comes to other single-use items.

As we heard in our stage 1 evidence, section 11 is intended to improve household recycling and household waste management and, through that, to improve the quality of the recyclate that is administered by our local authorities. That is a challenging exercise. We all know that contamination of recyclate not only frustrates the citizens who take the time to sort their recycling but means that local authorities do not get the reward of high-quality recycling and means that it is difficult for those who process the recyclate to do so effectively. I commend the Government for trying to improve the quality of recyclate and, therefore, deliver more recycling. However, we need to be careful in using punitive measures on households and individuals; the amendments in this group are helpful probing amendments in that regard.

On Sarah Boyack’s amendment 105, I will speak as a representative of a constituency that has a large amount of tenement housing. If you walk past the communal bins that serve the tenements in my constituency and lift the lids, as I do from time to time, you will see a high degree of contamination, much of which will have been perpetrated by passers-by, not by the tenement residents in the households that those communal bins serve. I seek reassurance from the Government that communal bins will be considered and that we will ensure that those who live in tenements are not unfairly penalised if passers-by contaminate their recyclate. Sarah Boyack’s probing amendment is helpful in that regard.

Amendment 118, in the name of Edward Mountain, reflects the evidence that we took at stage 1 on creating consistency in how recycling is done in the majority of Scotland. Perhaps the drafting can be improved ahead of stage 3, but the principle of having a consistent position across Scotland would be helpful in encouraging better recycling and less contamination and, through that—importantly—attracting more investment. There is a huge amount of commercial incentive to invest in recycling across the UK and beyond, and we want to attract that to Scotland. To do that, we need to reduce contamination and improve the recyclate. Consistency in terms of people knowing which bin to put what in would be helpful.

I thank the minister for taking my intervention; that is appreciated.

It has been helpful to hear your feedback on those matters. The nature of communal bins in tenement properties is that they will often serve more than one tenement block on a street. The fact that you have been able to outline that the guidance will take in feedback from specific local authorities for their area, and that a process of investigation will take place before any warning, let alone civil penalty, is served, reassures me. From what you have said that the guidance will entail, the power will only be used when a household or a number of households in a wider tenemental area have been identified as contaminating those communal bins.

Given the feedback from my constituents over the years, if people are identified as contaminating shared waste facilities on their street, other residents of the tenemental properties who want to see those bins used appropriately would support action being taken against those individuals who are contaminating the waste for a number of properties.

I apologise, convener. I had not recalled that I would have the opportunity to wind up.

I thank the convener, my colleagues and the minister for their responses to the issues raised in amendment 128. The collaboration with local authorities, third sector partners and other constituted organisations in the delivery of a more circular economy has been widely recognised around the table.

I want to emphasise the importance of the word “accessible” in amendment 128. I mean accessibility in the widest possible way but particularly in the sense that people should be able to take items for repair, refurbishment or reuse, ideally in their communities and certainly without any requirement to use private transport. That will be a challenge arising from the implementation of the bill, if it is to become an act.

I am glad that, as we move forward, the widest consideration is being given by all of us to providing the necessary infrastructure. I look forward to further consideration of and discussion on the matter, both in the next stage of the legislative process and if and when Parliament passes the bill to become an act. We can then look together at implementing it effectively.

At this juncture, convener, I seek to withdraw amendment 128.

Bob Doris has made some important points. Further consideration will need to be given to the funding streams for infrastructure when it comes to implementing the bill, if and when it becomes an act, and the question is whether that funding will go to local authorities, which will then contract out to the third sector; whether local authorities will provide the facilities themselves; or whether some facilitation will be directly funded by the Scottish Government, as is the case at the moment through some of what Circularity Scotland does.

Because that further consideration is needed, I will not be pressing my amendment. However, if and when the bill is passed, we as a Parliament—and, of course, the Government—will need to think carefully about the concerns that local government has expressed, sometimes understandably, about primary legislation being passed without the necessary consideration of its capacity to deliver any further obligations. It is a two-way process. The Verity house agreement is important in those considerations, as I know that the minister appreciates.

Like Bob Doris, Mr Lumsden makes good points. This is exactly why I do not want to press the amendment. Further consideration needs to be given to the wider matters and the bill’s drafting, because a process needs to be undertaken, either during the bill’s passage or, thereafter, when it comes to considering the route map and the question of how funding streams are organised and allocated. In certain situations, third sector partners or other constituted organisations might be best placed to deliver and facilitate accessible infrastructure to realise the circular economy. The point is that further consideration is needed, and I am interested to hear the Government’s response.

I move amendment 128.

I am aware that COSLA and the Scottish Government are reconsidering the digital strategy. Perhaps the points raised within the committee and in what you have just relayed to the committee could be considered as part of the development of the new digital strategy where that might add value, in a co-design spirit, between local authorities and national Government. Even if an app was produced, everyone would need to know about it, and that is another question.

Mr Simpson has brought an interesting idea to the table. Perhaps it could be considered within the different forums of engagement between central Government and local government, including within the digital strategy.