Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]

Meeting date: Tuesday, October 3, 2023

Official Report 730KB pdf

---

Circular Economy (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Our next item of business is an evidence session with environmental bodies as part of the committee’s stage 1 scrutiny of the Circular Economy (Scotland) Bill. This is our second session on the bill, following a panel with business stakeholders last week.

I welcome back Nick Halfhide, who is director of nature and climate change for NatureScot, and David Harley, who is chief officer for circular economy for the Scottish Environment Protection Agency. I am also pleased to welcome Iain Gulland, who is chief executive officer of Zero Waste Scotland.

We have a list of questions. I have read your evidence to the committee and want to start by asking for a brief sentence or couple of sentences from Nick Halfhide and David Harley on whether they support the bill and whether we need it.

We need the bill, and NatureScot supports it. The reason why we need it is that it deals with matters that are some of the direct drivers of biodiversity loss. I am sorry that I am going over your limit of a couple of sentences, but we absolutely need to reduce and make better use of our material flows. Where we would extend not the bill, but the conversation, is into organic flows, but perhaps we will come on to that.

We absolutely need the bill. Around 80 per cent of Scotland’s carbon footprint comes from products and services that we manufacture, use and throw away—essentially, our consumption. Scotland’s consumption per capita, or material footprint, is double the world average. That is unsustainable. The circular economy is a game-changing opportunity to meet Scotland’s climate change targets and ambitions, create new industries and economic opportunities and reduce the harms associated with waste management.

One of the important things about the bill must be to ensure that we take the public with it and get the public to support it. The problem is that there is a lot of enabling legislation in the bill; there is not a lot of clarity. Would public support be enhanced if we had more clarity, rather than just enabling legislation?

Nick, do you want to kick off on that?

I am not sure that I have much to say about that. That is almost a political judgment, isn’t it?

What I mean is that, as an organisation, you would love enabling legislation because it could enable you to do a huge number of things, but it does not necessarily allow the public to see what is behind it.

Er—

You can dodge the question.

I am just saying that there is a lot in it about the role of legislation—primary and secondary legislation. There is quite a lot to be said for having as much detail as possible in primary legislation, but we are in a system where a lot of the detail tends to go into secondary legislation. Therefore, that is where the scrutiny happens.

I am sorry—I am not answering your question.

Well, no. As a parliamentarian, I am trying to push the fact that enabling legislation allows for less scrutiny. Scrutiny happens when things are in the bill.

I will bring in Iain Gulland. You might or might not have a view on that, Iain.

If I could just go back to your first question—

I kind of guessed your answer to that question, but I am happy to let you answer it now.

11:00  

We have talked about the environment and the climate emergency, but we must also think about the circular economy in the context of economic opportunity. That is much bigger than just what businesses can do; we are thinking of the impact of resources globally on the world economy, geopolitics and so on, because that is what is really driving the shift in the circular economy. It is not just about our climate ambitions and environmental concerns, although they are critically important to our survival; it is about our broader economy, particularly around the net zero transition and reducing our consumption. Thinking about the materials that we already have in this country will be essential to our success, and that feeds into the broader wellbeing of our communities and citizens in Scotland.

To be honest, the public are more on board with this than you might imagine. I suspect that the driver behind the success of enabling legislation is engaging more with key stakeholders in industry and business that could be affected—hopefully positively—by the shift to the circular economy, and getting into more of the detail with them. I genuinely think that citizens of Scotland understand the issues of consumption. Climate change and the impact on biodiversity loss in Scotland and globally are visible to them personally and in the media. People are very much aware that they need to start making different choices, and they want to be enabled to do so. That comes down to businesses in key sectors, local authorities and people on the ground making those choices accessible.

The implementation of secondary legislation really involves getting into in-depth conversations with key stakeholders. The idea of the circular economy will be a bit newer to some of them than to other groups that we have been working with, which are coming to the fore and really trying to immerse themselves in the opportunities that are in front of us.

David, do you want to add anything?

I agree with what Iain Gulland said. The one thing that I would add is that, on individual behaviours, we have a problem in Scotland. Some 60 per cent of the material in residual waste—the stuff that goes in your black bin bag, which is not going to be recycled—could be recycled. We are stuck at that level—our recycling rate has plateaued at 43 per cent. There is a public awareness element to the issue, and encouragement in that area is fundamental to our efforts in this area.

I will bring in Mark Ruskell—no, before I do, Ben Macpherson would like to ask a supplementary question.

On that point, Mr Harley, you touched on the important fact that there is a way to go in terms of taking the public with us by different means—nudging, encouraging, as well as punishing, if necessary; we will get on to that element of the bill later. Is the secondary legislation that follows the bill’s passing in fact necessitated by the need to walk through the process in terms of implementation and awareness raising?

I think so. As Iain Gulland said, there is a mix of actions that can be taken, from system-wide actions to individual actions. Further, given the complexity of the system, there is a danger of unintended consequences. It is important to walk the public through the process and set the right targets, measures and interventions.

And the use of secondary legislation gives that flexibility.

Yes.

Having introduced him and then cut him off, I now bring in Mark Ruskell.

Thank you, convener.

How much of a problem is the disposal of unsold goods in Scotland? Which sectors or products are particularly problematic for the environment in that regard?

I am not sure that I have the details in front of me about the amounts of unsold goods that are disposed of. I can perhaps feed that back to the committee at a later date.

We know that it is an issue with the online shopping phenomenon: people return stuff and the logistics operation is not really set up to get it back. What to do with that stuff is a growing challenge for some online operators, and for operators that have in-store take-back. To some extent, they have been set up to distribute stuff, but not to take it back, so the back end of their logistics is focused on disposing of that stuff as quickly as possible and getting it out of the system. That is a challenge. How can we introduce regulation or legislation to ensure that such organisations are thinking about end of life? As well as focusing on how to get material or products out to the customer, they need to think about what to do with products when they come back in. That is really important.

The bigger companies that we speak to are very aware of the issue and are on it. It is a cost. I do not have the figures in front of me but, globally, we are talking billions of pounds-worth of returns, particularly for the textiles trade. Businesses have to deal with that cost and they are either bearing it or passing it on through their supply chains. It is in their interest to come up with avenues not just to do the right thing in relation to the environment but to reduce their costs. However, if they were in the room, they would say that the scale of the challenge is daunting to most of them, as is thinking about how they reorientate or reverse logistics, because that is not the way in which they have set themselves up. How can they partner with people at the back end of the system to ensure that they are not disposing of those products but reusing them and making them available to keep them in circulation?

There is also an opportunity for such businesses to think differently about their model. Ultimately, that is what the circular economy is about. Although we are trying to tidy up the retail environment, we need to think about how we can change that environment so that people do not just think about product as a sale but perhaps think of subscription services or leasing and rental systems and engaging with different actors in the supply chain to provide a different service—servitisation rather than product.

I hope that, through the enabling legislation, we will not just tidy up the reverse logistics operation but get businesses of every shape and size to think differently about their model. Ultimately, just passing things on or selling things is not the future—we need to think differently about that model.

In the conversations that Zero Waste Scotland has had with particular sectors and businesses at a particular scale, what has the feedback been? Are there any concerns about unintended consequences or other issues?

We have not heard about any unintended consequences. The conversations with the companies that we have engaged with have been very positive. For some of them, the issue is the scale of the take-backs and having outlets to redistribute them at local level. Some of that is a challenge. For some companies, it is not just about what happens here in Scotland, because they are UK-wide or global companies. It is not just a Scottish challenge. However, they are engaging with that and they are keen to support measures that will help them because, as I said, it represents a cost and that cost has to be passed on to somebody. In relation to their wider sustainability challenges, they recognise that it is not something that they can keep on doing. To an extent, the spotlight is already on some of those companies.

New companies that are coming on to the market such as Scottish-owned small and medium-sized enterprises are very aware of the issue. They have been pushed into the online space because consumers are now much more comfortable in that space. They are challenged by the issue, too. When we get in early with those companies to ensure that they think about what happens to returns and how that model works, what we find is encouraging. We have seen a lot of interest in having a different type of model. However, that might need different types of platform or collaboration across companies in the same space, whether that is in clothing or electricals.

The idea of working more collaboratively within a location, whether that is Scotland or the regions, is new to some companies. We have talked to the chambers of commerce about that through our work on circular cities to try to understand whether there are solutions that we could put in place locally that would help individual businesses but more importantly would create economic and social opportunities in those locations.

Ultimately, we are trying to reduce consumption. It cannot be seen as just cleaning up the back end of an inefficient retail operation; it has to be seen in the wider context of reducing our overall consumption.

What are those positive opportunities? You talked about a more local approach to redistributing goods although, ultimately, we are trying to reduce the amount of unsold goods that are being distributed like that. For businesses that are under development at the moment, what are the positive opportunities or discussions that you have been having?

Getting into reverse logistics, some of it is simply about having the space. Those operations are not set up to receive things back in, so it is about having that space available to them. Rather than all businesses having a space, there could be a shared space. The answer might be that, instead of a business doing the work itself, a logistical partner—which could be in the social enterprise or community sector—might provide the mechanism to redistribute the stuff. There is a potential role for local authorities to think about how they could facilitate that redistribution, particularly at local level. Again, to some extent, multiple companies working together would be much more efficient and effective than every company trying to deal with the issue themselves. The challenge is that they are all trying to think about it themselves.

Other operations might also be affected. We have had conversations with the national health service, which has similar challenges around equipment such as walking aids being returned. Again, the NHS has a big distribution network but is not really set up to bring all that stuff back in. There might be partnerships with public agencies that have similar challenges, although possibly not at the same scale as the online retailers. How can we work collaboratively to create that efficiency?

As you said, redistribution is not the whole answer. We need to start thinking much smarter about that consumption piece up front as well, so that we do not end up with all these things residing in a warehouse, trying to find a home.

I will turn to SEPA to ask for your reflections on how a ban on unsold goods disposal could be enforced.

I do not have a huge amount to add to what Iain Gulland said. We are broadly supportive of the principle. The one thing that we would urge caution on is that, where such a ban is applied, it needs to be supported by good evidence, to make sure that we do not have unintended consequences.

Would we expect SEPA to be the enforcement body?

That is absolutely a possibility.

What discussions have been taking place?

I am not aware of discussions in detail about how that would be done practically. I am not sure that they have happened yet.

That is obviously pretty critical to the bill, so it would be good if SEPA could write back to the committee with detail on how you might take on those duties and how monitoring could take place around compliance.

Yes—we can do that.

That is good. Are there any views from NatureScot?

We have no views on that.

Mark, the committee wrote to one of the big suppliers in Scotland—Amazon—and asked whether its representatives would like to come and give evidence to the committee on the subject of redistribution but, unfortunately, they are not prepared to come and give physical evidence to the committee. They have offered written evidence, but it would have been much stronger to hear from them in person.

I will go back to the disposal of unused goods. Is there a concern that, if legislation does not keep pace across the United Kingdom, companies in Scotland might move stuff south of the border and avoid the regulation by saying that the goods can still be used in other parts of the United Kingdom? Iain Gulland, would that concern you, or is it totally impossible for that to happen?

Obviously, that would concern me, because it is possible, but it depends on how the regulations are set and how the situation is monitored to make sure that that does not happen against the regulations. Engagement with the companies would help, to try to help them understand the opportunity to do something for Scotland. A lot of companies are on this journey. Going down this route produces benefits, such as pushing things further up the hierarchy, so to speak, and getting people to think differently about their business model.

11:15  

Many of those retailers could see an opportunity to resell that stuff in their stores, which they are not currently doing. The stuff goes out through the back door. Okay, some of it goes into other markets and some of it is handed over to charities, but retailers are washing their hands of it because it is not new.

We can encourage retailers to reselling as part of their business strategy. Some of them are very interested in that aspect—there is a bit of a “Who wants to go first?” view. Some of the bigger retailers are already thinking about selling second-hand clothing in store. That is beginning to creep into the high street already, so anything that encourages retailers to see that as part of their business model will be well received, I think. They will start to see that, and they might embrace it, as something that they could replicate in other parts of the UK, if not abroad. To some extent, it is about helping them to get over what they see as quite a big challenge in their wider business model.

If SEPA were to be the regulator for the disposal of unsold goods, might there be problems with a company moving stuff around the United Kingdom, or even around Europe or wherever, to avoid having to comply with more stringent conditions in Scotland? David, are you confident that you, at SEPA, could be on top of that?

It would make the regulatory job more challenging if there were a different approach in Scotland in comparison with the rest of the UK—having a level playing field across the UK is definitely easier.

I will come back to you, David, but perhaps Iain Gulland can address this question. If I were struggling to sell an item, I might be prepared to give it to a charity to use or sell. If they could not sell it, however, they would take on the obligation of disposing of it, would they not? Would that frighten charities, or would they have confidence that they could keep shifting items?

That leads on from my other answer. We cannot look at the idea in isolation. If we are bringing in something like that, we need to think about exactly what you describe: the supply chain and the broader system.

We will prevent the retailers, or whomever we are talking about, including online retailers, from trying to circumvent such a regulation if we create the right market opportunity in Scotland, whether that involves working with the charitable sector or social enterprises, or creating a different model or platform to enable retailers to reuse some of the equipment for different functions.

If we do not create that market in Scotland, you are absolutely right that all those challenges will arise. Retailers will not find outlets, or they will lack confidence in the markets that are already available. If we are going to go down this route—we could pick textiles, electrical goods or beds; you name it—we have to embrace the sector that will be behind that, whether it is the charity sector, as you have said, or social enterprises, and create the right ecosystem that sits behind that.

That is what the circular economy is about: it is about taking a systems approach, rather than seeing things in isolation and saying to retailers, “It’s all on you to sort this out.” That will happen otherwise—we have seen that. As you have probably heard me say previously, we in Scotland are very good at recycling, at both household and business level, but the vast bulk of that material now gets shipped out of our country. Apart from organics and glass, most of the material that we collect for recycling goes somewhere else, because we have not set up the systems, the reprocessing infrastructure and the market to make recycling a much more viable proposition.

For every job there is in collection and recycling, there are eight jobs further up the chain in reprocessing and the resupply of those materials back into the economy. That is the economic opportunity that we want to embrace. If we go down this route, let us think about the system that sits behind it and all the organisations, businesses, sectors and citizens who will come around that and make it happen for Scotland.

I share your enthusiasm for making it work, but it concerns me that we are being asked to pass a bill that will enable that to happen when we do not have, or do not understand, all the details behind it to make it work.

I go to the deputy convener, Ben Macpherson.

We will return to the issue of household waste in due course, but I have some questions about charges for single-use items. How should the Scottish Government strategically use powers to charge for single-use items, as proposed in the bill, to support the transition to a circular economy? What role can charging play alongside the many other potential measures and options, such as producer responsibility, deposit return and any relevant taxation? I am not sure who wants to answer first.

As Iain Gulland said, charging has a role to play as part of a system in conjunction with other levers.

Is it important not to overemphasise the contribution made by charging for single-use items, but to ensure that that is considered as part of a wider suite of measures to reduce waste and encourage upcycling and recycling?

Absolutely. I know that this is a dry statement, but it is so important to get the evidence base right. We need information, data and the behaviourals, and we need to understand all that and the interplay among everything. That is crucial to the successful delivery of our ambition.

As you have done, many respondents to the call for views emphasised the need for proper life-cycle analysis of any new charges to ensure that there would be environmental benefits. They also mentioned the need for engagement with businesses and consumers as a way of avoiding unintended consequences and ensuring a collegiate and collective approach to implementation.

Does the bill provide a framework for the assessment and engagement that will be required for any new charges that are introduced? Are you confident that the bill is robust and appropriate?

I am not familiar with the detail. Are you asking about the engagement required?

Yes.

I am not close to the detail in terms of the engagement requirement, but it will be needed, because we are talking about a systems change and societal shifts that will put us, as the regulator, in a different role regarding societal behaviour. Engagement will be crucial.

Unfortunately, that takes time. That is the reality. Do any other witnesses want to come in?

As you will know, one of the key contributions that Zero Waste Scotland makes to the circular economy is to provide an evidence base. We have looked at a number of opportunities and will continue that work with the Scottish Government. That is our role. We look at life-cycle evidence and at what works to create behavioural change.

A whole range of policy options could be used. We are well versed in the single-use charge. Human beings are more motivated by loss than by gain, which led to the successful introduction of the levy on single-use carrier bags. That is a good example of taking everyone, including stakeholders and retailers, on a journey that included training and many other things and led to successful implementation in 2014.

Charging for single-use items can work and there are good examples of that working, but the evidence base is important. You have to take people on a journey and ensure that you have thought things through so that there are no unintended consequences. That is part of our remit as an evidence-based organisation, as is engagement. We work with partners and engage with industry, businesses, individual retailers and whoever is involved to ensure that they are on the journey with us.

What limitations or inconsistencies are there in the existing and proposed powers to ban, or to introduce charges for, single-use items? Do you wish to say anything about that, Mr Gulland, before I bring in Mr Halfhide?

I do not have anything to add.

I do not have anything further to add.

Mr Halfhide, do you want to say anything about any of the questions that I have asked?

NatureScot is not involved in the detail in the way that my colleagues here are, but I have a more general point to make, which it is useful to keep sight of.

Across society, we are expecting pretty profound behavioural changes in response to climate change over the next decades. I was so assertive in saying that we need the Circular Economy (Scotland) Bill because it is one of many changes that are needed. We need the bill in its own right, but the behavioural changes that need to be made in relation to our natural environment are pretty profound. The bill deals with just one aspect of those—how we use what I think of as inert resources, such as tin cans—but the issue goes right across the piece. As I said in my introductory remarks, it is about how we use all our resources—not just the inert ones but the live ones. I hope that we will get on to talking about soils, because that is one of my favourite topics. That is in the same space. The issue is about how we use all our resources and the fact that we need to reduce the pressure on all of them, because they are direct and indirect drivers of biodiversity loss, they contribute to our emissions and they make it harder for us to adapt. They are all part of a really complicated system.

Absolutely. I have a final question on charges for single-use items. You talked about the success of the carrier bag charge that was introduced in 2014. That has been an undoubted success environmentally, but also from the point of view of behavioural change.

Last week, it was argued by representatives of the business community that the fact that the money that is raised from the plastic bag charge can be put towards local causes has helped with collegiate buy-in to the policy, from the point of view of both implementation and seeing the benefits. Do you have any comments to make on how the net proceeds from charges for single-use items should be used? As things stand, the bill proposes a different approach from the one that has been taken in relation to the 2014 plastic bag charge.

It is key when putting a charge on something that there is an alternative. With the bag charge, there was an alternative—people could get a reusable bag and could continue to get their shopping home conveniently.

The issue here is transparency—it all comes down to being up front and honest with citizens about what will happen to the money, whether it takes the form of a tax that will go back into central coffers, whether it will be hypothecated for something else or whether it will be gathered at a local level. Transparency benefits engagement with the policy. We know that from what happened with the carrier bag charge. There was engagement on what would happen with the money and how it would be spent.

We know from talking to individual citizens that people are much more aware of what is happening in their area as regards the work of charities or the provision of recycling services. We should not lose sight of that. People live in a community in a particular place. If they can see a benefit coming back to that place, they are more likely to respond directly.

There needs to be transparency. There are examples from other countries where charging for single-use items has been seen as a tax. There is a challenge to do with where the money from that goes—it simply disappears back into Government coffers. There is no real appreciation of what that is about. There might be other drivers there, too, such as people trying to avoid paying tax. As the bill is taken forward, there is an opportunity to engage with the local community and local businesses about how best to provide transparency on where the money will go.

Ultimately, however, this is not about raising money, in the same way that the carrier bag charge was not about raising money. We must remember that. Putting a charge on coffee cups or whatever is not about raising money for good causes; it is about reducing the use of single-use items. Ideally, we want to achieve a 100 per cent shift. If we did that, there would be no money to be recirculated within the community. That is a hard thing to talk about as well, but the reality is that there will still be some money available. One of the challenges, especially with the carrier bag charge, was that it was not to be seen as an on-going fund.

Convener, does anyone else want to come in on that issue before I move on?

I am not seeing any raised hands, and I think that you have more questions to ask, so we are all ears.

11:30  

I will press on and ask about considerations around household waste, which we have touched on briefly already. What impact will the strengthening of enforcement measures regarding the disposal of household waste have? How should high levels of compliance with household waste and recycling systems be achieved? Is what is in the bill enforceable?

It is helpful to have options in there on household waste and enforcement around that. However, in countries where it works, the householder responsibility element is in the mix along with something like a deposit return scheme and a powerful producer responsibility framework. We keep coming back to the point that it is very much a mix, and this is one part of the puzzle that needs to be put together to make the system work. We keep saying this, but we need the evidence base to make sure that the approach works and that we understand the impact. However, there is no doubt that there is work to be done on the 60 per cent of material in bins that could be recycled.

If no one wants to add to that, I will move on.

It definitely is part of a puzzle and, of course, one advantage of a deposit return scheme is that it helps to reduce contamination. There is not just the challenge of the 60 per cent of materials that go into landfill but that could be recycled; it is also about how we improve the quality of the recyclate that goes into recycling provisions as they are. To me, the puzzle is about deposit return and the considerations in the bill, but it is also about public awareness and cultural change.

Regarding the provisions to put the recycling code on a statutory footing and to enable the setting of local targets, what evidence is there to suggest that taking a statutory approach in those areas will drive up standards? What are the key opportunities in making systems more consistent across the country? How do we drive up standards and make the systems more consistent, and how important would those elements be?

I will come back on that and then maybe pass to others.

There is an opportunity to explore some sort of charge on householders, potentially in relation to weight, to deal with residual waste, but that should very much be part of a mix. On the code of practice for local authorities, it is really important that there is consistency in collection and process and an associated confidence in the system from the people who are investing in the processing and the recycling. That is an important element with household waste.

Local authorities will need to co-ordinate and establish best practice. In an urban constituency such as my constituency of Edinburgh Northern and Leith, there are large street bins for general recycling. All it takes is for one person walking past to dump some contamination in there, sometimes unwittingly, and the whole recyclate is contaminated and, in some cases, cast aside. Do you envisage significant engagement between, and strategic decision making from, local authorities to make this work and ensure that the public are aware of their expectations before considerations of enforcement are applied and that enforcement is carried out in a just manner?

Yes, I think that consistency of process around the country, consistency of message and consistency of approach are crucial here.

Yes, and it is also about consistency of practice and how it is implemented.

If there is no other feedback on that, I want, finally, to come back to a point already raised by Mr Gulland about our facilities to meet the bill’s requirements and the shared collective aim of reducing waste and increasing recycling. What investment in waste, whether it be in recycling, reuse, redistribution or infrastructure, will be needed to support the bill’s aims? I would be grateful if you could elaborate on what you said earlier, Mr Gulland, because I think that it is really important.

I definitely think that enforcement and consistency come together, and you are right that we need to do the consistency part first. There are two elements to that. With the 60 per cent of stuff that goes into the residual bin but which could be recycled in our current infrastructure, we need an educational approach to raise awareness and get the message across to people, because a lot of people will not be aware of that. That is before we even get to the challenge of contamination as a result of people putting stuff in the wrong bin—say, the residual bin. We need to get the message across about the impact of that, too.

Again, it is all about transparency. A lot of people do not know where their recyclate ends up. We are not sharing with the whole of Scotland the information about what happens to that material—what it gets turned into and where it turns up. What is the end destination of that recyclate? We have all seen the horror stories in the media about recyclate, not specifically from Scotland but from the UK, ending up dumped in other parts of the world. Does that niggle at the back of the consumer’s mind? We need to be much more transparent in that respect, because having much more obvious communications with citizens will help them not just think, “Put it in the right bin” but say, “Let’s recycle more.”

As for your question, I have a list—just name the material and there will be some opportunity at national and certainly at local level. The thing that we all forget is that the circular economy is distributive; it is not about sucking all the materials out into—with every respect—the central belt of Scotland. With digital enablement and technology, we can size solutions into the rural parts of Scotland, too. However, whether we are talking about mixed plastics, plastic film or electronics, it all needs co-ordination. I point out, with respect, that the supply chain is quite fragmented with the 32 local authorities, each of which have their own way of collecting the material.

I come back to the point about consistency. If we had a consistent approach and if the same materials were being collected, we could look at aggregating some of those materials at national or regional level to find solutions and maximise opportunities. There is lots of interest in this; indeed, when I was down at our exhibition in Birmingham just a few weeks ago, I noted lots of interest in a number of products, including plastics and electronics, from a range of industries interested in coming to Scotland. Although we are a small country, the scale of materials that we have is potentially available for inward investment; however, it needs a bit of co-ordination and the right signals with regard to consistency—that, for example, the supply will be consistent across the country, will be of good quality and can start to take up those economic opportunities.

It is also about reuse and repair—we should not forget that. How do we create the right accessible infrastructure for those things to happen? There is a role for individual local authorities, or for local authorities working together, in sizing some of those opportunities, both at a really local level and on the kind of regional base that we discussed before, if we are talking about reusing unused, unsold goods.

I absolutely appreciate the points about reuse.

I was thinking of the Tool Library, for example.

Exactly, and there are several other examples that I can think of.

I wonder where that suggestion came from, deputy convener.

On recycling, can you be any more definitive about what additional recycling infrastructure Scotland needs as a nation to meet the requirements of what is ahead and to reach a position where less of our recyclate is going offshore and elsewhere to be utilised?

I am happy to provide a list to the committee. There are a number of opportunities, some of which, as I have said, can be found at national level. I am thinking of things such as plastic bottles; there is probably enough polyethylene terephthalate—PET—for one or two plants in Scotland. Others, on a different scale, could be distributed more around the country.

There is a whole range of things—we could look at any material. There is also an opportunity for landing something in Scotland that could, potentially, attract material from the north-east or the north-west of England. Having the ability to land one of those opportunities here in Scotland, as opposed to just looking after what is in the local area, could create a far-reaching dividend for the local economy.

That follow-up would be appreciated.

The economic areas of Government would need to think about such opportunities, because it is not just about waste management. It would involve considering how we can harness economic opportunities such as inward investment or job creation.

If you could follow up on that, it would be helpful. Your points about inward investment and job creation are absolutely of interest, including the point that having consistency and a uniform position across local authorities on processing would attract such investment.

As a point of interest, I would just say that, this week, I will be visiting Terry McDonald from Eugene in Oregon, who is in Scotland to speak at the Scottish Resources Conference in Perth tomorrow. He runs a social enterprise in Eugene, which has about 250,000 people. There are various reuse and remanufacturing opportunities in the area, and his is a $60 million business that is based on resources in and outwith the local area. It is all about reusing, remanufacturing and repurposing materials, and all of the $60 million is deployed back into the community for emergency shelters or to provide relief for people in poverty. It is creating a massive dividend, and it is all based on resources. That is just one example of what is possible for Scotland, before we think about the big-scale, national picture. That sort of thing could be delivered at local levels across Scotland.

We have a few other questions on household waste, but Monica Lennon has a supplementary question on a point that was raised earlier.

I have been listening with interest, but I just wanted to pick up on the theme of single-use items. Single-use nappies, for example, clearly contribute a lot of waste and end up in landfill, and we know that some councils have put in place local small-scale initiatives to improve access to reusable ones. My question is probably best aimed at Iain Gulland. Is there more scope outside the legislation to do more of that locally and to have schemes that can work with nappy libraries, for example, or is there potential for the legislation to put more of a duty on local authorities and other partners to do that in a much more proactive way?

Iain, do you want to come in on that briefly?

Yes, there is more that we can do. There are a lot of local initiatives, which need to be promoted more and be made more accessible. It comes back to the point about what we call recycling opportunities or reusing opportunities, or opportunities to address consumption, when we are talking about reusable nappies. We need to start thinking about that infrastructure and how we can encourage this sort of thing, whether through legislation, powers or investment, and we need to think about the broader health and wellbeing opportunities that such initiatives bring. We have to think about not only the environmental benefits but the broader societal benefits that such solutions offer.

There is a conversation to be had with local authorities about the Circular Economy (Scotland) Bill. It is not only about bins and boxes; it is about how they can broaden their thinking on procurement operations, community engagement, preventative health and all that sort of stuff. It presents a real opportunity, so items such as reusable nappies should be put into that mix.

That is great. Thank you.

Following on from the deputy convener’s questions, I note that David Harley mentioned that 60 per cent of the material in residual waste could be recycled. I think that we are going the wrong way with regard to recycling, but I guess that we do not need to wait for the legislation to be in place before we consider initiatives. What could we do now to try to improve our recycling rates?

11:45  

We need more initiatives like those that we have been talking about over the past half hour. For example, a strengthened or extended producer responsibility will make a big difference, as it is about reducing the amount of waste generated in the first place, which is a major part of the problem.

Some of the additional provisions are important. There is a stick element to dealing with household waste; people might have to pay by weight for disposal, though a deposit return scheme will help with that. It is all in the mix.

We need to do more at this point, because we have plateaued. Education and public awareness have a role to play; indeed, Nick Halfhide mentioned the need for wider societal education about what we use. As an aside, I will just highlight our use of water. We use more water domestically than just about any other country in Europe. There is something in our psyche in relation to our use of resources across the board that could be improved, and we need more education and awareness about that.

More action is needed to make the difference. Now that the overall recycling rate of 43 per cent has plateaued, something else needs to be done.

The situation is different in different parts of Scotland. Iain Gulland probably knows more about that.

It is, but the difference is not massive. Overall, it is in the 50s.

It varies across different council areas. Some of that is to do with whether those areas are urban or rural, with different housing types and with particular challenges in some parts of Scotland. However, having a discussion about consistency of approach will surely help, because it will get us into some of the conversations that we need to have about how we simplify or make more consistent the approach to recycling, which will then feed into more general messaging.

There is investment at the moment, with the Government providing £70 million to improve recycling services. The bulk of that money has been committed already. However, I point out, with respect, that one of the challenges is that what is going into infrastructure is capital money, which leaves only very limited money for communication. Ultimately, if you are going to introduce a new service, you need to educate people about it, but you also need to continue that communication on an on-going basis. That brings me back to the 60 per cent figure—it is all down to communicating with people. It is not about developing something new, because that infrastructure already exists. All of that paper and those tins and plastic bottles could go into the current system. This is a communication issue that we are talking about.

Going back to the question of targets, I think that we beat ourselves up a bit about the recycling rate, but the fact is that we are measuring tonnes of material. We have developed in Scotland a carbon metric that is about the carbon intensity of our waste management operations, and it shows that we have made significant changes and have reduced the carbon impact of our waste management system significantly over the past 10 to 15 years. More important, we have reduced it in the past five years by focusing on food and plastics, which are the big carbon-intensive items.

As members will know, we released a report earlier this year on textiles. Textiles make up only 4 per cent of the household waste stream by weight, but 34 per cent by carbon. That is what we need to be addressing. It brings me back to the climate emergency, because we need to be tackling the issues relating to the carbon-intensive products and materials in our waste stream. Unfortunately, that might not shift the recycling rate for Scotland, but we still really need to do it. We have been addressing the issue, though; we have been tackling food waste and plastics, and we want to tackle textile waste next.

The problem is that there is still inconsistency across different parts of Scotland, especially in relation to food waste, which some local authorities collect and others do not. That all has an impact on what ends up in the general waste bin.

There is a conversation to be had about targets, and about the targets being carbon targets and, therefore, part of carbon target emissions reporting. Councils take that kind of reporting very seriously. If we can make that link and explain that it is as much about carbon as it is about delivering a service and hitting recycling rates in tonnes, we might see a lot more councils looking at what is in the bins and their waste stream and thinking about how to target that from a carbon reduction point of view. We might then see an increase in participation rates.

You mentioned a lack of facilities for plastic. I presume that all our PET gets shipped to other parts of the UK or elsewhere. There might have been a lack of investment, but that sort of thing can happen now. Once again, there is no need to wait for a bill to be introduced.

No, there is no such need—it could happen now. However, it would require co-ordination and the right level of support for some of those companies to come into Scotland or for Scottish businesses to develop that infrastructure.

I keep making this point: we can talk about the one job in collection and recycling and the eight jobs elsewhere but, to get that economic opportunity, we need to design it. It will not happen by chance. These are, to some extent, UK and global commodities, but we want to get that success for Scotland. We all need to come round to thinking not just about the bins and boxes, but about the broader system and how we can create that here in Scotland. We might not get everything, but there are certainly some big wins out there. As I have said, there is significant interest in some of those opportunities.

I will just make an observation, Douglas, which I will carefully phrase. Talking rubbish is very interesting, and we are getting through a pile of questions, but the problem is that we are also getting through a pile of time. I now request that witnesses give succinct answers to members’ very succinct questions. I will come back to you, Douglas, if you have another question.

My last question is about labelling. Should more be done about that? I know that there is some labelling but, once again, it all depends on where you are in the country whether you can recycle certain things.

Yes, absolutely.

The recycling of Pringles tubes is an example.

Yes. Coming back to the circular economy strategy, I think that putting the measure on a statutory footing will be really important as a way of responding to many of the questions that you have posed. The sector needs certainty that the country is serious about this and that it will not change its mind. Just having that commitment and putting it on a statutory footing will really help with investment in all elements of the infrastructure, whether it be processing and having the facilities nationally to do that or whether it be labelling. We then need consistency with regard to collection and processing. Again, labelling will really help with that.

Monica, I am not sure whether you have a question on this subject.

No, convener. I was going to ask about fly-tipping.

Okay. Just before we go on to that, I want to ask a very quick question on household waste. There are 32 authorities and 32 different schemes; there are different coloured and different sized bins, and I get confused about what I am supposed to be putting in what bin depending on where I am. When I come to Edinburgh, I have no idea which bin replicates the one in my area—actually, I do not have any recycling bins in the remote area that I live in, because the council does not do recycling there. However, I get confused as to whether I should be putting things in a green bin, a blue bin or a brown bin. I think that there are yellow bins out now, too.

Should we have something simple that everyone can understand across the whole of Scotland? Should the council recycle some of its recycling bins and make them one colour so that we know what we are talking about? Iain Gulland, do you want to respond to that?

I know that it is a challenge, because the issue comes up a lot. We would not advocate taking all of the bins away and then putting out a brand-new set, because that would use up too much material. I think, though, that it is all about communication. If there is consistency of approach, I do not think that it really matters what colour the bins are.

There have been more innovative suggestions. Irrespective of the colour of the bin, you could just put a number on it. However many bins everyone across Scotland has—whether it be one, two, three, four or six—the same number could be used everywhere.

There are different ways of doing this, but it comes back to labelling. How do you link up the labelling, both at a national and local level, to the infrastructure that we have? We are not able to do that because, as you have rightly said, we have 32 different systems. That is what having a consistent approach is all about. How can we do that and then use it as a basis to communicate and engage with citizens across Scotland, regardless of where they live?

We must also recognise that it is not so much the geographical opportunities that might be different; there could be differences in approach by housing type. Such a system would be a bit more sophisticated, but there is an opportunity for a much more consistent approach. I think that it will be different for different areas, so, again, it is all about communication.

Monica, I think that you want to ask about fly-tipping.

Yes, I have hinted that I want to ask about fly-tipping. I am keen to hear from all the witnesses, so do not feel that you have to answer all parts of my question.

What impact will the provisions in the bill have on fly-tipping? Would you like to see anything else in the bill in that regard? Outwith the proposals in the bill, I am keen to hear what else is happening to improve the enforcement and prevention of fly-tipping.

I will start with David Harley, but I am also keen to hear from Nick Halfhide and Iain Gulland, should they have anything to add.

One helpful improvement would be to require not just the landowner but the fly-tipper to be responsible for removing materials. There should be accountability in all parts of that bad process. If businesses or individuals have used an unauthorised, illegitimate business to dispose of an item in the countryside, it would be helpful to have a fine or punitive element so that there is a duty of care for both individuals and businesses. I will leave it there.

That is helpful. Nick Halfhide, do you want to add any thoughts about the impact of fly-tipping on the environment and wildlife?

I have nothing specific to add about what should be in the bill, but I will highlight the impact of fly-tipping on wildlife. Locally, it can be quite damaging. The effect is cumulative. If people see that fly-tipping is happening and that it is acceptable, often, they are less caring about their environment. It is, in part, about empowering local communities to be able to say, “No, that’s not acceptable. I don’t want that damaging the quality of my environment or the wildlife.” There is nothing more distressing than seeing a swan or a duck entangled in material that has been fly-tipped. That is all that I will add.

Thank you.

That leads us neatly on to the next questions. I believe that you have some questions, Jackie.

Yes, I do, convener. You are reading my mind.

My question follows from what Monica Lennon said about household waste. I should declare an interest as a former local councillor for Aberdeen City Council, because I am away to ask a question regarding the enforcement challenges that SEPA and local authorities face in relation to waste crime, which Ben Macpherson has already touched on. What challenges do they face? When we talk about fly-tipping, people automatically think that it is about households, but it is also about businesses. Related to that, do you think that the power to seize vehicles that have been caught fly-tipping would act as a sufficient deterrent?

I am in your hands, convener, as to who would like to answer that, because I cannot see the witnesses.

When you asked the question, Jackie, they all looked in the opposite direction, so I do not think that anyone wants to answer. [Laughter.] No, that is not true. David Harley, I think that you were nodding your head.

Yes. We would really welcome the power to seize vehicles, as it would be quite a powerful incentive, if that is the right word.

Iain Gulland, do you want to add anything?

No.

You have your answer. Jackie, do you have any more questions?

I have taken that answer to be “Yes, please” to having that power, if I heard it correctly.

Two out of the three witnesses are nodding and one is looking away. He is also nodding now.

I have a question for David Harley. Does SEPA have the resources and skills to make use of the new powers that are proposed in the bill?

There is a lot of development work on new ways of regulating; we talked about some of them earlier. There is a considerable amount of preparatory work to implement a measure such as that. The application systems and the information technology behind all that requires investment, and we will work with Government to ensure that we will be funded appropriately for that implementation phase, whatever new powers and new duties are required. However, once those things are up and running, as I said before, half our income will come from charges, so we will generate a charging scheme to enable cost recovery of that work from implementation onwards.

12:00  

I will direct my final question to Iain Gulland, but anybody else can come in. What other work is being done to tackle waste crime, and could the bill be strengthened any further to support that work?

We in Zero Waste Scotland are not directly involved in that, although we work with partners, particularly SEPA, on aspects of the rural economy, and we think about behavioural change and engagement with communities that are blighted by fly-tipping.

More broadly, in a successful implementation of a circular economy, you would expect to close out those types of opportunities, because fly-tipping, illegal as it is, is leakage out of the circular economy. If you create a much more circular system for the materials that are being fly-tipped, you create a different framework for the security of those resources, and, as I said, if we design that right, it will limit opportunities for criminals to make money out of that. I am not saying that it is easy for them, but there are opportunities for criminals in the linear economy.

I will not say that the shift to a circular economy will end that criminality, but a successful deployment nationally, and particularly locally, while managing resources in a much more sustainable, economically, socially aware and transparent way, will help us to make it harder for criminals, surely. It might also help householders not to be persuaded to do the wrong thing, because they will be much more integrated as individual citizens into a local, national and global system, for all the reasons that we have talked about.

That is where we come in, because there are opportunities—whether that is in relation to dumping white goods, household waste or even some commercial waste—in the circular economy to close that loop, for lack of a better word.

The deputy convener wants to come in with a brief follow-up question, and then I will go to Douglas Lumsden.

Mr Gulland makes some important points. Most of the fly-tipping in my constituency is of sofas and mattresses, some of which is criminal in that people are dumping those materials in certain areas, but some of it is simply people putting them out in the street because they are not aware of the law or cannot afford to or do not have the motivation to take it to an appropriate facility.

I come back to the challenge of organised crime in the waste management sector, and I wonder whether Mr Harley has anything to add about that wider challenge. As I said earlier, I appreciate the sensitivity of the issue, so I understand if you would prefer to follow up in writing with regard to that important wider consideration.

Briefly, David Harley.

As I said, we set up a unit 10 years ago to tackle the issue. It is very important work for us. We put a significant amount of resources into taking bad actors out of the game, and we have made significant progress. Prosecutions are in progress. We work very closely with the police because some of this is associated with organised crime. As we move forward in this more circular economy world, it is important to have strong enforcement in place for those people trying to take advantage of those unintended consequences in the system. That work continues to be important.

Douglas, I am sorry, but I will be really mean and allow you only one question.

That is okay. We have heard from businesses that they have concerns about the burden of reporting that they will have to comply with once the legislation comes in. Do you have a view on the amount of reporting that businesses will have to do at that point?

I do not have a view on the amount, but we as the regulator, and the players, must have sophisticated systems, which technological development and artificial intelligence might help with. If we have that, we might be able to reduce the burden as well as making it easier for ourselves, as the regulator, to understand the flows and whether they are going in the right direction and where they might be going wrong or where there might be illegal activity. Investment in good systems will be really important.

I hear that a lot. My organisation works directly with a lot of businesses. Once they start to measure waste and resources, they can take action. We have lots of evidence that businesses are saving money by doing that, for example by implementing new systems to deal with food waste. That has been mentioned specifically. There may be infrastructure or equipment challenges at the start, or a need for training, but businesses will make savings over time. They can report internally and externally. There should be transparency in engaging with consumers but also between businesses within the supply chain. Those within the supply chain are asking for more of that.

The idea of the circular economy takes us back to the question of where the opportunities are for the re-use, repurposing and reprocessing of materials. We must understand that information at the macro level and in specific sectors to gauge where materials are, where they are flowing to and where we can access them, so that we can create circular economy opportunities.

More important, if there are common themes or common waste streams within particular sectors or particular locations, we need to know how we can harness them for economic benefit. We can show evidence that reporting definitely helps individual businesses and that it can shape and accelerate opportunities at the macro or sub-regional level.

The concern may be that there is no detail as yet.

We will leave it there. That was quite a long answer. I am sorry, but we are up against the clock. I reiterate that there are some things that members wanted to ask but have been unable to do so because of time restrictions. There are questions about targets and target setting that we should have got to but did not, because of my poor time management, so the clerks will follow up in writing to ask witnesses for their views.

I thank the three witnesses for their evidence today. I will briefly suspend the meeting to allow the witnesses to leave. I want members back here at 12:10 for the next item.

12:07 Meeting suspended.  

12:11 On resuming—