Seòmar agus comataidhean

I thank Monica Lennon for taking the intervention, because I have a few questions about her amendments. On amendment 170, I am thinking about local authorities because, let us face it, they are all struggling and every pound is a prisoner for them just now. My first question is about the scheme in North Ayrshire. Is there any more data on the costs and results that could be shared with us ahead of stage 3? I presume that the Government must have information on the workings already, or will that be in the report that you mentioned from the James Hutton Institute?

You said that the scheme is cost neutral because 62,250kg of disposable nappies are no longer going to landfill, but landfill can no longer be used for most waste anyway, so I am not sure whether that is still relevant or whether the position has changed since the figures were put together.

On amendment 157, on the healthcare side, has there been any more feedback from the Government? I do not want to sound negative, but I can see potential problems. New parents might pick up reusable nappies—I am going to call them that rather than diapers—but what do they do with them if washing facilities are not in place? Do they have to take soiled nappies home? They may then reuse them, but I can see issues there. I would like more work to be done with the Scottish Government to see whether there is potential there, because the last thing that we want to do just now is to put more costs on local authorities and health boards at a time when they are struggling for cash.

There will indeed be a lot of unauthorised waste carriers that we do not know about, but I guess that there must be some that we do know about, because of prosecutions by Police Scotland. Do you have any data on that to hand, or data that could be delivered later?

Thank you, convener. I can assure you that Sue Webber’s speaking notes are a lot shorter than those of Murdo Fraser, which I used earlier.

Amendment 106 seeks to give local authorities more influence over the circular economy strategy, where they are affected. In particular, the amendment would require ministers to get approval from COSLA to change the level of fixed-penalty notices regarding households’ incorrect disposal of waste. If the Government wanted to increase the maximum fine above £500, ministers would have to get approval from COSLA. The intention of the amendment, as with every other amendment in the group, is to ensure that ministers do not pass any regulation that affects local authorities without the explicit approval of COSLA.

Amendments 107 and 108 seek to give local authorities more influence over the circular economy strategy, where they are affected. In particular, the amendments would require ministers to get approval from COSLA before making any regulation regarding civil penalty charges.

Amendments 109, 110 and 111 would all serve the same purpose, which is to ensure that, when ministers have prepared a new code of practice on household waste recycling, the code must get explicit approval from COSLA.

Amendments 112, 113 and 114 would all serve to ensure that ministers get approval from COSLA when setting targets for local authorities’ household waste recycling targets. The wording in the bill, as currently drafted, requires COSLA to be consulted, whereas the amendments would require that it “must” approve the targets.

Amendment 115 would ensure that ministers must seek approval from COSLA on any regulation relating to penalty notices that are served to individuals who litter from a vehicle.

Amendments 116 and 117 would ensure that ministers must seek approval from COSLA on regulations relating to powers to search and seize vehicles—specifically in relation to the handling of seized properties and the ability to apply enforcement.

We have the Verity house agreement, whereby local government and the Scottish Government should be working closely together, and the thrust of all the amendments is to make sure that local authorities are more than consulted and that they are actually part of the decision-making process.

I presume that these amendments are about standardisation so that we can have a national campaign and better education, which would drive up recycling rates?

Will the minister take an intervention?

Maurice Golden said that the target is easy to meet, but it cannot be that easy to meet because the Government is not meeting its targets. What is going wrong, in your opinion, that those targets are not being met?

Does Mr Golden share my thought that those targets are being abandoned at this stage because the Government has failed to meet them for the past seven years?

Amendment 81 is quite simple. It would change the word “may” to “must”. It might be just one word, but it is an important change that should be made to the bill. If we are serious about moving to a circular economy, we must set ourselves targets. The use of the term “may” in setting targets does not really cut it, which is why the Government must take this on board, change “may” to “must” and get a move on.

I understand that amendments 147 and 150, in the name of Bob Doris, go together, and I support them both. One thing that I would like to highlight about amendment 150 is that it states:

“The Scottish Ministers must, as soon as reasonably practicable after laying a copy of the proposed regulations, publicise them in such manner as they consider appropriate.”

I hope that we will hear from Mr Doris what is meant by publicising the regulations as ministers “consider appropriate”. Perhaps that phrase is always in legislation, but I would like to know what is meant by it; we might hear about that from the minister as well.

Another thing to flag in amendment 150 is that the

“representation period must be at least 90 days, of which no fewer than 30 must be days on which the Parliament is not dissolved or in recess.”

If it is the worst-case scenario of just 30 days, I want to get an idea of whether that would be enough and whether that period is standard in legislation. I hope to hear about that from Mr Doris and the minister.

I move amendment 81.

We should review progress on our targets and whether we are going to meet them. After making an assessment of the targets and seeing where we are heading, the Government may think that we have to make some changes—not to the targets but to some of the things that we are doing to ensure that we are on track to make progress on the circular economy that we are all hoping for and moving towards. If we do not measure the targets and do not know what is happening, it will be difficult to meet those targets.

Maurice Golden’s amendment 148 is about whether the targets are achievable. I think that it is only right that we look at that. Some of the climate change emissions targets have not been achievable for quite a while, which has been swept under the carpet. We are looking at whether the circular economy targets are actually achievable.

I am supportive of amendment 149 and I support amendment 12, in the name of Graham Simpson—he will talk to the amendment himself. It is often the case that the Government wants to set fines for other bodies, so if the Government is not meeting its targets, it should get fined. That money should go to local authorities and the third sector to be fed back into the system to try to ensure that we reach the targets that are set. If there are no fines for the Government, that may not move forward.

That would be up to the Government when it sets its targets. Just as it wants to fine other organisations, there should be a financial penalty for the Scottish Government. The money should be reinvested, which is key, into the circular economy through the third sector and local authorities.

I will speak to some of the other amendments in the group. Amendment 13 is just a review of targets. As we have heard, the Government has set emissions reductions targets before and those have not been met for eight out of the past 12 years. There should be a review of that, as targets are constantly being missed.

Amendment 14 links to the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009. Obviously, the legislation might change in the future, but that seems to be a sensible approach.

Amendment 152, in the name of Maurice Golden, is also supportive of the view that there is no point in the Government having a plan if the people who would have to deliver a huge chunk of the work do not have plans in place. It would ensure that plans are put in place.

I move amendment 82.