Seòmar agus comataidhean

Correct.

As this is an enabling bill, it puts us in the position of being able to start that process.

That is a really good question, because a lot of the overall principle of moving to a circular economy is about the polluter-pays model. As previously discussed, a lot of the materials produced by companies have to be cleaned up at the expense of local authorities; that has to be handled, whether they send the materials to incineration or landfill or pick them off the street as litter. As we move to a polluter-pays model—for example, with extended producer responsibility, which is a UK-wide thing—businesses will need to pay into the extended producer responsibility model, so that we have the funding for local authorities to deal with it.

Applications to the recycling improvement fund are made by local authorities. A local authority develops an initiative—a proposal—that comes to the recycling improvement fund board, which established the fund. The board works with the local authority to establish whether the proposal will achieve the outcomes that we need—nationally, we need to hit our net zero targets—how feasible it is, the timescale and so on. Then, the board advises me on whether it feels that the application should be awarded.

The challenge with Glasgow is that, because it is our largest city, the impact of recycling in Scotland is largely affected by what we do there. Basically, if we get recycling in Glasgow right, we impact on our national targets, so it is really important that we get it right in Glasgow. We had discussions around the proportion of the recycling improvement fund going to Glasgow, because I wanted to understand exactly why it was worth doing; it is because it has that impact at national level. To meet our net zero targets, we have to make sure that money is being spent most effectively to reduce our emissions and increase our recycling, and that was the right place for the money to go to achieve that result.

I do not have a particular vision for that. It is for the SNIB to decide what it invests in.

The bill is a framework bill, and it allows us to start the journey down the route of imposing charges on single-use plastics, for example. I cannot predict all the items that the Parliament and the Government may wish to impose charges on to get industry to report on the waste and surpluses that it produces. We are looking to start with food waste but, down the line, the Parliament may choose to look at other sectors and industries. The bill is the start of a journey, and each provision provides for taking specific policy actions in line with councils.

I can give you an example of a provision where that would be the case, which is on the reporting of waste and surplus goods. The provision involves putting a burden or obligation on businesses to report on their waste and surpluses. The arrangements for that would need to be developed with businesses. Such reporting is already undertaken voluntarily by many businesses, including Tesco, Hovis, Unilever and IKEA, so there are already industry examples of good practice whereby large businesses report on their waste and surpluses. Tesco has called for all businesses in its industry to do the same.

By engaging with businesses that already undertake that work and with other businesses in that space, we can develop what we think is industry best practice to support them. That is part of the process of introducing that particular provision on reporting on waste. However, I would, of course, be happy to dive into any of the other provisions that you are interested in.

There is great disparity in how our local authorities implement recycling. Some of our local authorities are excellent and have very high recycling rates, whereas some have lower recycling rates, for a variety of reasons.

I think that you are referring largely to the code of practice element of the bill, the purpose of which is to help people to have a standardised experience. One of the wonderful things about, for example, Scandinavian countries is that they have very standardised recycling, which helps the consumer to understand and do the right thing. In Scandinavian countries, whether people are at home, at work or at the train station, they have the same colour bins for paper, for plastics and for food waste. That standardisation helps with, for example, communication and helps to get the recycling level up.

As part of the co-design process, we might—with councils—develop that standard across the country, so that the user experiences it in a better and easier way. At the moment, some councils collect glass, and some do not. Some councils have different colours and symbols. Standardising that across the country, if that is what the co-design process develops, would make councils’ lives easier. It could also open up opportunities for the bulk purchasing of bins or other savings that might be useful to councils. The whole intention of the co-design process is to make life easier for councils and for them to have input. We all recognise that different communities have different geographic and housing stock challenges. We need to take all of that into account during the co-design process, which is why the councils need to be involved at every step.

The bill certainly looks ahead. In no way are we standing still. At the moment, local authorities are doing a lot of work. There is a voluntary code of practice in place for Scottish local authorities. Every local authority has signed up to reach a certain standard of recycling, but at present, only a third of local authorities adhere to that standard. Our local authorities are already on a journey. They already have a destination that they are trying to reach. The bill puts in place provisions for the next step beyond that.

Local authorities know where they are going to meet the existing code of practice. There is the recycling improvement fund, which nearly all local authorities have had money from. They are working very hard to move towards the existing standard. The bill is the very early days of looking ahead at the next stage and bringing recycling, waste management and resource management in Scotland up to a European standard, and more in line with what Wales is doing.

Councils know where they are in the near term; the bill simply represents the starting line for the next step. That is why the co-design process is so important. It will mean that the work on all the stuff in the bill will be able to start, and we can get into detailed conversations so that the councils will be ready for each of the specific provisions—whether on charging for coffee cups or implementing new powers for enforcement around littering—as they come forward.

I understand the challenge that the committee has in scrutinising a bill that has so many provisions in it, and I am happy to dive into any particular provision that you would like to look at.

The discrepancy is in understanding the difference between a framework bill and the provisions that will follow from that framework.