Seòmar agus comataidhean

I thought that that might be the case.

I will address the rest of the amendments. There is currently no deadline in section 6 for setting circular economy targets—it is open ended. That suggests to me that the minister who was previously at the helm of the bill wanted as long as possible to set those targets, which, to me, does not sound like the kind of environmentally friendly stance that the minister should be taking. If we are to save the planet, we need to be far more ambitious. I argued that last week but, for reasons that remain a mystery to me, neither the committee nor the minister saw it that way.

In principle, we should give the Government of the day, whoever that is, deadlines to work to. If we do not, there is no incentive for it to get on with anything. My amendments in this group would have given the committee a choice of deadline—either one year or two years. I will now move only those amendments that would set a two-year deadline, because that is the timetable that the minister and the committee backed last week.

Amendment 6 would give the Government a two-year deadline to set circular economy targets. That seems reasonable to me.

Amendment 8, again, puts the Government on watch. It is a sunset clause, which relates to section 6 and also to section 7, which is about monitoring and reporting on targets. Amendment 8 says that if the Government has not made regulations under sections 6 and 7 within two years, the sections expire. That should focus the minds of any minister, whoever that is.

Amendment 20 sets alternative timing for regulations being brought in under section 8, which is on

“Restrictions on the disposal of unsold consumer goods”.

Amendments 22, 31 and 33 are further sunset clauses, for the same reasons as before.

I turn to amendment 34. The bill introduces new section 87A to the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009. It gives ministers a power to introduce a charge for the supply of a single-use item. I have many concerns about introducing a power to require charges for single-use items, which I will outline later. Amendment 34 would require section 87A to come into force the day after the Circular Economy (Scotland) Bill receives royal assent.

I turn to amendments 41, 43 and 45. Section 10 relates to the “Householder’s duty of care” with respect to the household waste that is produced on their property. Although we can all agree that it is important that an occupier of a property makes the best effort to ensure that their waste is transferred properly, the committee’s report highlighted that householders are “largely unaware” of their current duty of care and noted that the pressures that are faced by councils in enforcing that duty would need to be addressed.

I have concerns about how workable the enforcement of section 10 would be. Proposing bin fines if people have the wrong items in their bin is not practical. Responsible people could put out their bins only for someone else to come along and put something else in them. They would then be hit by a fine. There would be even bigger problems for people who live in flats with communal bins. Who would get fined if those bins had the wrong items in them? That was addressed in the stage 1 debate but was not properly answered. I am therefore not comfortable with section 10. However, if the Government is committed to retaining it, it needs to act on the regulations. If, through a fear of public backlash, the Government were to let such regulations drift, perhaps that would say something about the nature of the proposals.

My amendments urge the Government to get on with the regulations under section 10(9), about substituting the fixed-penalty amount of £200 and section 10(16), which is about adding another category of persons to the definition of “authorised officer”. My amendments propose a timetable for setting the regulations and they give the Government a deadline by which to do so; otherwise, the power to legislate for fixed-penalty notices for offences under section 10 would expire.

Amendment 72 is in my name. We all want to ensure that recycling is done correctly, but, as the committee has identified, householders require the right information to do that. The stage 1 report noted that

“targeted communications could raise ... awareness of”

a householder’s

“duty of care”

and

“the risks of engaging with illegal waste operators”.

Some stakeholders suggested that such communication should come from councils, but Consumer Scotland questioned the effectiveness of that approach. It said:

“We often hear from local authorities that they provide information on how to take part in recycling or reuse schemes, but when we speak to our consumers, that is not always the message that comes back from them, so there is probably a need to simplify things and ensure that the core message is getting across.”—[Official Report, Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee, 7 November 2023; c 43.]

If we want to drive behaviour change in that area, how about a mobile app that provides everyone with easy-to-access information about how to dispose of household waste and how to report incidents of unlawful disposal of waste? Instead of placing the burden on councils—which will already be tasked with enforcing many aspects of the bill, as we have discussed—why do Scottish ministers not step in with a one-size-fits-all solution that could be easily rolled out across the whole of Scotland? That suggestion might sound very odd coming from me. It feels a bit odd coming from me.

I might regard amendment 72 as a probing amendment, which I am not in favour of generally, but I am interested in what the minister has to say. I think that it would be relatively easy to set up an app. We have other national apps—ScotRail has a very good app, and there are Government apps.

I will be incredibly brief. Amendment 23, in my name, is technical and consequential to others that I lodged. That is it.

I am glad that Mr Ruskell has come in at this point.

Very good.

I do not think there is any point in putting targets in law—or, indeed, putting anything in law—if there is no redress if the targets are missed. [Interruption.] Would you like me to stop while the window closes, convener?

Thank you, convener. I will start by apologising to the committee because I have 40-plus amendments in this group. I promise to spend no longer than five minutes on each, and I have no doubt that the minister will do the same, which is about six hours’ worth—[Interruption.] Of course I am jesting, convener, before you jump in.

Last week, I argued that the two-year deadline for publishing the circular economy strategy was too long and pushed for it to be cut to a year. The minister was not at all keen on that and wanted it to remain at two years. At one point, Mr Ruskell even argued that there should not be a deadline, until he realised that there was one in the bill and reappraised his stance.

With that in mind, I wish to fall into line with the minister and propose only two-year deadlines in my many amendments in this group. Therefore, I will not press amendment 5 or move the other amendments that would create a one-year deadline. Those are amendments 7, 19, 21, 30, 32, 40, 42, 47, 49, 51, 53, 61, 63, 68, 70, 73 and 75.

Convener, I notice that the clerk is talking to you. Is it a procedural matter?

It might help with your decision making, convener, if I give you warning that, in the following group, I will be speaking at some length. I just wanted to let you know that.

My arguments with regard to amendment 28 are very similar to those that Mr Lumsden has just made. The amendment deals with the issue of the internal market act as it relates to section 9 of the bill, which is the power to require imposition of charges for single-use items.

I do not need to remind the committee of the importance of complying with that power; whether members think we should or not is neither here nor there, because we must deal with reality. Allow me, if you will, convener, to quote fairly extensively from the committee’s report, which I thought was excellent. It says:

“We also recognise that some key matters are reserved and that the Scottish Government must work within the requirements of the UK Internal Market Act.”

It also says, on page 4:

“The framework nature of the Bill also means the Committee cannot express an authoritative view as to whether regulations made under the Bill (if enacted) would be likely to trigger the market access principles within the UK Internal Market Act 2020, with a risk of undermining their effectiveness.”

Again, the report says, on page 25:

“The Internal Market Act creates two key market access principles which operate in the post-Brexit environment: the mutual recognition principle and the nondiscrimination principle. These—

‘... serve to disapply relevant requirements in one part of the UK when goods or services are lawfully provided in another part of the UK. The principles will permit access to the Scottish market of goods and services which originate elsewhere in the UK under different regulatory conditions. This is likely to have a substantial impact on the effectiveness of devolved regulatory regimes.’”

On page 26, it says:

“It was widely accepted during Stage 1 that the Internal Market Act has the potential to significantly affect the operation of the Bill if it were to become law: potentially a ‘massive impact’ according to some stakeholders.”

My amendment, which relates to section 9, says that the Scottish Government must consult with the secretary of state, whoever that is, and provide a statement that he or she is content that the regulations comply with the internal market act. I think that Mr Lumsden’s amendment does the same. Given the committee’s comments in its report, which I have just quoted, I would have thought that it would support this position. However, I have thought that before when I have quoted the committee’s report, so we will just have to wait and see.

It has been an interesting session so far, although clearly a bit frustrating for some of my colleagues. I would like to go right back to the beginning of the meeting, to a question that the convener and the deputy convener asked. I am still not sure what the answer is. The question was whether you accept the recommendations of the Auditor General.

As the deputy convener said to you, Mr Irwin, your answer was not clear. You said that you accepted the “broad thrust” of the recommendations, but wanted to probe deeper into them. When you answered Mr Greene, I think that I heard you say that there was only one recommendation—the first one, which is on page 5 of the briefing—that you were not too happy with. Is that the only one?

Apart from the first recommendation, you accept all the recommendations and you will act on them.

That would be very useful. Mr Beattie asked about funding, and he was very frustrated at the answers that he received, so perhaps I will have a go. Page 13 of the Auditor General’s briefing refers to areas relating to direct investment by the Scottish Government. There is a list. How comprehensive is it? Do you have it there?