Seòmar agus comataidhean

Amendment 164 proposes that the Scottish ministers should be required to impose household waste recycling targets for local authorities by way of regulations that are made under new section 47B of the 1990 act, which section 13 of the bill inserts. The bill does not impose on ministers a duty to use that power. That reflects our intention—again—to jointly consider and co-design such targets with COSLA and the local authorities, which directly reflects the principles of the Verity house agreement.

That seems to me to be the right approach to take, and it is the approach that COSLA and local authorities want. It is incumbent on us in the Scottish Government to work with our local authority partners in order to realise their ambition and to support them in it. I therefore cannot support amendment 164.

Amendment 60 proposes that the Scottish ministers should be required to report annually

“on local authorities’ progress towards achieving”

any household recycling targets that regulations under powers that are introduced by section 13 of the bill set out. I agree that it is important for information on progress towards targets to be transparent and accessible. SEPA already publishes comprehensive annual waste statistics, including data on local authority household recycling rates, so amendment 60 is unnecessary. I hope that Maurice Golden will be reassured that annual statistics are in place and that he will not move his amendment.

Amendment 90, from Douglas Lumsden, proposes that the Scottish ministers should make regulations to impose waste management targets on local authorities. The regulations would also have to specify what additional funds or resources were to be provided to local authorities.

I have noted that the Scottish Government is committed to working with COSLA, in the spirit of the Verity house agreement, to co-design an appropriate and effective approach that would require collaboration on how targets were set and on how they are funded and achieved. I mentioned that in relation to Mr Macpherson’s amendment 128, which he sought to withdraw. We have agreed the principles of a planned improvement programme, including that it would provide a practical route for local authorities to plan to meet targets and to explore what will be required to deliver those targets, which includes potential funding implications. I therefore encourage members to vote against amendment 90.

I am nearly finished, convener; actually, I am not—I have two more pages of notes.

I will not be supporting amendment 167. Targets under new section 47B of the 1990 act will be imposed on local authorities, and targets that are set under section 6 of the bill will be imposed on ministers, so the amendment would have limited legal effect.

Amendment 168 would modify new section 47B of the 1990 act by requiring the Scottish ministers to solicit the views of the public in relation to draft regulations to set targets for local authorities. However, section 47B already requires ministers to consult the public.

I cannot support Sarah Boyack’s amendment 206. It does not appear to be in the spirit of the Verity house agreement, as it could potentially prevent the setting of different local authority recycling targets in consideration of individual local authority circumstances.

As for amendment 91, local authorities are responsible for their own procurement and contract management. As I have said, it is for them to be cognisant of any potential long-term changes that relevant policy will make. It is not clear to me why local authorities would require to cancel contracts in relation to the new provisions that section 11 of the bill inserts. I cannot support that amendment.

I am not dismissing that, and I think that it is an issue, but there are other apps that let people know exactly where they are. I take the point, and I think that Mr Simpson’s ambition is laudable, but I do not think that the proposal is workable. Different local authorities have different mechanisms, and it is incumbent on them to improve their reporting mechanisms.

I reassure the committee that there will be opportunities to improve information on the disposal of waste through the development of the new statutory household recycling code of practice, which is provided for under section 12. On reporting illegal waste, we have amendments on fly-tipping coming up later.

I cannot support Graham Simpson’s amendment 72, although this has been a very useful discussion.

Yes—hint taken.

I understand the sentiment behind amendment 104, but I cannot support it as it has been written. I do not think that it is workable, at the moment, for food to be defined in the bill, but I offer to work with Ms Boyack ahead of stage 3. Therefore, I will keep it brief and we can have that discussion offline.

I cannot support amendments 83 and 85, from Douglas Lumsden, although I take the point that he really wants clarification. The purpose of the new regulation-making power is to prevent the disposal of unsold goods—for example, clothing or electrical items—and instead see them being reused by those who need them. When a retailer is left with unsold goods, it does not mean that they become defined as waste. Options that prevent goods from becoming waste are those that ensure that goods are redistributed or donated, and those are the sort of outcomes that we are seeking to achieve. Section 8 provides for regulations that would focus on prohibiting or restricting the disposal of particular goods, instead of their being defined as waste, and doing so would not be required to make the regulations work. Therefore, I do not think that the amendments are necessary.

Turning to amendment 84, I acknowledge the sentiment, but in practice it is difficult to define “value” in legislation. Setting a value in regulation is not necessarily straightforward. Mr Lumsden appreciates that the value of goods can fluctuate, so it could even lead to unintended consequences. For example, if costs were reduced significantly for a short time, those goods might not be affected by the regulations. Therefore, it is very difficult for me to agree to amendment 84, and I cannot support it.

As the amendment is set out, it could lead to unintended consequences such as a retailer reducing the sale value of something, for example, in order to get round that. I am uncomfortable with the potential for unintended consequences.

I apologise to Mr Lumsden, but I cannot support amendment 86 either. I agree that setting out exemptions is important—for example, when products have been withdrawn for safety reasons—but that is already provided for in the new power in proposed new section 78A(5) of the 2009 act, so the amendment is redundant.

On Monica Lennon’s amendments, textiles are one potential candidate for regulations restricting the disposal of unsold goods. It would not be appropriate to make express provisions in the bill, because it is already open to us to do that through regulations. I imagine that textiles will form part of the co-designed regulations, for the reasons why Monica Lennon has campaigned on the issue. The intention of the provision is to increase reuse. Ultimately, it would be for affected businesses to decide how best to comply with any regulations that prohibited or restricted the disposal of unsold goods, rather than for the regulations to specify whether those goods should be donated to specific organisations or recycled, reused or repaired.

Amendments 155 and 156 refer to the export of goods, which, sadly, is a reserved matter, so I cannot support them either.

On amendment 198, I agree that a requirement to develop guidance might be appropriate in relation to section 8, but I cannot support the amendment as drafted. The effect would be to require Scottish ministers to “prepare and publish guidance” before any draft regulations were laid before Parliament. In my view, that would not be appropriate, because it would pre-empt parliamentary approval and scrutiny of the regulations. Although I cannot support amendment 198, I am happy to work with Sarah Boyack to develop an amendment that would require the development of guidance at an appropriate juncture.

On amendment 88, budgets are set via the Scottish budget process. As we discussed in relation to councils, enforcement bodies are the appropriate resource to deliver the duties that are expected of them. That will include enforcement requirements stemming from the bill, as well as any other areas that affect them. Therefore, I cannot support the amendment. However, we will engage with SEPA on matters arising from the bill and will ensure that they are resourced appropriately. I know that SEPA will be happy to engage with MSPs directly on whether it thinks that it is well enough resourced to deal with the impacts of the bill.

Amendment 23, in the name of Graham Simpson, is legally ineffective, so I cannot support it and I ask him not to move it. I do not think that it would have the effect that Graham Simpson wants to achieve, which is to commence the new section 78 power in relation to the restrictions on the disposal of unsold goods upon the bill receiving royal assent. I do not think that the amendment is workable, so I ask him not to move it.

The Scottish Government is happy to support amendment 81 in the name of Douglas Lumsden. Given the transformative change that is required to move from a linear to a circular economy, statutory targets will provide a strong focus for action and certainty in direction of travel across policy. Any targets would be set by future regulations, would be subject to detailed consultation and would sit alongside a monitoring framework that would inform policy choices and allow us to prioritise action on areas such as consumption reduction. On that basis, we are content that there should be a duty and not just a power for ministers to set targets.

We are also very happy to support amendments 147 and 150, in line with the committee’s recommendations at stage 1 to provide enhanced parliamentary scrutiny of initial targets by means of a super-affirmative procedure. I want to give the clarity that Mr Lumsden required about the meaning of “as they consider appropriate”. That is the usual wording for that type of provision. It just means that ministers can choose how to publish that information, which nowadays would generally be on the Scottish Government’s website.

I would like to make a little progress. Mr Golden had a long time to go through his amendments, and I would like to comment on why I am not going to support them.

Setting relevant statutory targets for the circular economy will help to provide a strong focus for action and make clear our intention in terms of policy and ambition. We have set out our intentions in that regard.

I note that, in its stage 1 report, the committee supported the need for a robust approach to setting targets, as well as the need for rigour. I also note the Climate Change Committee’s previous advice to the Scottish Government and Parliament regarding consideration of separate waste streams and of carbon-based metrics when setting future targets. That is why the Scottish Government’s view remains that it would be inadvisable to set future recycling targets now in the bill; instead, we have set out an approach to targets that is based on developing a comprehensive monitoring and indicator framework, to ensure consistency and certainty of the data on which targets can be based.

I will take Maurice Golden’s intervention.

It is neither, Mr Golden. Sections 6 and 7 of the bill already enable the Scottish ministers to set targets by regulations. Such regulations will

“provide for targets in relation to ... increasing recycling”

as well as “reducing waste” and “increasing reuse”.

The powers in the bill do not require the Scottish ministers to specifically set national targets for recycling. The aims of amendments 15 to 18 could be achieved by existing provisions, once appropriate targets are developed and agreed. The important point is that those targets will be developed and agreed in consultation.

I am responding to one intervention at the moment—let me respond to Mr Mountain’s point. Amendments 15 to 18 do not take account of and would pre-empt the co-design process. I keep coming back to the importance of that. Each geographical area has its own circumstances; it is only right that improvements should be designed locally and that the targets should be local. I reassure the committee that the development of appropriate statutory circular economy targets, including consideration of the potential for future recycling targets, will be a key priority.

I will take Mr Lumsden’s intervention now, if that is okay, convener.

Finally, convener, the Scottish Government cannot support amendments 9 and 10, which are in the name of Maurice Golden. In the stage 1 report, the committee said that it understands the need for a robust approach to setting targets. I agree with that, because targets would have significant implications across policy and for stakeholders, so they should be informed by further consultation in all parts of society.

That is why I have set out an approach to setting targets that is based on development of a monitoring and indicator framework, as I have said many times and will not rehearse. Amendments 9 and 10 would replace the ability for Scottish ministers to set targets by regulations following that robust analysis and consultation. For the reasons that I have rehearsed many times, I do not want to do that, so I urge the committee not to support amendments 9 and 10.

I will not take Mr Lumsden’s intervention. In the interests of time, I should probably wind up.

Recent statistics show that the recycling rate in Scotland is 62.3 per cent, which is the highest level since recording began in 2011. There is a mixed picture across Scotland, and it is important to reflect in the co-design process that there must be a local approach with local partners, so that those who feel that they can go well above a target have the ability and are empowered to put their strategies in place, and so that we can support those who are not doing well enough to do better.

For similar reasons to those that I have given previously, I will not support Ms Boyack’s amendment 205. Sections 6 and 7 of the bill already provide the means to set national

“targets ... relating to”

the

“circular economy,”

which might include targets in relation to increasing reuse and recycling. Section 13 provides a power to set local authority targets for household recycling, including the power to set different targets for different local authority areas, if that is what comes out of the co-design process. Work is under way to establish an agreed monitoring and indicator framework that can be used to track different aspects of the circular economy.

I therefore encourage members not to support amendment 2,005—I mean amendment 205; thank goodness it is not amendment 2,005.