Seòmar agus comataidhean

I absolutely hear what COSLA is saying and understand that it has concerns about the possibility of imposing penalties. I will make a couple of points on that. One point is that the Verity house agreement commits to evidence-led policy, and the evidence tells us that voluntary codes of practice and targets are not sufficient. They need to be mandatory, and that means that there must be consequences for not complying, as there are in Wales.

We have also committed to making that sort of penalty a last resort. The intention is to support councils to deliver good services, not to penalise them, but there must be consequences for not meeting a mandatory obligation. I will be honest and say that, as we develop the code of practice with local authorities, I feel that those local authorities that invest heavily and do the work to comply with it will feel frustrated if other local authorities are simply not bothering to comply. Through that process, we will probably get to a point where they revisit that view, because it would be unfair for some local authorities to put in so much work to meet the targets if other local authorities simply decide that they will not bother.

I am sorry, convener. I was referring to a letter addressed to you dated 30 November.

It is a really good point to highlight that no legislative powers, for example, are required to introduce that excellent nappy reuse scheme. I have spoken to the member about that before. I understand that it is a cost-neutral scheme that North Ayrshire Council runs.

I have asked Zero Waste Scotland to take on a role facilitating best practice among councils, because the recycling services that our councils provide and their reuse services are enormously variable. Given that the nappy scheme is a cost-neutral provision—it saves the council from having to deal with nappies, which are, I am told, a real problem for the contamination of waste and are not easily recyclable—it could be a real benefit for councils. I have tasked Zero Waste Scotland with that and I absolutely expect to see that in the route map.

I do not know whether any of the officials want to comment on the route map in that regard.

Yes. That is the fundamental difference between the bill and the specific provision on charging for single-use bags. The bill is a framework bill that will put in place powers to enable us to bring forward measures in a strategic way. By setting out a requirement for the Government to create a circular economy strategy and targets associated with that, we have put in place a framework to enable a more overarching approach.

I am happy to consider that. I have spoken to the construction industry. Last year, I spoke with the Royal Incorporation of Architects in Scotland, and it was particularly keen on material passports, passports for buildings and reporting, so that it can be aware of what materials are available for reuse and get systems in place. We want to do more work on that.

I am sorry, but there is one more provision in the bill that I want to be clear about. Some concerns have been voiced that the bill looks at only recycling and waste, so I want to be clear that there are many provisions of the bill that look higher up. Zero Waste Scotland has been very supportive of us, and it will now be a public body. I have asked it to undertake the sharing of good practice, particularly between our councils. For example, Moray Waste Busters, which many of you might be familiar with, is an exemplar of how reuse can be attached to a local authority for the benefit of the community and, of course, the local authority.

Do you mean the key findings of the report?

Absolutely. Mark Ruskell is absolutely right that the Circular Economy (Scotland) Bill establishes a legislative framework to support the transition. Each provision of the bill has an associated parliamentary procedure under which secondary legislation could be brought.

Mark Ruskell specifically mentioned charging for single-use items. There is intended to be a super-affirmative procedure attached to that when it is a new charge. For example, the introduction of a charge for single-use coffee cups would be done under the super-affirmative procedure. However, if we were to subsequently modify that charge, how it worked or any aspect of those regulations, that would be done under the affirmative procedure.

Ailsa Heine might be able to provide some more detail on the super-affirmative procedure.

As far as I understand it—I will get Ailsa Heine to clarify this, if I do not have all the detail—under the super-affirmative procedure, it is not set in stone exactly what must be undertaken. We can use our judgment as to what would be appropriate for different provisions, if there is a concern, for example, about speed.

The deposit return scheme also covered importing goods, so the legislation had to have provisions on that. That scheme is a good example because the regulations for it stipulated the size of businesses that would be affected and gave a variety of exemptions for smaller businesses at the retail end and the producer end.

The regulations to address disposal of unsold goods are intended to deal with businesses that have the most significant environmental impact. That can be informed by consultation of the businesses that would be affected. The intention is absolutely not to impact small and medium-sized businesses, whose carbon footprint and footprint of goods are necessarily small, so including them would not be proportionate.

That is an interesting question. I would need to look at international examples to know what we are looking for there.