Seòmar agus comataidhean

Absolutely. On the data collection point, I said in my response to Mr Fraser that we are working on creating a national database and ensuring that we are pulling that data together. We agree that the work needs done; I just do not think that legislation is required to do it. That is fine.

With regard to changing the fixed-penalty notice in the SSI that is in front of us, we are not seeking to change the crime at all—we are not changing who will be fined. I clarify that, in relation to the householder’s duty of care in the Circular Economy (Scotland) Bill, which were talking about earlier, the fine for the householder is £200 and will remain at that level. This SSI is different and is to do with existing fly-tipping offences under section 33A(9) of the 1990 act. It is those offences for which the fixed penalty will be going from £200 to £500. The fixed penalty in relation to the householder’s duty of care will remain at £200.

There are several provisions in the bill that keep us aligned with the EU. The provision on the disposal of unsold consumer goods contains powers to keep us in line with measures proposed by the EU. The EU also requires monitoring of food waste and reporting on waste and surplus, so those provisions in the bill would keep us in line. The provisions on single-use plastics will keep us in line with the EU. We have already put in place a ban on some of the most problematic single-use plastics, and the approach to charging for single-use plastics keeps us in line with the EU directive.

I could go into that further but, in the interests of time, I will just say that many of the provisions are either in line with the approach of the EU or move us in the same direction.

I am really pleased by that question because that has been on my mind, too. There are six provisions in the bill that look directly at moving up the hierarchy of reuse, and the bill is just one part of the larger strategic framework that will be described in the route map that I know you are all very keen to see, and which will shortly be published in draft form as part of the extended producer responsibility scheme.

There are six provisions that are directly related to reuse and they start at the beginning with strategy and targets. I have the bill in front of me and note that it specifically says that a circular economy is one in which

“the production and distribution of things are designed so as to reduce the consumption of materials”.

Reducing consumption of materials is the fundamental driver for the strategy and for the national targets. Setting out that strategy and looking at the high-level consumption of materials means implementing the waste hierarchy, which puts reuse near the top—less consumption, then reuse, then recycling and so on. That hierarchy would be embedded in the strategy. That is the overall principle.

The next provision that relates to reuse is the placing of restrictions on the disposal of unsold consumer goods. We have seen other countries put that in place. For example, in France, there is a ban on companies destroying clothes, cosmetics, hygiene products and electrical items. That would apply to both sold and unsold items. Some items are not even getting used at the moment and, in many cases, are going directly to landfill or incineration, so that provision would ensure that those items would be used in the first place, rather than being wasted.

The next provision that relates to reuse is on charges on single-use items. We have all seen how effective the charge on single-use plastic bags or bags in shops has been in driving the reuse of bags. We probably all have cupboards full of reusable bags that we take to the shops, or we keep them in the boots of our cars. That charge has driven reuse, which is the purpose of single-use charges. We intend to implement the first single-use charge on reusable coffee cups specifically to drive reuse by encouraging people to use reusable cups rather than disposable ones.

The next provision of the bill that we can use to drive things up the waste hierarchy is the code of practice. As I have said, that will be developed with councils under the Verity house agreement. I know from the committee’s earlier evidence session that councils are interested in looking at how they can improve reuse, and there are already some excellent examples of that within our councils.

The next provision that relates to that is the one on reporting waste and surplus. That provision was initially intended to cover food, but the reporting of waste and surplus in construction is a high priority for me. The public reporting of waste and surplus does two things. First, it makes the businesses that use those materials aware of what they are wasting and that it is not good for their bottom line, and it also makes them aware of the surpluses that they might have that might be of use to other people. Making records of those materials publicly available also means that other organisations and businesses can look at them, see that they are identified and then reuse them. As the member rightly highlighted, the construction industry is a key one in this case. When people dismantle or repair buildings, they can generate a lot of potentially reusable material, and it needs to be reported on so that people know that it is there and they can use it.

We need to develop the targets together with local authorities, which we have committed to doing.

Our islands impact assessment in relation to the bill highlights that there are significant opportunities for islands. In Kirkwall in Orkney, there is an excellent facility for reusing furniture, which is doing work in that circular economy space. There are opportunities in Orkney to move things up that waste hierarchy.

We commit to setting those targets in line with local authorities and taking the geographic impacts and so on into consideration. The national target is to meet those 60 per cent recycling rates, but Orkney will, of course, contribute only a very small amount to that overall. There needs to be some common sense when applying those targets.

I do not share the concern that companies will build different infrastructure just because we made them send their unused goods to charity—[Interruption.]—instead of to the incinerator—[Interruption.] That seems a bit extreme.

Yes, I agree with the member on that.

Certainly. From my point of view, the report made two substantive points, which we can go into in further detail if you would like. The first was that there was dissatisfaction with some of the assumptions that were made for specific numbers in the financial memorandum. I am content to take away that feedback, review those numbers and, as previously discussed, publish updates if I feel that that is necessary.

The second point was to do with frustration—which I know that you share, convener—about the nature of a framework bill and what that necessarily means for how the secondary legislation that follows on from such a bill can be scrutinised, in particular by the Finance and Public Administration Committee. The FPAC’s comment was that, although it sees the primary legislation, the secondary legislation does not come to it. Although that secondary legislation would come to committees such as this one and would be accompanied by impact assessments and similar information, it does not go to the FPAC. That is a matter of parliamentary process—maybe the issue is one that we should address, so that that committee can provide such oversight. That process is for the Parliament to decide.

As I have said, I am happy to reflect on the numbers that have been flagged up by that committee. I will make a determination as to whether I feel that an update is required.

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.