Fy hoi, ddweud i'n gweithio ar y 35th gweithio ar y Netsiraol, Yn Yrgrifennidol a Ynysgrifesbyddym yn 2023. Yr ystafell yma'r gwybod ar gyfer y gallai gynhyrchu'r busnes yng Nghymru. Mae yna gweithio'n gweithio ym M6 ym Gymru. Ym Gymru ym Gymru mae yna gweithio'r eistedd y dyma'r gweithio ar y cwrdd-menny yma. Mae gweithio'r gweithio'r gweithio'r gweithio. mae have a decision on whether to consider our draft Stage 1 report on the Circular Economy Bill in private at future meetings. Do we all agree to that? We are agreed. Our next item of business is the final evidence session as part of our Stage 1 scrutiny of the circular economy bill. For this, I'm pleased to welcome the Minister for Green Skills, Circular Economy and Biodiversity, Lorna Slater. mae'n gweithio ar gyfer o gyllid gyfnodau ddechrau, the head of the circular strategy unit. Sorry, I am just scanning to make sure I got you in the right order. Gareth, heverside, I hope I have got that right, have I got that right? Heverside, and I haven't got it right. I'll get it right in future. From the circular economy bill team leader, Elsa Heiney, Slysta a Janet McVeigh ahead of zero waste unit. Thank you also for joining us today. We've got about 90 minutes for this item, but before we move to questions, Minister, I think you want to make a brief opening statement. Certainly. Thank you, convener, and thank you for the opportunity to come to speak with the committee today. The Circular Economy Scotland Bill will establish the legislative framework to support Scotland's transition to a zero waste and circular economy. It may increase reuse and recycling rates and modernise and improve waste and recycling services. The bill takes powers to give ministers and local authorities the tools that they need in order to achieve our ambitions for a circular economy. Those represent a package of new powers and responsibilities that will be underpinned by support and investment, such as the £70 million recycling improvement fund. That builds on over £1 billion of funding provided through the former Strategic Waste Fund between 2008 and 2022 to assist local authorities with the implementation of a zero waste plan. The bill is necessarily narrow in the topics that it covers. It sits in the space where the Scottish Government needs new powers to take action between powers that are reserved and matters that are devolved, but for which we have already taken powers. At the heart of many of the bill's provisions is the recognition that co-design, based on the principles of the Verity House agreement and the new deal for business, will be central to delivering the transformation needed. Regulations made under the enabling powers in the bill will be subject to further consultation, parliamentary scrutiny and impact assessments, including business and regulatory impact assessments. I note that the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee has reported to you that it is content with the powers in principle and with the proposed procedures, although I also note that it has suggested some improvements with respect to a couple of powers. Legislation is, of course, only part of the solution. A wide range of other measures is in train. Alongside the Circular Economy Scotland bill, we are developing our circular economy and waste route map, which will provide strategic direction for how we will deliver our systemwide comprehensive vision for sustainable resource use and Scotland's circular economy to 2030. An updated draft route map will be published shortly for further consultation and will be finalised in 2024. Extended producer responsibility for packaging, which we are introducing alongside other United Kingdom Governments, will require producers to pay local authorities the full net cost of operating an efficient and effective household packaging collection service. That will provide substantial funding to local authorities, which is estimated to be £1.2 billion per annum across the UK. Let me finish by underlining that building a more circular economy is an environmental imperative, but it is also an economic opportunity for Scotland. It will open up new market opportunities, improve productivity, increase self-sufficiency and provide local employment opportunities. I look forward to answering your questions. Thank you very much, Minister, and I should have said when I was welcoming people that I welcome murder, Fraser and Sarah Boyack to this committee meeting that you will get a chance for some questions at the end. Depending on time, it depends on how many questions I think. The first question is going to come from the deputy convener, Ben. Thank you, convener. Good morning, minister, and to all your officials, and thanks for being with us. I would like to start by saying that I warmly welcome this bill and the ambition to transition to a more circular economy and to improve recycling. Effectively, the bill is part of that transformation to a circular economy, but it is also improving our waste management as a country as a whole. The bill that is drafted at stage 1 includes a number of measures with regard to recycling, in particular, responsibilities on individuals and households. The stakeholders that we have spoken to, while they have, as I have articulated, welcomed the bill in principle, we have heard many comments that the focus of the bill is on the lower end of the waste hierarchy, particularly, as I said, recycling and household waste. There has been some powerful discourse about the emission of the construction sector from the bill, given that it accounts for approximately 50 per cent of Scotland's waste. How do you respond to those concerns? Does the bill provide us with an ambitious enough framework for moving us up the waste hierarchy, empowering greater reuse and repair, and creating facilities for that, and I think that we need to think about the construction sector if we are also asking individuals to step up and do more? I would be grateful for any reflections on that. I am pleased with the question, because it has been on my mind as well. There are six provisions within the bill that look directly at moving up that hierarchy and the reuse. Of course, it is not just the bill. The bill is one part of the larger strategic framework, which will be described in that route map, which I know you are all very keen to see, which will be published and draft very shortly, but is part of the extended producer responsibility schemes and so on. The six provisions that are directly related to reuse, starting at the beginning with both the strategy and the targets. I note, and I have the bill in front of me here, that the actual text of the bill specifically says that processes for production and distribution of things are designed so as to reduce consumption of materials. In fact, reduce consumption of materials is the fundamental driver for that strategy and indeed for national targets. That setting of that strategy and looking at that high-level consumption of materials means that implementing that reuse hierarchy and setting that in the strategy or that waste hierarchy with the reuse near the top, less consumption of reuse and then recycling and so forth, would be embedded in that strategy. That can be seen as the overlying principle here. The next provision that relates to reuse is that of the restrictions on disposal of unsold consumer goods. We have seen other countries take that into place. For example, in France companies ban on companies destroying clothes, cosmetics, hygiene products, electrical items, and this is for both either sold or unsold items. These items aren't even getting used at the moment. In many cases they are going directly to landfill or incineration, so that provision of the bill would ensure that those items would be getting used in the first place rather than wasted right away. The next provision that relates to reuse is that of the single-use charges on single-use items. We have all seen how very, very effective the charge on single-use plastic bags or bags in shops has been in driving reuse of bags. I think that we all probably have cupboards full of reusable bags now that we take to the shops where people keep them in their boots of their cars. That has absolutely driven reuse, and that is the purpose of those single-use charges. The first implementation for that single-use charge that we intend to bring is on reusable coffee cups, and that is specifically to drive reuse in the sense of encouraging people to use reusable cups rather than disposable ones. The next provision of the bill where we can look at driving things up the waste hierarchy is in the code of practice. As I have said under the Verity House agreement, that will be developed with councils, but I know councils, and I know from your evidence session that you had with councils, are very interested in looking at how they can improve reuse. Of course, there are some excellent examples of that within our councils already. The next provision that relates to this is the one on reporting waste and surplus. Specifically, that is intended to initially be looking at food, but I think that construction is a very high priority for me anyway in that reporting of waste and surplus. What that provision of the bill does is call for public reporting of waste and surplus. That does two things. One is that it allows the businesses that have those materials to become aware of just what they are wasting. It is not good for their bottom line either. What surplices that they may have, they may be of use to other people. The other side of that is that by making records of those materials publicly available, it means that other organisations and businesses can look at those materials, see that they are identified and then reuse them. As the member rightly highlights, construction industry is a really key one there. When people are dismantling buildings, doing repairs, there is a lot of material, potentially reusable material, that comes off of that, but it needs to be reported on so that people know that it is there and can come and use it. Sorry to interrupt you, minister. I have the feeling that you are at the end of your articulation of all those important points, but if there is not an obligation on the construction industry in the primary legislation in the same way that there are on individuals, I am concerned about an imbalance there. As this bill progresses, I would be grateful for a commitment from you and your officials that you will consider the evidence that we have heard on the construction industry and what potential there might be as the bill progresses for creating more significant obligations on that industry, given that it is such a high producer of the waste in Scotland. I am absolutely happy to consider that. Certainly, I have spoken to the construction industry myself. I spoke to the Institute of Architects last year and they were very, very keen, particularly on things like material passports, passports for buildings and matters around reporting so that they can be aware of what materials are available for reuse and to get those systems in place. I think that that is something that we can all agree on that we want to do more work on. Sorry, there is one more provision in the bill, because I want to be very clear that there has been some concerned voice that this bill looks at only recycling in a way, so I want to be really clear that there are many provisions of the bill that look higher up. The final one that I wanted to flag up to you was in Zero Waste Scotland. It has been very supportive to us. It is now going to be a public body. One of the key things that I have asked Zero Waste Scotland to undertake is the sharing of good practice, particularly between our councils. For example, Murray Waste Busters, which many of you may be familiar with, is just an exemplar of how reuse can be attached to a local authority for the benefit of the community and the local authority as well. Just if I may, convener, in the considerations around repair and reuse, I know that the minister is also familiar with the remakery in my constituency, which the committee visited recently. If we are going to grow facilities and opportunities like that, is there an understanding in government within both the route map and or the strategy that there is going to need to be either co-ordination with government and investment in the third sector or provision from government in order to expand those facilities if the bill and the following actions, if the bill is passed, are going to have the meaningful effect that the aims of the bill aspire to? Of course. I am very familiar with the work of the remakery having been, for a brief time, a board member, but I resigned that post when I took up this ministerial post. Absolutely. Organisations like that do so much good work, not only in getting goods into the hands of people who could really use them during this cost of living crisis, but in ensuring that nothing is wasted, that the materials are put to good use. Part of the route map is, of course, looking forward at how we can support such businesses. I am really keen for you all to see that draft route map, which will be with you as soon as we can get it to you. Thank you, Deputy convener. Minister, just a very broad-ranging question, in the build-up to this bill being published, did you have meetings with large organisations in Scotland discussing the contents of the bill? My question is a simple one. Did you have a meeting with Amazon to discuss it? I have not had a meeting with Amazon, no. On 12 October 2022, in the declaration of interest of the lobbying register, they said that they did meet with you. The reason why I asked the question is that the committee was very keen to meet with Amazon to discuss this. Amazon, whilst happy to give written evidence, felt that they did not want to come to the committee, which was difficult for us from a point of view of understanding the situation. I am surprised that you said that you did not have a meeting. No, convener, I correct myself. I am trying to remember what I did, if the record says that I did, then I would have to go back and see those minutes that was last year. Of course, if the convener will know, I take many, many meetings, so yes, if that is on the record, we can find out what the minutes of that meeting were. My point is that it would be helpful if Amazon had come to see us as well, and not just you. Now that I have that on the record, I am moving on. Just to say that there was a very interesting report on the financial memorandum for the circular economy bill published by the Finance and Public Administration Committee just last week. Do you want to summarise the key findings of that bill for this committee? Of that report? Yes. Yes, certainly. From my point of view, there are two substantive points in that report. We can go into them in further detail if the convener likes. The first one was some dissatisfaction around some of the assumptions that were made for specific numbers in that report, and I am content to take away that feedback and review those numbers, and then, as previously discussed, publish updates if I feel that that is necessary. The second part, I think, was frustration which I know that the convener shares here around the nature of a framework bill and what that necessarily means for how the secondary legislation that follows on from a framework bill can be scrutinised, in particular by that committee, the Finances and Public Administration Committee. Their comment was that although they see the primary legislation, secondary legislation does not come through that committee, and although that secondary legislation would be, of course, coming through committees like this one and would be accompanied by impact assessments and those sorts of bits of information, they do not actually go back to that FPAC committee. That is a matter of parliamentary process, and it maybe is something that we should address so that that committee can provide that oversight. I suppose that is for the parliamentary process to decide. I think that they went slightly further than that if I have read this correctly. Under the financial memorandum, they said that you had pretty much underestimated the savings and the cost for doing things in broad figures from under half a million pounds to nearly a million pounds. Costs of employing people varied considerably. There was an assumption of 100 per cent payment on fixed penalty notices. Good luck with that. I am not sure anyone else achieves that. There was very little or insufficient money put aside for the education, which we have heard is really important. I could go on and on, but I guess the most difficult thing for me to go past is 55, where it says that affordability does not appear to be a key factor in the Scottish Government's decision making, and that is in relation to this bill. Do you think that they are wrong? I am very much welcome the finance committee's report. I think that it had some useful information in it. The information contained in the report, the financial memorandum, is the best information that we have. We can go through in detail how each of the estimates in there were produced. They were produced in consultation with local authorities and businesses where we have that information by looking at the costs of parallel or equivalent, roughly equivalent projects that we have undertaken in the Scottish Government, for example, using data from Zero Waste Scotland. Assumptions around things such as the fixed penalty notice, that assumption of that 100 per cent repayment rate in that financial memorandum relates only to provisions that introduce a new civil penalty regime around littering from vehicles, which included a range of costs associated with enforcement. Robust data on payment rates is not held centrally, and I recognise that we could probably benefit from a comparative figure on that, but it is fairly marginal in the overall costings of the financial memorandum. When anticipating the costs, the convener is quite right to say that there is a range. That is because there is not only a substantial range in variability of our readiness of our current councils existing. Recycling rates in our councils vary from about 20 per cent all the way up to 55 per cent around that mark. We are aiming for 60 per cent as a country, so some of our councils are very nearly there and some of our councils are a very long way away. The convener can imagine that the cost of bringing councils over that line will vary enormously. Of course, that depends entirely on what we agree to be the code of practice and the target. The comparative number that we have set out there is, I think, at 88.4 million pounds, which is the estimate of what Zero Way Scotland estimates to bring all councils up to the current code of practice, which is a voluntary code of practice that most councils do not adhere to. Those are the best numbers that we have available to us. I would never question another committee's report. I think that it is an excellent report, but the committee report indicates that you really need to go back to the drawing board on many aspects of the financial memorandum, so will we expect to see that in great detail when the bill, if it gets to the next stage, comes back to this committee? As I have said, I am happy to reflect on the numbers that have been flagged up by that committee and I will make a determination as to whether I feel an update is required. I have given you my steer on that, but we will come to the next questions, which come from Mark Ruskell and Mark Ruskell. Thank you so much, convener. Good morning to the minister and the officials. It is a framework bill. There will be regulations coming on the back of that. Already, Minister, you have mentioned potentially regulations on disposable coffee cups. I want to ask you about the parliamentary process for that. In the past, going back to the last session of Parliament, we had a superaffirmative procedure for the original deposit return for regulations that were going through Parliament. Clearly, where there is an enhanced procedure like that, it allows stakeholders an additional opportunity to come and give evidence to committees. I want to ask you about what the decision-making was around that regulatory procedure within the bill. If superaffirmative was considered as an option? The member is absolutely right that the circular economy 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. You are specifically mentioning the charging for single-use items. We can note that there is intended to be a superaffirmative procedure attached to that when it is a new charge. For example, when we bring the charge for single-use coffee cups, that would be under a superaffirmative procedure. However, if, subsequently, we were then to modify that charge or modify how it worked or modify any aspect of those regulations, that would come under an affirmative procedure. I will pass to Elsa, who might have some more detail for you around superaffirmative procedures. Yes, I am happy to elaborate. The power that we are inserting via the bill into the Climate Change Scotland Act 2009 is quite similar to the carrier bags charge, which was also subject to superaffirmative. As the minister said, any new item that was subject to a charge would then be subject to the superaffirmative procedure. The actual superaffirmative procedure is set out in the Climate Change Act 2009. That requires ministers to lay a draft of the regulations before the Parliament, allow a minimum of 90 days for representations to be made on the regulations and then, after that period, to take into account any parliamentary report, any representations that have been made and then, when they come to lay the final draft SSI for its actual affirmative procedure, the ministers also have to lay a statement setting out if there has been any changes to the draft that was laid for this pre-laying procedure compared to the draft SSI that is actually laid for approval. That allows quite a bit of scrutiny by a committee of the Parliament or by individuals who want to contribute and make representations as well. I think that my recollection of the original DRS superaffirmative instrument was that it took the committee quite a long time to get in all the stakeholders, consider the evidence producer report. Is that fast enough for some of the regulatory measures here, or is there another way of doing this? Can you use the front load, stakeholder engagement in a different way? A superaffirmative procedure is not laid out in stone exactly what must be undertaken, so that could be that we can use our judgment as to what would be appropriate for different provisions if there is a concern, for example, about speed, Elsa. We certainly would have to go through this pre-laying procedure, but that does not stop engagement in advance either. It is a balance between giving the Parliament sufficient or enhanced scrutiny of these kinds of new charges, because every time we chose to impose a new or different charge, the superaffirmative procedure has to apply this. It is called a pre-laying requirement in the act, but that could still mean that there was a lot of pre-engagement with stakeholders before that. It depends how strong the consensus is, I suppose, with the industry behind certain measures. However, there has to be a minimum pre-laying of 90 days within which it should be committed. Janet, you are waiting to come in very patiently. I know that that is absolutely fine, so all really important points, and again, just to respond to Mr Ruskell's question there about opportunities to front load, engagement of the cups or the environmental charging, potentially for single use cups, is a really good example of that, where we are already engaging very actively with the wide range of stakeholders through our single use cups charge advisory group, and that has already been meeting on a number of occasions that was established quite some time ago. We have stakeholders from a cross-section of society, retailers, hospitality, equalities groups, et cetera, and that has already given us opportunity to be informing considerations of how regulations could be crafted, as well as the implementation consideration. That engagement is continuing, and it will also be helping to inform impact assessments as well. I think that it is a sort of twin-track process, in a sense, in terms of the advance engagement to inform policy development, as well as the complementary opportunities for scrutiny once regulations are drafted. Sorry, just so I can understand, because I wasn't quite sure I got the answer there all of the answer. I think that you said that you were considering superaffirmative for single use. It could be used. Could it also be used to set the national targets, as well? The national targets are looking at using the affirmative procedure, not a pre-laying procedure, as Elsa points out. Not the superaffirmative. The superaffirmative is looking at for the single use items. Thank you very much for clarifying that. The next question comes from Monica Lennon. Thank you, convener, and good morning, minister and your officials. We've heard from some stakeholders who are calling for the framework for the circular economy strategy to more closely mirror climate legislation for the climate change plan with sector-level plans, embedding just transition principles, mainstreaming across government departments, and linking legal targets explicitly to the strategy. I wonder if you can tell us, is that something that you, well, what your views on that, but did you give consideration to more closely mirroring climate legislation when designing this bill? This is a really interesting point, which, if the member will indulge me, I'll go into in some detail. Under the first provision of this bill, which is the circular economy strategy under 0.5, the member will note that the circular economy strategy must be prepared with a view to achieving consistency as far as practicable with the climate change plan and the environmental policy strategy. That is the link that brings in those just transition elements. That strategy, when we develop the circular economy strategy, must have all those elements in. That is right there on the face of the bill that we must tie those things in. With respect to the shape of it with the climate bill, there was a target on the face of the bill. The context there is quite different than this in two ways. One is that in the context of the climate bill, what we were looking at was Scotland's contribution to a UK bill that already existed. There was already a target in that space and we were looking at our piece of it. The second part of that is that, with climate, there is one target. It is carbon emissions. That is the one thing that we are looking at. In the circular economy space, there are many different metrics that could be looked at. There are consumption targets, there are sectoral targets. There are a lot of different things that one could look at. When choosing to set targets, there are risks around setting targets that cover reserved matters. If the Scottish Government set targets that did not cover solely devolved matters, we would be risking setting targets that we had no control over achieving. We are in a different space with the circular economy targets in that we are still at the cutting edge of establishing what metrics and targets and how to measure and make progress on those. That work in this case needs to be done in parallel with the setting of the strategy and the targets, just because the science is not moved along and it is not as mature as it was in the climate space. In the context that there is no UK legislation, no UK-wide legislation and targets that we are slotting into as we were at the climate bill. I do not know if any of the officials would like to come in on that point. There is a particular reference in the bill that refers to Scottish ministers having regard to the circular economy strategy and making policies. That is very important for us in terms of making sure that circular economies are embedded across the range of policies in the Scottish Government, which is obviously very important in terms of making wider circular economy policy. That has to do with, was that you? You also mentioned sectors and we thought about that quite carefully and designed the bill as far as it goes. We have a reference in there in terms of having particular regard to sectors and the systems, most likely to developing a circular economy. The reason we phrased it in that way when we talked about construction earlier, for example, so people would understand construction as a sector, but there is also a wider point there about systems as a whole, so you might think about the built environment as a whole, and that is where we look across the whole supply chain, so it is getting some of the earlier discussion as well about focusing higher up the waste hierarchy and by focusing on things like the built environment rather than just individual sectors that would give an opportunity to do that. That is helpful. I said from that explanation that I understand why you are being quite cautious as well, but given what you have heard and the evidence that we have taken, are there any amendments that you are considering to address any of those points that have been made? No amendments have been proposed to me, but I am all ears if there are some specific ones that the member has in mind or others have in mind. It is certainly something that I have had many discussions with the EE NGOs on is the matter of targets, but they have not presented me, for example, with what they think the targets should be, only that they think we should have some and we agree that that is why the provision to create targets is in the bill. The Scottish Environment Strategy vision included a commitment in 2020 to gather evidence on the nature of Scotland's international environmental impact. We had an evidence session that covered some of that last week. We have heard from stakeholders who have highlighted the global impact of Scottish consumption on the environment and human rights. There have been suggestions that the bill could be used to increase our understanding of our impacts beyond consumption emissions. What is your response to that, minister? I absolutely agree that the bill can be used in this way. The member will note again under the first provision of the bill, the circular economy strategy, that each of the provisions in there specifically refers to consumption of materials. That does not limit consumption of materials to their impact on Scotland. One could absolutely use that to look at global footprint. I had a meeting earlier this week about a report that is being published on Scotland's global footprint and how we are going to look at that. That is work that is happening in parallel to this bill as well. I do not know if any officials would like to come in on that point. Perhaps, just to complement that in terms of the high level one specific example, which I think I understand came up at one of your previous evidence sessions, was in relation to the impact of exported waste, including low-grade plastic waste, for example. At the end of the waste system, it is clearly important, as we have noted, that we are about maximising economic opportunities and maximising opportunities to reprocess within Scotland. We know that 15 per cent is currently processed elsewhere, so we know that that is a lost economic opportunity. It is also important to assure ourselves that waste that is collected for recycling and reprocessing has, for whatever reasons, in terms of the markets to be exported, that that is dealt with in a responsible way. You have noted that waste exports generally are reserved matter, but we are working with UK Government to support its efforts to deliver its existing commitment to ban the export of waste to non-OE seeded countries, that is the plastic waste. However, we are also looking at what is within our own devolved competence. One of the examples of that, which I understand the representative from Wrapping Wales, commented on, was about the approach in Wales that has a duty on local authorities to report the end destination of waste that is collected. It has also taken some very positive steps to make information available and accessible to the public through online portals. For example, in the first consultation on our waste and circular economy route map, we did note our interest in that. We know that understanding and confidence in the recycling system is so important to encourage participation from householders. We have to trust the system. Therefore, what we had signalled was our interest in exploring the potential to adopt similar measures and potentially create some additional requirements to enable our understanding of where waste that is collected from recycling goes. The reason that we have not included such a provision, for example, within the bill, is that, in effect, we do not think that we would need to take primary powers to do that. Therefore, if that is a measure that is considered in the future and that it gets strong support in our initial route map consultation, that is something that we could potentially already do with existing powers. However, as the minister noted, the further route map draft will be published shortly, so that might come in further on that matter. I hope that that gives you a specific example of our commitments, but as well as where we do not necessarily need to take provisions through the bill to enable that action in the future. Thank you for that. That is helpful. Our session last week in Codden perspective from Wales was interesting and we heard from SKEAF. I want to raise with you a couple of suggestions that SKEAF has made in terms of amendments to the bill, but it might not be something that you want to put into the face of the bill. I would be keen to get your views on three different recommendations that they make. One is to amend the consultation on strategy to include a mandatory requirement to include international stakeholders. Secondly, to amend the circular economy strategy to gather evidence of the environmental and human rights implications of our consumption. That data point that Janet was perhaps touching on. Thirdly, to amend the strategy to add an objective for ensuring the highest possible standards in the Scottish context for human rights due diligence and environmental protection and supply chains and public procurement. I might come back on procurement, but are those kind of amendments helpful, minister? Are you open-minded to consider not just SKEAF's suggestions but other suggestions of these natures? I am open-minded on how we can improve any aspect of the bill, but that is certainly in terms of making sure that the strategy does have the effect that we want it to have. Of course, our commitment to human rights globally is strong, as you know, so I look forward to discussing those potential amendments with you further. That is great. Lastly, convener, because we have talked about the environmental imperative driving the bill, but also the economic opportunities on public procurement, because that comes up a lot, not just in this bill but in many other bills. Some people have been asking what are the expectations on the public sector, including local government, but also what are the opportunities in terms of public procurement? Is that something that you can maybe elaborate on? Yes, I can give you my thoughts and then I will invite officials to come in. There are two points on that that I have been looking at. With respect to the bill, I think that the opportunity there is around targets, both at the national level and the local authority level, if local authorities are wanting to do that as part of the co-design process, that is something that could be looked at in terms of exactly what those targets would look like in terms of procuring. We would have to work out the exact details to make sure that that was feasible. The other element that I have discussed with Zero Waste Scotland, which is entirely separate from the bill but is part of this larger picture, is that we are moving into a space where we need to understand and be able to measure circularity and measure the circularity of a company. For example, in the fair workspace, we know that companies are accredited as fair work companies, a living wage company. Under a procurement procedure, you would be able to go and write this company meets the requirement. We do not actually have a circularity accreditation that does not exist yet. As far as I am aware, it does not exist globally. It is something that all countries are working on. Is that something that you would like? It would be really interesting to look at. It is something that I have discussed with Zero Waste Scotland. Around the world, there are various metrics being developed, so it is something that we could look at going forward. As I said, I have asked Zero Waste Scotland to take that on board, but it would be brilliant. My vision in the long term would be to have some sort of circularity metric so that you could, in the same way, say that we must have fair work employer. You must be a certain amount of circular, but I do not know what that looks like just yet. Bob, I think that you wanted to come in with a supplementary on that. Just very briefly, thank you. Minister, it was in relation to Monica Lennon's questions around Skiath's cogs for amending the bill. I pushed them quite hard last week, but I hope that that has been in practice. How can we do due diligence for public sector and corporate supply chains in relation to the full supply chain nature procurement, which could be global on the human rights implications? What would that mean in practice? There seems to be an admission from Skiath that it would be hugely difficult, but it is not a reason not to put it as an objective and not to put it in a strategy, but we would have to be quite realistic about what we could do in relation to that. I do not know if that makes the minister a bit more minded to move in that direction with a great deal of realism about what we can actually achieve, but just because it is difficult is not a reason not to try to do so. Absolutely. The member is exactly right. This is very difficult space to work in in terms of even measuring what happens in Scotland. Never mind measuring what happens in terms of circularity in different points around the world. I think that the member, Monica Lennon, is right that we should consider that. Exporting both our carbon footprint and our waste is not the goal here. The goal is to reduce consumption of materials overall, so we reduce our impact here and globally, but the member is absolutely right. Getting the detail around that is very challenging, in the same way that it is for developing specific targets, because this is all very new and cutting edge, if you like. The member may have been told that he is exactly right. He may have to make his piece with another member whose question I think he has just inadvertently stolen. On that note, I think that the deputy convener has got some other questions that he would like to ask. Thanks, convener. Just building on the end of my first question, the impact of the bill in various ways that we have discussed, but overall I think that we would share a collective position and it just makes sense to repair and reuse things if we can. There is huge opportunity in that for skills, for jobs and for economic development. How will the strategy when produced provide the conditions for a thriving reuse and repair sector in Scotland? What consideration has been given to how the strategy can encourage reuse and repair hubs that I mentioned earlier, whether that is public sector led or public sector facilitated in collaboration with the third sector, social enterprises. Huge opportunities for the social enterprise sector here. How will we be going to encourage and grow that and expand their networks? If we can set out in more detail what the practicalities of delivering reuse and repair at a larger scale will look like. Thank you very much to the member for that question. As I highlighted earlier, the circular economy strategy on the face of the bill talks about the reduction in consumption of materials. Of course the most effective reduction in consumption is to move them up a race hierarchy towards minimising the use in the first place and re-use over discarding and recycling. That is built right into the strategy. The detail of what those strategies would therefore look like is that we have had a little bit of discussion about what other details might come into the bill, but those strategies would be produced every five years. As Gareth has highlighted, they are looking at particular regard to sectors and systems such as putting in place repair cafes and those systems that we would need to implement those. The strategy does set out the space for that to be created. Thank you for that. I appreciate that. I am just conscious that it will require a significant increase in facilities and accessible facilities that people can walk to, that people can get their bus to, that people do not need a car to drive to. What are our timelines? What is the vision? What is it going to be like in urban areas? What is it going to be like in rural areas? I appreciate that this will come in the strategy, but it would be good at this juncture to get a sense of where we are moving. Minister, I think that your official is also keen to come in there at your discretion. That is fine. I think that the provision of the bill that is maybe most relevant here is not so much the strategy that absolutely could encompass these things, but in terms of the practical implementation, so much of the practical implementation of this is done by our local authorities. I think that the provision of the bill where this is most likely to take effect and take shape is under that development of the code of practical implementation. Will that mean unring ffenced funding for local authorities and the third sector to give them the freedom and capacity to deliver this in the spirit of Verity House? The delivery is everything here. In the spirit of Verity House, that would need to be developed. We need to develop the processes and systems and the intentions at the same time as the funding regimes. There are significant opportunities here for setting up businesses, especially associated with the local authorities. I will flag again Murray Wastebusters, which is an excellent example of a business that is associated with the local authority that takes on that sort of triage as the waste that comes in and captures items that could be reused. All local authorities do not have a facility like that, but where you have something like that in place, you not only are leasing a bit of land to this business, they are removing from your waste stream items that the local authority would otherwise have to pay for. It is not always about supporting local authorities with costs. Sometimes it is about supporting local authorities to find those opportunities for savings or even for increased revenues such as for improved recycling. Those organisations have to be funded somehow. They will have a return on their model in terms of sales. For example, there is a sale revenue stream from repairing and reselling laptop computers, but I think that the delivery of local authorities in the third sector will be absolutely crucial if the central government is not going to do it in itself. We need to be very clear on how that will develop and what it will look like so that we get that buy-in from people and they know where to go and they want to go. I think that people want to do the right thing. If they know about a facility, they will go and use it, but we need to create the facilities and raise awareness of where they are and what they do. Absolutely. That is the work that we need to do with local authorities, to set out what we want local authorities to deliver, what they are prepared to deliver and then, of course, how that investment will take place. Who wanted to come in, Janet? Yes, just to make two or three brief points in relation to that, really just to provide maybe some illustrations of some of those key points that you make there that, absolutely, that is about making the right choices the easier choices for householders. Secondly, the key role that local authorities in the third sector have, along with the Government, to make that happen. Also, the recognition, I think, that the reality is that that will continue to take further work, both to co-design what good looks like but also to look at the infrastructure that is in place. Some illustrations of that in terms of what we have been doing already through the Recycling Improvement Fund, which potentially is a bit of a misnomer because it is also about promoting re-use opportunities. Certainly, two or three examples of how RIF has been already supporting enhancements in local authority infrastructure to support accessible good quality, good experiences for re-use include a recent award of nearly £900,000 to our council to support enhancements of six household waste recycling centres, including on the islands, including supporting re-use, sterling council again enhancements to three recycling centres, again to increase opportunities for re-use, as well as recycling, and Aberdeen City, as well as one of the early awards, which was around nearly £40,000, to expand their re-use service. I think that gives some examples of recognition that we need to improve the infrastructure, but the second example is... I understand on that fund that that's something everyone has to bid for, isn't it? They're in competition and not all local authorities have bid for it, have they? All local authorities have the opportunity to bid for it and they've awarded to date 60 million to 21 local authorities. So, do you know out of the 32, how many have applied for it? I would need to check that. I know we've had 21 awards. There are a number who haven't applied for several reasons, which the board have been looking at and understanding the reasons for that. We're certainly supporting through Zero Waste Scotland local authorities to make sure that it's not a capacity barrier. Some have made intentional reasons not to apply. Okay. It'd be interesting to know that it's not the sharpest local authority for applied 21 times. Certainly the board has been very live to that to make sure that there's no barriers and there is parity of access, which is an absolute north star for the board. The second point that I was going to make aside from examples of the recycling fund is the code of practice, which the minister was talking about earlier. Certainly we would envisage that that would give opportunities to embed reuse much more strongly. We know that that is a point that, for example, Circular Community Scotland are really keen for us to do and we've had some discussions about that. Certainly in our policy memo we did outline that we would envisage that co-design, the refreshed code to give that opportunity to look to embed reuse much more clearly as well. In essence, it is a combination. The bill will have a certain role to play, potentially through the code and the high-level strategy, but it's also about some non-legislative actions, including further support to local authorities in the third sector as well, and looking at, again, the procurement opportunities that local authorities, for example, have. There are some very positive examples of that through the Circular Community Scotland scheme as well, which I understand has got an award at the social enterprise awards over the last week or so. More work to do on that. It's making great strides, but we have recognised that there are certainly more opportunities, with the procurement opportunities, for re-used material. I've got a couple of questions, if I may. State holders were worried about the very broad definition of consumer goods. Should they be nervous? It sort of encompasses everything, doesn't it? No, I don't think that they need to be nervous. Since he gave evidence to this committee, I've had a meeting with Ewan MacDonald Russell of the Scottish Retail Consortium to clarify that point exactly. I think that he was concerned that it might include food and other perishable goods, and I wanted to reassure him that that is not the case. It is intended to be used in relation to durable goods, not perishable goods, and I have agreed to write to Mr MacDonald Russell to clarify that point. The intention is to look at goods that are currently being disposed of, that have a significant impact. The model that we're looking at here is France, where they have put in rules around electronics, textiles, hygiene products, cosmetics and so on. That would be the model that we'd be looking at, but of course we'd be doing a full consultation on the matter before we implemented it. One of the issues surely is that, if I was running a big company in Scotland and I was unable to sell something, Bill would say that I couldn't dispose of it, but I could send it to England or to somewhere else to sell it. There was nothing that you could do about that. Is it going to just disadvantage the small, medium-sized businesses who don't have that ability to move it all the way around the world? This Bill is absolutely not intended to target small and medium-sized businesses. It might not be intending to target it, but it appears that it might be. That's where the detail would come into the regulations. The intention is to look at larger businesses, because it's all about the significance of the impact and the proportional implementation of that. Where this has been implemented, it has been large companies where there are significant amounts of goods. It is not at all intended to target smaller, medium-sized enterprises, but the member is right that there are concerns about what that would look like, both in terms of where does export fit into this. Equally, the Bill would need to have provisions around deliberately contaminating, for example, clothing, textile waste, so that it couldn't be reused, so that people could get around the provisions of the Bill. That would all need to be captured in that secondary legislation. Hold on. Minister, just so I understand this, that's fine in saying that, but if I'm a huge company with warehouses all over the world and I decide that I can't sell something in Scotland and therefore I'm not allowed to dispose of it in Scotland, I might be able to sell it somewhere else, so I just put it on a big truck, which I have hundreds of, and send it somewhere else in the world and sell it there. Surely that's a simple way of doing it. What can you do about it? I don't see that there's anything you can. I guess that would depend on exactly how the regulations were drafted, but the intention is to prevent things from going to incineration or landfill that could be used. Whether that export use would be something that regulations would permit would have to be developed in consultation. If I was a small business and I didn't have a big warehouse in every part of the world and I'd just had a small warehouse in Scotland, I would be really hard hit by this, or are you going to say you're going to give those small businesses a buy and they don't have state partner because then it negates the whole point of it? No, it doesn't negate the whole point of it. The regulations need to be proportionate and it is looking at large businesses who would have the ability to have a significant impact on the carbon footprint through their activities there. It is absolutely not intended to be used to target small and medium enterprises or to disadvantage small businesses in any way. This is specifically looking at the impact of large businesses. Who can just move things around where they want to, Bob? Sorry, am I not phrasing this correctly? You've got a question to come in on that. Come in and I'll come back. No, I just thought it was a really interesting line of questioning. When the regulations will be drafted, are you giving consideration to ministers that are drafted in such a way that the small to medium-sized businesses might have dispensation in relation to some of those requirements? I'm just interested to know how that might pan out, given the exchange that you've had with the convener. Absolutely. The recent example would be the deposit return scheme, where there were, within the regulations, exemptions for retail businesses of certain sizes could apply for exemptions, where producers who were producing fewer than 5,000 items of a particular product line were exempted. It is absolutely possible to draft regulations so that they target the businesses that have the most environmental impact. That is the intention. Convener, that's really helpful. That's already in Government's thinking, because it sounds if the convener and the ministers might actually be in agreement for once. I'm completely confused how that's going to help me out in the sense that I don't understand how you're going to regulate large companies moving things round their supply chains as it suits them, unless they are totally based in Scotland and they can't sell anything else anywhere else. It's brave mentioning the deposit return scheme, because that was relating to just Scottish producers, not so much people across the world. That's related to importing goods, as well. The deposit return scheme is related to importing goods, so we had to have provisions in the bill for that. The deposit return scheme is a good example in the case that the regulations stipulated what size of businesses would be affected, because there were a variety of exemptions at both the retail and the producer end for smaller businesses. The intention of the regulations, which we're speaking about here, with the disposal of unsold goods, is about looking at businesses that have the most significant environmental impact. That can be informed by consultation with the businesses that would be affected. It is absolutely not intended to impact small and medium businesses whose carbon footprint and footprint of goods is, of course, necessarily small and therefore wouldn't be proportionate. I still don't understand how you can force somebody to do that. Douglas, do you want to come in and then I'll come to you? I just want to come in on that point. Obviously, if we're looking at just larger businesses, they're not an unintended consequence that some of these larger businesses will actually just move their distribution centres south of the border, where there is not the same level of legislation in place to prevent them from disposing of unsold goods. Many larger businesses are already working in this space. Amazon, for example, has a charity where they send their unsold and returned goods. Lots of businesses are already working on this because they know themselves that they need to get to net zero. It isn't good for their bottom line to waste materials either. There are examples, as I said earlier, that France has already introduced such a ban, so there are models for this going forward. This isn't a new thing. I absolutely agree, but it's not a concern that big distributors, like Amazon, for example, that you mentioned earlier, will move their distribution south of the border to get round some of the legislation that you're going to bring in place. That isn't a concern that I have in terms of moving infrastructure, building different infrastructure, just to make it because we made them send their goods to charity instead of the integrator seems to have been continuing. Companies like Amazon have already got distribution south of the border. What is to stop them just closing them once in Scotland and moving everything to south of the border where it can be distributed from there? This isn't that burdensome of a provision in terms of— We don't know yet, because we haven't seen all of the detail. We will have to look at this in consultation. There is a necessity to make sure that goods are not being produced and then sent straight to incineration and landfill. I'm sure that the member can appreciate that during a cost-of-living crisis it is absolutely in our interest to make sure that these perfectly usable goods, high-to-project clothing, get into the hands of the people who need them. A little bit of decorum. I've explained before that I'm slightly deaf. If everyone talks over each other, then the only person who can't hear is probably me, but probably not me. It's probably all of us. Can you do it quietly and one at a time? Apologies, convener. I will just ask the question again. I'm not concerned that companies like Amazon, for example, will just move their distribution south of the border. I absolutely get that we don't want unsold goods put to landfill. All an agreement with that is just the unintended consequences of what may be brought in here. No, I'm not concerned about that. You'll see from the policy memorandum section 50 that there is already an existing duty of caring legislation, which requires that waste producers take all reasonable measures to apply the waste hierarchy when disposing of goods and to ensure that their waste is managed in that manner. Businesses already have a duty to this, but we need to make sure that we are, as in all these things, making progress and moving forward. Banning the disposal of unsold consumer goods is the next step in that direction, but it's something that many companies are already doing. Crack, I'm going to come to Mark and then I'm going to come to Ben. Yeah, I'm struggling to see how it will cost companies more money. Surely this is about saving money. Are there good examples of where those bigger businesses are saving money by delivering more efficient supply chains and managing unsold goods in a more effective way rather than shipping them around the world, which I hadn't really heard of. Yeah, I'm not aware of the shipping around the world, although the point is to prevent the disposal of them, not the re-export of them, I suppose, is what the intention is. I don't know, do any of the officials want to come in on that? Ben, come in, and then maybe yeah, you will, but I want to bring Ben in and get an answer to your question and Ben's at the same time, because I think that they're interlinked. Sorry, Mr Ruskell. Just building on Mr Ruskell's constructive points, if section 8 of the bill was to be passed, it gives the Scottish Government power to make regulations, but if we see the continual change from the approach of business and the behavioural change that we want to all realise in terms of a greater circular economy, then those regulations may never need to be utilised, because we're already, as you said, from one of the biggest distributors in the country, seeing the changes that Amazon are undertaking, the goods that they are re-using are being utilised in parts of my constituency, for example. I think that we're not discounting the points that colleagues have made, but this is about getting to a place where we see no business putting goods to waste, and ideally we wouldn't need to use the law to do that, because it should be happening anyway. Yes, and in fact, on your point there, there's a really good example of this. In the consultation, one of the things we considered was whether to apply this to food, and we decided not to. The reason being is that food businesses are already doing quite a lot in this space, and therefore felt that legislation wasn't necessary. So you're absolutely right that it looks like it's necessary in this space, because it's estimated that in Scotland each year that the amount of these items that we're talking about, covering under this provision, are destroyed via landfill and incineration each year, valued to about £22 million. That's £22 million of perfectly usable items that are not going to the needy, that are not going to people who could use them, that are going straight to landfill and incineration, both of which are producers of carbon and greenhouse gas emissions. This is something that we need to address, and in developing the regulations through consultation we've got the model of France. I'm sure that this is something that we all want to achieve. Nobody wants perfectly usable goods to end up literally on the bonfire, so taking this provision in the bill is an important step there. As for Mark Ruskell's question about specific examples, I don't have any specific examples with me, but I don't know if officials have any or whether we can write to about that. Well, with permission I could give a specific example which relates to the actual benefits, including to the bottom line of voluntary actions in the food waste space, which might illustrate a general point, and is also relevant to one of the other provisions in the bill in relation to the benefits of mandatory public reporting. So I think the example I would give again, it's not in relation to the durable goods, but it relates to some specific evidence from the Food Waste Reduction Roadmap Report 2022, which is published by RAP, and that reports on the voluntary cortal agreement, and we have a number over 350 really significant organisations across the UK who are participating in that on a voluntary basis to help drive efforts to reduce food waste. That includes, I think, the majority of the large big retailers as well, including supermarkets, so I would quote one of the pieces of evidence from the 22 report for the retailers that provided tonnage data, so they have reported on their food waste tonnage for 2018 and 2021. Those retailers reported a reduction in food waste of over 19,000 tonnes, about 8 per cent, which was equivalent to almost £62 million worth of food that did not end up in waste. Range of actions, some of it, would include redistribution, for example, but that production of that tonnage of food would have been associated with 60,000 tonnes equivalent of GHG emissions as well, so I think that demonstrates the point that the minister is making. There is a range of efforts already underway. There is scope for some further legislation, but it shows the benefits both to businesses in terms of the economics, but it also demonstrates the environmental impact as well, and we can support that with some very specific evidence. Again, that is part of what the other measures in the bill will seek to support as well, how we scale up some of those efforts. I hope that that specific example is helpful. I want to benefit that bottom line of £62 million on the record with a sector that has already gone down this route, so I think that it is quite tantalising to think about other sectors. That relates to voluntary measures, not specifically the measure in the bill that we have been talking about here, so that is wide-ranging measures to tackle food waste. When we sort of drifted a bit off track in that excitement there, so let's go back just on the inclusion of food waste. Do you want to just talk about that? Does the bill allow that to be included in more than Janet said? Do you want to talk about food waste? We've heard how important it is to avoid it, and we've also heard how important it is if it's not being used, how it's recycled. Do you want to talk very briefly about that, minister? Absolutely, yes. It is not just to reiterate that the provisions section 8 on the disposal of untold consumer goods does not apply to food and perishable goods. Of course, the strategy and the high-level targets and stuff absolutely do incorporate food waste, but the specific provision in the bill that I think the member is alluding to is this reporting of waste and surplus. The provision section 17 of the bill would require businesses to report on their waste and surplus, and the intention is to use those as a sector-by-sector basis. With the first sector, we're looking at food waste because that's, as the member rightly points out, such a high priority. I would like to look at construction as the second sector that we look at there, for exactly the reason that the deputy convener has raised there. The requirement here is for businesses to publicly report on the waste and surplus of food. This is looking at large businesses. There are already several large businesses that do this, Tesco, Hovis, Ikea, Unilever, all do this kind of reporting already. There are already good models of what this looks like in the voluntary space. There are about 300 UK businesses that already do this voluntary reporting, about 60 of those operate in Scotland. This is about taking that good practice and spreading it across industry so that all large food-related industry businesses have to do this reporting. I'm interested in the priorities that you gave food and construction. Bob, did you have a brief follow-up? I know that Monica has a question, but it's slightly different. I'm going to bring her in at a later stage on that. I'm unclear if the minister has inadvertently answered the question that I was going to ask. I might just ask it anyway, so it's clearly on the official report. Some stakeholders think that I argued that targets should be clearly set on the face of the bill, but I think that during an earlier exchange, the minister mentioned that NGOs, for example, weren't clear what targets they would like to see set and that some of the science and methodology around how those would be established are still emerging, are evolving and, therefore, secondary legislation might be a much better way of doing that. Just a bit of clarity over what the Government position is on relation to that. There was a second bit minister in relation to whether there might be a different case for consumption targets because the Scottish Government already publishes carbon footprint information under requirements in climate legislation, so might it be possible to introduce consumption targets on the face of the bill? Two questions of the minister, just to kind of mop up where any gaps in evidence that we have, convener. Yes, thank you. The intention is not to put any targets on the face of the bill, but what the section on targets in the bill does say, and I've got this in front of me, is again, it uses this phrase consumption of materials. In considering the imposition of targets, Scottish ministers have regard to processes for production and distribution of things are designed so as to reduce consumption of materials, deliver of services designed so as to reduce consumption of materials and so on. Consumptive of materials is absolutely in those, you know, the targets that we set must be about consumption of materials. So we're in agreement as to what kinds of targets we want to set. The discussion is exactly what those targets are and where they're captured. And, you know, as I've earlier set out, the developing these targets is going to be a process because there are no certain consensus on methodologies or data sets yet. There just isn't that information available. So that work needs to be done to decide what the targets would be, how they would be the effective ones, the right ones that fit within our devolved powers and also how we would measure and report on those. I think it also poses the question on how Parliament gets to scrutinise those targets because it's not in the bill and I think that's something that perhaps would see clarity at stage 2 or give us that amount of clarity if the Parliament knew how they were going to scrutinise those minister. I'm going to come to Monica next with her question. Thank you. It's a similar topic. It's been asked a few different times in different ways, but I think it's important to emphasise that we've heard a lot of support and principle for Cyclar Economy Bill, but we've also heard from many stakeholders, including Cyclar Community Scotland, that they feel that there is a lack of focus on sharing, reuse, repair and remanufacture, and that we've had examples of other countries and regions that are able to give clear targets, including Austria and Flanders, where reuse is being mainstream. So I understand why the minister wants to get this right, but there's also a lot of frustration right now that we're not able to get clear answers on targets and what everyone should be aiming for. On a national reuse target, it's possible that the minister doesn't want to put it on the face of the bill, but you must have some kind of idea of what ideal targets would look like. On reuse, is that something that you've given a lot of thought to, what discussions have taken place, and if not on the face of the bill, how could that manifest itself and how can Parliament scrutinise that? I'm absolutely happy to go into that. I've already listed out the question that Ben Macpherson asked earlier on, all the elements of the bill that could relate to reuse. I will not take up the member's time by going through that again. The bill has substantial provisions throughout to increase reuse, specifically around targets under section 6, provision 3, the regulations under subsection 1 may in particular provide targets in relation to one or more of the following, reducing consumption of materials, increase of reuse, increase of recycling and reducing waste. That is what's on the face of the bill, that we can set targets around increasing reuse and around consumption of materials. The nitty gritty is what those targets would be and who they would apply to local authorities, to businesses, to certain sectors. That's the work that we need to do to understand exactly how those targets would apply. I'm sure everyone in this room would be in agreement that sectors, businesses and local authorities would need to understand and be part of developing those targets, so we need to do that work together to create that. It's likely to be realistically a suite of targets that we're looking at, because it's going to be different for businesses than it is for local authorities, for example. In terms of reuse, think about the baseline right now. We know that there's too much consumption and too much waste. We're very much a throwaway society. We're not reusing materials and goods that we have. What does good look like in terms of reuse? That's an interesting question. I would need to look at international examples to know where we're looking for there. I think that what good looks at international good practice already— What good would look like to me is what we need to do to meet our net zero targets. We know how much waste we need to reduce, not only to meet our waste targets, but in the bigger picture to help the country to reach net zero. That specific answer is good would look like what this sector needs to do to meet our pathway to net zero. I think that the committee and the public want to get an idea as to what we're aiming towards, so that we know that the legislation will be fit for purpose and will meet its aim. I'll leave the issue of targets for now, convener, but in terms of how we encourage people and organisations to reuse, it would be good to get a bit more flavour about some of the carrots and sticks, if you like, that will be used. We met in June to discuss a particular challenge around nappy waste and single-use nappies. We know that hundreds of thousands of single-use nappies end up in landfills every day. Some local councils have really good schemes. North Ayrshire is an example that I left you with, minister. The real nappy initiative, which is free for citizens to use. I believe that they now have a waiting list, so it's good to hear there's demand. I just wondered what investigation has taken place. I know that you were going to discuss it with COSLA. Are those schemes supported and mainstreamed? People want to do the right thing, but they need a little bit of support and guidance on that. We have good practice in small pockets of the country, but it's not being mainstreamed. What can the bill or your strategy or your route map do about that? Absolutely. That's a really good point to highlight. There are no legislative powers required, for example, for introducing that excellent nappy reuse scheme, which, as I understand when I spoke to the member about this earlier, is a cost-neutral scheme that that council runs. One of the things that I've asked Zeroway Scotland to do is to take on board a facilitation role in facilitating best practice between councils, because our councils are enormously variable, both in their recycling services that they provide, but in that kind of reuse services as well. Given that that's a cost-neutral provision because it saves that council from having to deal with nappies, which I am told are a real problem for contamination of waste and not easily recyclable and so on, that that can be a real benefit for councils. That is something that I have tasked Zeroway Scotland with. I would absolutely expect to see that in the route map. I don't know if anyone wants to comment on the route map with relation to that. We have commissioned some research recently on nappies too, so that is looking obviously at one of the big issues around nappies as behaviour change. What are the barriers to that? For a long time now they have been included in the baby box and the vouchers, but how do we increase that kind of take-up and how do we drive that behaviour change to single use or to reusable nappies? In terms of the route map and the other areas of reuse that we'll be focusing on and there's around construction, so that's been touched on a couple of times today. That's one of the focuses for the route map because of the scale of the issue around construction waste. There's particular consideration there given in the consultation around a programme for reuse of construction materials, so that will come through in the route map too. There's a range of different activities there around use and repair. You know, it's slightly concerned that given we're in a climate and nature emergency and we need to do everything in a hurry, obviously get it right, but we need to act fast. The example that I gave about North Ayrshire, there are others but they've got the best example. That's not new, that's been going on for maybe four or five years now, so we've got some good practice. There's obviously not a duty right now in local government to do more, but given that we've heard it's question your troll, and where there's been discussions because if it doesn't go into the bill, because I'm looking at amendments and we'll continue to discuss that with government, but if it doesn't go into legislation, are you not concerned that these good ideas just don't happen? Possibly because there's a lack of resolution capacity in local government, so are you worried about the pace of any of this? I mean, I think there is an urgency, the member is right that there's an urgency with the pace. Of course, because of the Verity house agreement, I'm not comfortable with imposing things on local councils in primary legislation without going through that process, so I think the member is right to identify the code of practice as the route for that. So we've got this Rosierway Scotland facilitation of best practice and knowledge sharing, but the route to actually implementing would be this mandatory code of practice that this bill proposes, so we're proposing developing that code of practice with local authorities and then there would be targets associated with that which wouldn't come into play until 2030, which I understand if the member is feeling that that is quite a lengthy time period. That is a time period for our councils to invest in that infrastructure, build the new facilities. There's a lot of work that we would need to do before we were in a position to impose targets on councils, so I'm confident that we have the route to get to where we need to go, but there is a lot of work that we need to do with councils and a lot of investment that we need to collectively do to make sure that that can happen. Is it just because Verity house was mentioned, Cymru, who would just briefly make a point? I think many of us are nervous to say, let's put a duty on councils because councils feel under so much pressure, but where there's co-production and good discussion, councils are often the right place to take things forward. Just this morning, we've heard in the media, but I think she's written directly to committee councillor Gail McGregor, who is the COSLA economy and violence spokesperson. She's raised serious concerns. She's saying that the approach is not in tune with co-production or the Verity house agreement, and that the Scottish Government has been asked to remove reference to penalties from the bill. That's penalties that councils would incur. That is quite worrying at this stage in the bill process, so what is the Government going to do to put that right? This is an interesting provision of the bill, and if the convener will allow, I think that it is worth going into this in some detail. I've got the letter from councillor Gail McGregor in front of me. I'm from COSLA, so this is an important point. The letter says, there is no need to make the charter for curbside collections mandatory. All 32 councils have signed up to it, but only a third of them actually implemented it. That is the problem with a voluntary charter is that there are no consequences for not implementing it. You can sign on the dotted line and then don't. The bill does propose to move to a mandatory code of practice, one that is developed by councils so that we know that it's feasible, so that we know that it has the provision in for different geographies, for different tenancy type building types, for different built environments. We know that it needs to have all those provisions. We know that it needs to take into account of where councils currently are, because, as we know, some councils are very nearly at their 60 per cent target, and some are a very long way away from it. Given all that development needs to be done, the bill does propose a mandatory target. The reason for that is evidence-based, because that's what works elsewhere. We have international examples of that, Wales being our closest example. That is how they've driven recycling to the levels that it is. In Scotland, recycling levels have stalled at an average of just over 40 per cent, between 40 per cent and 45 per cent. We've stalled. We have to do something new. We have to bring in what works. The Verity House agreement does commit to co-design, but it also commits to being evidence-led. The evidence tells us that we need to do this. I'm looking rather blankly around the room. This isn't a letter that I've seen. I was referring to a herald article from this morning. A herald article, which was circulated with the committee papers. Sorry, convener. It's a letter addressed to you of 30 November. Right. Okay. I will have a look at it. I have to say that it's completely passed me by, but there we go. Sorry, Monica. Keep going. Yeah, I'm conscious of time. I know you would want me to wrap up there. I've heard what the minister's said about other examples, but the position, because I'm sure that co-design colleagues will be listening, is that in terms of circling on the bill, the Government believes that it's important to have that power to find councils. I think that Janet McVill wants to come in, but I'll go back to the minister first. Yeah, absolutely. I mean, that is what the evidence is. The way this has been implemented in Wales, which I think is an excellent model, is that fines are an absolute last resort. And the way it's been implemented in Wales is any council that hasn't met their targets, you know, they have a conversation about why that is. Of the ones who didn't meet their targets, I think only one had a fine applied to them, and I think even that might have been waived, but I'll get Janet in. Yes, you're right that actually I think the equivalent of the audit commission in Wales have identified, I think, up to 20 examples where targets were missed, but as the minister has noted, the Government has chosen to either waive fines, and I think that there was one instance where it potentially was applied. I think that the point that I was going to make, the minister absolutely emphasised there, that yes, there has been a lot of focus on this particular aspect of the household waste provisions, but as the minister noted, the bill is crafted in a way really that the intention is that the financial penalties would absolutely only be a potential last resort. The primary focus is on ensuring that targets are achievable. Those would again be co-designed with the local authorities. This is not about setting local authorities up to fail. It is absolutely the primary focus is about support and enabling local authorities and ensuring that they've got the tools to actually achieve those targets, including through the co-designed code of practice, as well as complementary non-legislative measures, which the route map consultation last year was setting out, the importance of supporting householders as well as supporting local authorities themselves to apply best practice. We've got a lot of very strong evidence within local authorities in Scotland as well, while the average rate is, as the minister says, just over 43 per cent. We've actually got extreme variation amongst local authorities, ranging from about 20 per cent up to about 57 per cent. There are examples of local authorities in Scotland who are achieving higher recycling rates. We know that circumstances do vary. As you've heard from some of your expert witnesses, we've clearly got to recognise that across Scotland, one size may not fit all. Through the code of practice, your witnesses have noted, for example, the challenges of high-density housing, flats, tenements, etc., and communal recycling, as well as rural areas, as well as the curbside collection. The co-design process will give us the opportunity to ensure that the refreshed code of practice will better reflect the needs of those range of geographies, as well as the range of local authorities who are dealing with specific challenges, whether those are linked to the high-density housing in particular. I understand the letter that we were talking about, which was not published this morning. I misunderstood what was said. Right. There are lots of questions still to go, and we are running quite short of time. I have been quite generous, and I'll continue to be as generous as I can if people are mindful that I am up against the clock. Mark, I think that you've got a brief question, and then Ben, and then I'm going to come to you, Mark, with some further questions. Yeah, yeah. Okay, thanks, convener. It's just going back on the issue of targets again. I appreciate the complexity and the difficulty of bringing forward targets. In some cases, it's not always appropriate to put that on the face of legislation. But do you have a clear timescale for when targets could be brought through secondary legislation? Is there a sense of when that could be brought through? Yeah, I'll be happy to say a little bit more about that. I think that, as the ministers noted in the face of the bill, it would not be possible for targets to come into force before 2030. The reason for that is that we do recognise that there is a sensible chronology here. As I've noted there, we have to… Is that for local authorities? Are you referring to national targets? Yeah. Oh, I beg your pardon. I've talked about the wrong sections, so I'll defer to others. The question, as I understood, was around the timescale for national targets. Yeah, yeah. The provisions that are in the bill to set other targets are clearly there, and secondary legislation could be brought forward. It's just to get a sense of how quickly that could be developed. Given that there are complexities and challenges around that, I understand that, but for stakeholders listening in who maybe might want targets and I'm sort of wondering why they're not on the face of the bill, I'm interested in what certainty there is that they will be brought forward, and is there a timescale, or is it difficult to tell at this point? So the first stage in this process is around developing and monitoring and indicator frameworks. That's what we'd use to kind of underpin the logic for any targets that are then followed. So we're looking to develop that over the course of 2024. So then that opens up the possibility of looking at targets from 2025 starting to develop those. But it would require, as I say, consultation on both monitoring framework more likely and targets themselves. Okay. That's good. Thanks. Ben, you wanted to come in. Thank you, convener. Just briefly, Janet McVeigh talked about the code, and, minister, and Janet McVeigh. Do you appreciate the overwhelming evidence that we've heard that, with due consideration to geographical differences between urban and rural Scotland in particular, there is a demand and a need for a more consistent approach to household recycling, where the recycling product is at least similar, if not the same, from different parts of Scotland, so that we can bring that investment to create the facilities that we need to improve our recycling, and also so that we can communicate with the public in a clear and consistent way to help to raise awareness and increase public participation in recycling. Yes, absolutely. I would add to that that, by revisiting what we collect throughout Scotland, we have the opportunity to collect other high value products like textiles, which would then provide revenue streams for councils potentially. So that consistency is something that we all agree that we need to achieve? We absolutely do. Not only for, as you mentioned, the kind of mainstreaming aspect of making sure that everybody participates, but in terms of getting the best value for recycling. I know you took evidence on this matter that the larger volume you can collect of good quality clean recycling, the more it's worth, the more value we can get for that. Sorry, can you just clarify as well? 32 different councils. I'm sure there aren't 32 different bin schemes, but there may be quite a few different bin schemes. One evidence that you said you want to standardisation. So we're going to recycle the bins so that we all have the same bins, so we know what we're doing, because in Edinburgh you have a different way of doing it, so the way we do it in Murray, and everyone gets confused what they're putting in each bin. So are you going to change that? This is what would need to be developed through that code of practice. That's not something that I intend to impose on councils, it's something I intend to co-develop with councils. But the member is right, and there is some really good international examples on this. For example, within all the Scandinavian countries, so not even just within the country, but within the multiple countries, they have standardised, for example, bin colouring and labelling, so that whether you're at the train station at home or at your place of work, it's the red bin that's always paper and the black bin that's always, for example. That is something that we could aim toward if that's what local authorities were interested in. It's just that we visited Change Waste last week, and they were clear that everyone's doing it slightly differently. No one's following the original seven splits on what the waste was, and we're all ending up with a complete mishmash, which isn't valuable. That's the case, so this is one of the reasons for moving to this mandatory code of practice to ensure that we are doing best practice. Interestingly, this is also an area where research has moved on quite a lot in the last few years. What we are our best evidence now, for example, on how to separate waste is different than what it was 10 or 15 years ago. So would you do that at the primary source of the waste, either the person of disposing it, or would you like to see it done later in the change? That is the question. There are different approaches to that, and of course some of that would depend on the built environment. I live in a tenement flat where we're not going to have room for multiple different boxes, but I know in some areas like East Lothian they have an excellent separation scheme and good evidence why separation by the householders works in that particular type of built environment. I think that it's a wonderful idea that people who live in rural settings have more time to split their waste up than anyone else. Ben? Just very similarly, commercial waste. If we take this city, there are multiple companies that come and collect commercial waste in a fairly similar way, but it's a fairly cluttered landscape. Is there a need to try and streamline some of those processes, as well as streamlining household waste? It's very interesting that you asked this. There was a provision in the consultation that we have not carried forward into the bill around the zoning of waste, which would have streamlined given councils the power to streamline that. You have only one collector in a particular area, but we have not brought that forward into the bill. There was a good deal of feedback from especially small businesses that felt that that wouldn't be appropriate, but a voluntary model for that kind of streamlining can be undertaken. I can see the convener wants us to move along, so I'd be happy to take that up with the members separately. I would like to spend all day discussing this, but I don't have that at my disposal. Mark, you have the next question to yours. Yeah, thanks. We're out of time, so I'll make this brief. Policy of the Government is to remain aligned with the European Union. I'm interested in how, as Bill and the waste strategy and provisions have come out of it, keep us in alignment with the EU, particularly the single-use plastics directive. Absolutely. I mean, there are several provisions of the bill that keep us aligned with the EU and to just keep it the disposal of unsold consumer goods. That powers 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 would keep us in line. Single-use plastics, absolutely. The provisions around that are keeping us in line. We've already brought into place a ban on some of the most problematic single-use plastics, and the approach to charging for single-use plastic keeps us in line with the EU directive on single-use plastics, as well. In the interest of time, I could go in a bit further, but many of those provisions are either in line with the EU or moving us in the same direction as the EU. I think that one aspect of that is the EU's taking a quite strategic approach to driving out waste and increasing circularity. Is that something that's also coming through this bill? There has been an approach in the past to look at individual items like plastic bags or single-use cups or whatever, but is this going to result in a more overarching approach to waste? That's the fundamental difference between this bill and, for example, that very specific provision on charging for single-use bags. This is a framework bill that puts in place a legislation that we can then take the powers to bring forward those in a strategic way. By setting out the requirements to create a circular economy strategy on the Government and the targets associated with that, we put in place that framework to do that. Another question is around calls to ban particular products. You'll be aware of the really strong campaign to ban single-use vapes. Are you interested to get your views on that as a Government and where you see particular cases for banning individual products? Is that something that can be taken through this bill? Can it be taken through in a different way, what the Government is consulting on at the moment? What's in your targets for that? This is something that I've been thinking about a lot, which is that there are three basic approaches to problematic items, particularly those single-use items. One is to ban them, which is what we have done for certain single-use plastic items, styrofoam cups. We are looking at a UK level on single-use vapes. Another way is to bring charges on them, such as we have done for plastic bags and are thinking about for cups. Another way is through producer responsibility schemes such as deposit return scheme is a producer responsibility scheme, as is the one for packaging and the Europe is looking at one on textiles. We have three different broad tools that we can use for particular items. That is a question of making sure that we are using the right tool for the right job. I think that banning is the right tool for the job in certain cases, and that is why we are looking at it at the four nations level for single-use vapes, but we do not require any provisions in the bill for that. We already have the powers that we need. Thank you very much Mark. Jackie, I think that you have got some questions. Since we have discussed COSLA today and the local authorities recycling schemes, which I was heavily involved in previously, I thought for transparency sake, I declare my interest as a former local councillor for Aberdeen City Council. Minister, one thing that has come across from us here in evidence is that businesses have raised concerns about the broad nature of the powers required on reporting on waste and surpluses. How will the Scottish Government target the use of those powers to make sure that the requirements are proportionate and necessary to drive the change that is going to be needed? Absolutely. On the provision for reporting of waste and surpluses, as I have already discussed, the intention is to use that for food waste, particularly in the first instance, and to target those waste streams that have the biggest environmental impact. When we are looking at this, we are looking at larger businesses—the examples that I have given are businesses such as Tesco and Unilever, Hovis and so on—who already do this kind of public reporting. That should be really clear as to what kind of businesses we are looking at, as well as the sectors that we are looking at. We may then be looking at construction as the follow-on. I have recently met Ewan MacDonald Russell of the Scottish Retail Consortium, who had some of those concerns. I have agreed with him to meet him early in the new year and with some of his members who already do this kind of reporting. The concern that he raised with me, which he may have brought to your evidence session, was exactly how onerous this reporting is going to be and what it will look like. Given that some of his members already do this reporting voluntarily, I thought that it was a good opportunity to meet them and understand what they were doing and whether those would meet our requirements so that we have a working model to go from. He said that his members would find that comforting to know what those reporting requirements would look like. I have endeavoured, as we have with the single-use cup charges, to start the process of working on this, even before the bill is passed, so that businesses can have some comfort as to what they will be looking at. How do you think that the data from that report will help future policymaking? In terms of future policymaking, that is an interesting question. It certainly reporting on waste food and surplus is very helpful to us in meeting our waste targets. We are currently off track for meeting our food waste targets. If we understand where, not just for us but for industry, where those waste and surpluses are arising, then that can signpost us for mechanisms for dealing with those matters. As we have said, we did not include food in the banning of destruction of unsold goods. We are looking at just reporting, so the policy space would need to look at, once we have the data, how can we support industry into doing better. However, the evidence suggests that once industry themselves are clear on what is waste and surplus, both in terms of reducing it in the first place and finding good use for it, follows along naturally. Janet is wanting to comment a bit of clarity, a bit more clarity. Again, in terms of businesses' obligations, there are already some obligations in terms of producers of waste, in terms of what they have to record. The second important point is that the bill should also be seen in the context of other measures that are in train, notably, for example, the development of digital waste tracking across the UK. In terms of your question of how the bill can help to inform policy measures, in effect, the range of measures that we have got. How is the data that you were getting from the report? Exactly. The point is that the data through reporting and other measures such as digital waste tracking will give us a much greater line of sight, both for businesses to target their measures as well as at the policy level to understand the sources and how waste moves across the system. It enables much more targeted, effective and efficient action by businesses as well as regulators. The businesses have also said that they would like more certainty in how the Scottish Government intends reporting their requirements to operate in practice. What would you be looking to introduce is just a standard to how data is collected, how it is prepared and how it is published. That is the meeting that I have arranged with Ewan MacDonald Russell of the SRC to meet with some of his members who already do this reporting to understand what good practice looks like and then we can develop the standards from that. There is no need to reinvent when there is already really good industry practice about 60 companies in Scotland already doing this, so I would be looking to understand what they are already doing and moving forward with that best practice. Following on from the question earlier about due diligence, can I ask what powers the Scottish Government already have to require business due diligence reporting, for example in the regulatory reformat or is this an area that the bill could support? We already have extensive powers to require reporting of businesses. I will hand over to Elsa for more details on that. We do have powers in the regulatory reformat to require reporting or provision of information about industrial emissions and about waste and in destinations of waste, so there are existing powers there. There is also a lack of agreement between the Scottish and UK Governments during the passage of the environmental bill regarding legislative competence to impose due diligence requirements on businesses regarding the forest risk commodities. What is the Scottish Government's current position on that? In particular, given the EU developments with the corporate sustainability due diligence directive and the Scottish Government's aspirations to keep pace with it? I need to come to officials on this matter. It is not an area that I cover, so I think that we might have to do that. We will write to the member on that matter, but thank you very much. I will write to the committee so that we can talk to the member. We will, of course, secondate it to the member. Bob, I think that you have got some—I think that you are next, aren't you, with some questions? Yes, thanks, convener. Hi, minister. We are living in a world of the UK internal mark act now, but that is just a reality, irrespective of what different views around the committee table is in relation to that. How do you envisage new powers in this bill, around signage, charges and disposal of unsold goods that could interact with the UK internal mark act? Thank you very much for the question. The bill itself, because it is a larger framework, does not have any implications for the internal mark act, but the member is quite right that some of the provisions as enacted may do. With the single-use cup charges, that is, for example, substantially different from the deposit return scheme, where the deposit return scheme covered items that were crossing borders in terms of both importing goods and potentially carrying things across the Scottish—the two borders between Scotland and England. Whereas, with the single-use cup charge, you are physically in Scotland selling an item to someone who is physically in Scotland. There are no border crossings involved there. My understanding is that we believe that we can draft the legislation for single-use cup charges in such a way that does not affect or come into contact with the internal mark act and therefore would not require an exemption. For matters around reporting of waste and surplus or disposal of unsold goods, I will go to Elsa on whether we think that it might require an exemption to the internal mark act. At the moment, we think that those kinds of provisions would not require any kind of exemption from the internal mark act, but it will always depend on the details of the actual provisions, the restrictions that are being imposed and whether they would meet the definition of what is called a relevant requirement in the internal mark act. There will need to be an assessment when the regulations are being drafted as to whether or not there is any impact of the IME and whether we can prepare the regulations in a way that does not conflict with the internal mark act. However, it is always going to come down to the details of the actual restrictions that are imposed. I know that we are not ever near that at the moment, but it is good to talk, minister. As you know, I am just wondering whether there is any initial dialogue with the UKIC officials even at this stage. In particular, I am conscious last week that environmental organisations and NGOs believe that there should be a qualified automatic exemption in relation to the internal markets act for public health environmental purposes. Is there on-going dialogue with the UK Government just now ahead of front loading a lot of that work that we had earlier on, convener? Is there on-going dialogue at the moment, minister? There is certainly on-going dialogue. I myself have had dialogue with the UK Government of course around deposit return scheme, around wet wipes, around single-use vapes and other matters. I will come to officials on what dialogue has been happening at official level. We have a common framework working group that meets regular. It is part of the process that has been set up through common frameworks post Brexit. That is regular engagement with our counterparts in the UK Government and in the other devolved administrations. They are aware of the provisions in the bill. We discuss them and make them aware of that as it arises. That is helpful. It partially prevents my final question, convener. This is good. How could common frameworks be used to support policy coherence and also the pace of progress in this area? Can I help to manage divergence? It says divergence, for example. I am thinking about a twin-track approach. I suspect that the end destination for all four UK nations will be the same, minister. It is about having a policy coherence so that if Scotland wishes to go quicker, we can do that in a managed way. Any comments on how common frameworks can be used to support policy coherence? I will make a quick comment and then I can hand it to Jenny again. That is the intention of the common frameworks to be able to manage divergence. The challenge that we have had in the past year is that the UK Government has discarded the common frameworks and made decisions outwith the common framework. There is a question as to how functional the common framework is if the UK ministers are going to discard the work done under it. That is a frustration for us. I am not sure that the UK Government would be happy with me discarding the common framework, but they feel free to do that. The intention is to manage divergence, but it depends on all nations of the UK having some tolerance for divergence, and that is something that we have seen a political landscape shift on. There are some examples of where that has worked. The single-use plastics, we were granted an exemption on that, but then the deposit return scheme, we were not, and wet wipes went ahead with the consultation outwith the common framework. That is the process that I have clearly been struggling with. I do not know if Jenny wants to come in. I am simply going to mention the single-use plastics example as an example of where Scotland was granted an exemption in advance of what the other UK Governments were doing. The more frustration examples I can share. No further questions. I might share your characterisation of the political environment, but the committee is keen to scrutinise the nuts and bolts of the legislation. It is positive to hear those discussions that are on going at official level anyway. I was just going to ask on the previous question. We have been having discussions with the Office of the Internal Market. Have you had discussions with them? That is obviously not part of the UK Government, and they are there to advise all Administrations on potential issues within the UK Internal Market Act. I have not, officials. Have I had conversations? We have not. I know that colleagues in constitutional teams are in regular contact, but we can provide more information on that. Certainly they have an important complementary rule to play. Will that be an organisation that you are reaching out to when you have more ideas of what your plans are to see if there is going to be any potential conflicts? I would expect that we would engage with all the relevant organisations. Clearly, as we have noted, there is consideration for down the line, so we will certainly make sure that we follow all the sensible processes. I heard Roopmatt mention it a few times earlier this morning, and I think he said that it would be here soon, Minister. Can you give us a bit more clarity on when that would be? Is that going to be later this year, or maybe the first quarter next year? When do you expect it to be? Oh, Douglas. Yes, I know, sorry. That is soon, convener. I am very keen to get that to you as quickly as we can. Do you have an updated time scale? Ginny, it is not going to be before Christmas as soon as possible. In 2024, after the new year, is the position. I do not want to labour this point, but should we expect that in the first quarter of 2024? Yes. Moving on to my questions, we heard from the convener earlier about the financial memorandum in the report that the Finance and Public Administration Committee had done. We have heard earlier today about the letter also from COSLA. They have said in their letter that the financial memorandum is not capturing the full cost to local government. My question is simply how will the Scottish Government reassure local authorities that they will be provided with accurate assessments of cost and the necessary resources to deliver the ambitions of this bill? My reassurance is that we will follow the Verity House process and do this co-design together. This is not entirely a question of imposing things on local authorities and expecting them to get on with it. We need to understand together what local authorities want to achieve and how best to achieve that. As I highlighted earlier, it is not just about what we want local authorities to do for us in the waste space, but what opportunities we can help them to unlock to get better value from their recyclants so that they are getting those income streams to reduce the costs associated with litter and handling waste. Monica Lennon's point on the reusable nappies is a good one. For example, we can take items out of the waste stream and save local authorities money. The member can understand that there are lots of different moving parts in terms of different scope for savings, different opportunities for revenue-raising and, of course, the big thing coming into play, like the extended producer responsibility for packaging, which will have substantial funding for councils but which we do not have the detail of yet. All those resources can go into the mix alongside developing that so that we can ensure that we will be successful. In the letter from COSLA, they talk about co-production, they talk about the very house agreement, but what they are saying is that the threat of penalties is not in tune with that agreement. Do you not agree with them that the threat of penalties is not the way of building relationships and having a joint way of working going forward? I absolutely hear what they are saying and that they have concerns about the possibility of imposing penalties. There are a couple of points on that. One is that the Verity House agreement commits to evidence-led policy, and that is what the evidence tells us. Voluntary codes of practice and voluntary targets are not sufficient that they need to be mandatory. That means that there must be consequences for not complying as there are in Wales. What we have committed to is that that sort of penalty is absolutely intended to be a last resort. The intention here is to support councils to deliver good services, not to penalise councils, but a mandatory obligation must have consequences for not meeting that. I will be honest, as we develop this 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 there are other local authorities who are just not bothering to comply. I feel that, through that process, we will probably get to a point where they revisit this view, because it would absolutely be unfair for some local authorities to put in so much work to meet the targets when other local authorities just decide they won't bother. During our evidence sessions, we heard from I think it was Orkney council, and they've got quite a low recycling rate just now—I think that it's about 22 per cent or round about that—but what they were saying was that, in terms of their amount of waste going to landfill, it wasn't high, because they have got energy from waste, for example, and they feel that if they were to push that higher, it would actually be more cost for them and probably worse for the environment as they had to then start shipping goods to be recycled off the main land back to Arbeno or whatever. What would you say to them? They've just got to reach that higher target, even if it's worse for the environment? We absolutely need to develop the targets together with local authorities, and that's absolutely something that we've committed to. What our island's impact assessment does highlight around this bill is that there are significant opportunities for islands. I know that in Orkney, in Kirkwall, there is an excellent facility for reusing furniture where they're doing that circular economy space work. There are opportunities in Orkney to move things up that waste hierarchy there, but setting those targets is something that we absolutely commit to doing in line with local authorities and taking into consideration the geographic impacts and so on. The national target is to meet those 60 per cent recycling rates nationally, but, of course, Orkney is going to be contributing only a very small amount to that overall. So, yes, there needs to be some common sense when applying these targets. So you do expect some dispensations for some of our island communities? I wouldn't use the phrase—I wouldn't need to have to reach a higher figure because they're actually—they were saying that they would prefer to be judged on the percentage going to landfill that they think is quite low. So I have not said that everybody has to meet the same target or that everybody would be meeting the same target, that local authority targets would exactly map to national targets. The national target is 60 per cent nationally, but developing specific targets that are appropriate for local authorities is a different matter. Oh, so places like Orkney and Shetland could be lower, minister? There's nothing in the bill that says that they must be the same now. Okay, going back to—we've heard concerns in relation to potentially criminalising households, both in relation to potential new finds for not recycling correctly, and maybe we've heard evidence of renting a man with a van to get rid of bulkier items, and that's not—that's been flytipped, for example. Should households fear that they may be criminalised because of aspects of this bill? Well, I want to make it clear that there's two different provisions there that the member is discussing. I'll first come to the one that is section 11 on household waste requirements, which is already a criminal offence. It is already a criminal offence to not respond to a notice to desist with contaminating recycling. There is no new offence being created there, but the overall aim of the creation of a fixed penalty notice for this offence means that we would give local authorities a more proportionate and civil offence, as opposed to the criminal sanctions, which are the only option right now. Local authorities already have an obligation to enforce that, but criminal proceedings for contaminating recycling would be only appropriate in some pretty extreme circumstances. Having a fixed penalty notice regime gives local authorities a much more proportionate response there. Noting, of course, that contamination of recyclet is a big problem for local authorities and is very costly for them, so having effective powers for dealing with those offences is helpful to them. On the other matter, it is useful that we have Mr Fraser with us today, because the provision is similar to what he is proposing in his member's bill, which is about creating a new criminal offence, the householder's duty of care. Householders already have a duty to ensure that their waste is dealt with properly and does not become part of a waste crime, but currently, although the person tipping the waste can be accused of an offence and a crime, the person, the householder, there is no offence associated with that. What the provision of the bill brings in place is an equivalent position to provision for Scotland, as already exists in England and Wales, that a householder can be charged a fixed penalty notice if the local authority has reason to believe that the householder has breached the duty of care and not taken reasonable steps to ensure that the waste handler that they have given their waste to is a licensed waste handler. Some of the evidence that we have heard is that it is quite easy to get a waste handler or a waste carrier licence. Do you think that there is scope in the bill to tighten that up to try and reduce the amount of rogue people that collect and rubbish, and then maybe just flytip in it elsewhere? I absolutely agree with the member on that. It is something that has been highlighted by George Mumbo. I think that he did a paper or an essay for the paper on it, where he got his fish a waste handling licence. That is how easy it is to get the stat down in England. In RMAS here in Scotland have raised with me the issue of wanting to create a higher bar for waste carriers. That is absolutely something that we are looking at under something called the integrated authorised framework to raise that bar for waste carriers. We do not need to make legal provision for that. That is not something that is required in the bill, but that work is under way because you are absolutely right that that is something that we need to do. The final question that I have is about waste charging. It ties in for bulky uplifts and whether that is potentially disincentivising good behaviours, because often we hear that some local authorities may be charged too much for a bulky uplift. That puts people down the road of using somebody else that might actually just flytip elsewhere. Would you like to see more consistency between local authorities in terms of a couple of charges? That is a very interesting question. We did consult in the consultation on charging for waste collection. We have not brought that forward into the bill. I think that it is a really good point around standardisation of charging and what that looks like to incentivise and support the right people to do the right thing. We will now need to take that forward through the code of practice with local authorities. That is not something that we intend to impose upon local authorities through the bill. It is something that I would like to develop with them through the code of practice. I will come to the deputy convener with his questions. The clock really is ticking quite quickly. I agree with my colleagues' points. We have heard strong evidence that there needs to be a much more robust process for licensing waste handlers. If we are going to put obligations on people to be more cognisant in checking how their waste is disposed, if we are asking them to use a licensed waste handler, we need to really significantly improve that process. With regard to the creation of a civil penalty, does the minister agree with me that we need to do much more to inform people still about recycling processes and do much more across local authorities and the population as a whole to help people to do the right thing? I think that a lot of the contamination and fly tipping that happens is inadvertent. It is people not actually being aware, because they have busy lives and other things to think about. I am absolutely concerned about always when we create new civil penalties or criminal offences. We need to think very carefully about enforcement, about proportionality and about making sure that the processes are in place to help people to do the right thing. I think that we have more work to do on that regard. I agree with the member on that. The primary focus will be on support and making the right choices for how soldiers would have talked about that previously. It is about a jigsaw of measures. The provision that we are just talking about is one tool for local authorities. If we talk about the example again for tackling contamination—I know that you heard from the wrap—Wales colleagues who talked about how it is one part of a much broader jigsaw of measures, which primarily talks about social norms supporting householders and the application of such a penalty would be envisaged at the end of a lengthy process, through which we work through an absolute process of work with householders. There is a whole ladder of measures that we would see coming into effect, beginning with support, beginning with education and only then would the civil regime and the fixed penalties come into play. At the end of a process, it is primarily focused on supporting householders. Will it be introduced at a later juncture in terms of implementation of this act? Is there a staging of the implementation of this act envisaged, or would the intention be to implement it as a whole? In terms of the householders' duty of care, that is not a staging approach. The duty of care already exists in implementing a fixed penalty notice of £200, which is intended to be a last resort and only then, if there is no basis to suppose that the householder made an attempt to meet their duty of care. Really, that is about persistent and repeat offenders. In terms of other work that I am doing in this space, I have met with Gumtree, I think it is twice now, to talk about how they can support their customers, their users, to do the right thing. One of the things that we have suggested, which I do believe that they are intending to implement, is when people are advertising white van man services, waste services that they have by Gumtree. It is not something that we are legally obliging them to do to post their waste handling licence, which means that that would enable the householder to have completed their duty of care. Yes, I have seen their waste handling number. That is the kind of thing that, working with online platforms and other services, we can help them to put in place those measures so that the householder can say, yes, I have met my duty of care. I am going to give each and Sarah one question that I apologise. In fact, I will be generous too, if that quick. Sarah, you can go first. The minister's opening statement referenced £1 billion of investment over the last decade in recycling services for local authorities. Is it possible for the committee to get a breakdown of that? To give us more information about the recycling improvement fund, Solace said that it is going in the next year to 18 months. What is going to be replaced with, because finance has been an issue for local authorities since the first consultation on this bill in 2019? I am very happy to write to the committee with the breakdown of where the funding went, and where that earlier funding went as well. In terms of the follow-on from the recycling improvement fund, I have been speaking with my officials about this week and understanding what investment will be required. There is a lot of moving parts in this space with the extended producer responsibility for packaging, which provides funding to operate an efficient and effective recycling scheme for those materials, but not necessarily upfront capital for that, which would have to then be found. I am undertaking the work to set that out so that we can have that in parallel as we develop these as we go forward. I am happy to write to the committee on the existing funding. There are two questions in one, quickly, Sarah, with another. It is that issue of the infrastructure, because councils are setting their 24-25 budgets now, so 2030 is not long. It is the estimates about waste and recycling centres, vehicles, the need for the infrastructure as well as the comms. Local authorities and Solace have said that they do not agree with the stats in the financial statement that was produced by the Scottish Government. What is your response? Have you got other information that would back up the fact that there is a huge gap between what the Government is saying and what local authorities are saying? This is something that we need to develop going forward. This is a process that we are starting now as we start to develop the code of practice, start to understand the extended producer responsibility funding model going forward and then knowing what infrastructure investment we will need in Scotland. We are at the start of the process of doing that. I will try to be as brief as I can. Minister, you are aware that I have done a consultation on a member's bill on flytipping, which is progressing very well. There are four elements to that. I am very pleased that section 10 of the bill picks up the question of the household responsibility. We are going to come on in a moment to talk about the level of fine, so I will leave that. That leaves me with two issues and two questions, which is very helpful. The first question is very straightforward on the question of data collection. We have quite a confused picture at the moment where we have a number of bodies involved in data collection. We have local authorities. We have Zero Waste Scotland with an involvement. We have SIPA with an involvement. In your flytipping strategy, you recognise that there is a need to improve the consistency and quality of data collection. Would it be helpful to amend the bill at stage 2 to put a specific duty on ministers to collect and publish data so that we have a central point rather than that being spread across different organisations? I do not think that we need legislation to undertake this particular exercise, but I think that the member is absolutely right that we need to do it. The national litter and flytipping strategy, as you rightly say, sets out the measures to improve data collection by creating a stakeholder data sharing agreement to support the gathering of data and work with stakeholders to improve consistency of data collection. We are exploring and incorporating data into a national database and ensuring fit for purpose mechanisms for citizen reporting of flytipping. That work is under way, but I do not feel that we need to legislate for that. My second question, and I know that the convener will be very interested in this point, because it has to do with the question of liability. The question has been raised with me over many years, particularly by the National Farmers Union of Scotland, who I very agree, because the current law says that if an innocent landowner has wasted dump on their land, they are responsible for the cost of clearing that up. That is an offence to the polluter pays principle that you make clear in the flytipping strategy that underpins the Scottish Government's approach. That is not the polluter pays principle, this is the innocent victim of flytipping being held responsible for the cost of cleanup. I have got numerous case studies from NFUS at Scottish Land and the States and others where the innocent landowner has been held liable by SIPA for the cost of cleanup. Surely we need to get that sorted, because it is not fair. I am a landowner, and I have suffered from flytipping. The last case was this last weekend. Having put that on the record, if you would like to answer the question, please. Thank you, convener. I can only imagine how frustrating that is to have a waste crime committed on your land. I will answer you well, good or else, because there are some legal points around that particular question. Section 59 does not place an immediate legal liability on the occupier of land, but it provides a means of serving a notice to compel the occupier to remove the waste in circumstances from the land, which must be what has occurred in those situations. While that could be used in any circumstances, it is likely only used by SIPA or local authorities where there is substantial evidence that the landowner bears some responsibility for the deposited waste. SIPA and local authorities also have powers to remove waste from land, so that they can do it themselves. Although we recognise that private landowners are often the victims of flytipping and recognise the need for further action to help support those victims, their proposal, as in the member's bill, would significantly affect SIPA's ability to tackle serious waste crime. Removal of the provision in section 59.1 would allow occupiers of land to bear some responsibility for flytipping waste to escape liability for unlawful behaviour, leaving the public purse to bear the removal and clean-up. I don't have else, so you want to come in on the legal point there? Yes, I can just add to that. Section 59 does not impose legal liability for the costs, but what it does is allow enforcement authorities to serve a notice requiring the landowner to clean up the waste. It is not imposing the liability for the clean-up costs, but SIPA and local authorities have powers to clean up the waste themselves. It is