Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee – 14 November 2023

Good morning, and welcome to the  32nd meeting of the Net Zero,   Energy and Transport Committee in 2023. We have  received apologies from Mark Ruskell and we are   joined by Bob Doris, who is a new member  of the committee. I welcome him officially  

To the meeting. We are very  pleased to have you here, Bob. The first item on the agenda is a declaration of   interests by our new member. Bob, do  you have any interests to declare? Thank you, convener. It is a pleasure to  be a member of the committee. As usual,  

I draw members’ attention to my entry in the  register of members’ interests, but I do not   think that anything there is particularly relevant  to the work and proceedings of this committee. Thank you. I remind members  that, if they wish to declare  

An interest in connection with any item  that comes up, they may, of course, do so. Agenda item 2 is a decision to take  agenda items 7 and 8 in private. Item   7 is consideration of the evidence  heard on the Circular Economy Bill,  

And item 8 is consideration of our work programme.  Do members agree to take those items in private? Our next item of business is consideration of a   draft statutory instrument. I am pleased  to welcome the Minister for Transport,   Fiona Hyslop, who is joined by  two Scottish Government officials:  

Elise McIntyre, a principal legal officer at  the Scottish Government legal directorate,   and Fred O’Hara, head of road policy for Transport  Scotland. I thank them for joining us today. The instrument is laid under  the affirmative procedure,   which means that it cannot come into force  unless the Parliament approves it. Following  

This evidence session, under the next agenda  item, the committee will be invited to consider   a motion that the committee recommends that  the instrument be approved. I remind everyone   that officials can speak during this item  but not during the debate that follows. I invite the minister to make  a brief opening statement.

Thank you for inviting me to provide evidence  on the Parking Prohibitions Regulations 2023. As members are aware, the Transport  Act 2019 prohibits pavement parking,   double parking and parking at dropped kerbs  and provides for penalty charges to apply   where those prohibitions are contravened. To  support that, the regulations laid in Parliament  

Last month provide local authorities with  the procedure to follow when enforcing the   parking prohibitions. That will enable  them to issue penalty charge notices to   those in contravention of those prohibitions of  £100, reducing to £50 if paid within 14 days.

That brings to a conclusion a significant  package of work that was progressed following the   implementation of the act, including regulations  that were brought into force in December 2022   that gave local authorities a procedure to  follow to exempt areas of footway in their  

Areas from the pavement parking prohibitions. We  have also progressed commencement regulations to   bring the relevant provisions of the act into  force. Passing these regulations will be the   final part of enabling those important parking  prohibitions to come into effective operation.

Earlier this year, as part of the development  of the regulations, a public consultation was   carried out. Almost 500 responses were received  from a mix of individuals, local authorities   and community councils. The feedback from  the consultation showed that the public are  

Overwhelmingly in support of the regulations to  improve accessibility on our roads and pavements. My officials have been working closely with  local authorities across Scotland to assist   them in preparing for the regulations coming into  force. The input received was vital in shaping the  

Regulations that are now under discussion. In  addition, my officials continue to work closely   with local authorities and the Convention of  Scottish Local Authorities to identify what   further funding will be required to facilitate  the implementation of the regulations and provide   support to authorities in setting up back-office  functions to enforce the regulations effectively.

The regulations and the subsequent parking  standards guidance, which will go hand in   hand with the regulations, are needed to provide  local authorities with a procedure to follow when   enforcing the parking prohibitions and will  be in line with the powers that are provided  

In the 2019 act. They also set out the  procedures to be followed in relation to   the appeals process and the circumstances  in which a penalty charge notice may be   appealed. The regulations also lay out the  procedures to be followed in respect of the  

Keeping of accounts and the purposes for  which any financial surplus can be used. It is important to stress that inconsiderate,  obstructive or dangerous parking can and does   cause serious problems for everyone and puts  the safety of pedestrians and other motorists  

In jeopardy. The parking prohibitions are aimed at  promoting, supporting and advancing the rights of   pavement users, to ensure that our pavements and  roads are accessible for all. Transport Scotland   will also launch an awareness campaign in the  coming days to ensure that the public are aware  

Of the new regulations and the fact that local  authorities will have the power to issue and   enforce penalty charge notices from 11 December,  should the regulations be approved by Parliament. The campaign will focus on changing the behaviour  of drivers who park inconsiderately and on raising  

Awareness of the impact that that can have  on all pavement users. I am happy to answer   any questions that the committee might  have on the content of the regulations. Thank you very much, minister. I followed the  Transport Act 2019 through the Rural Economy  

And Connectivity Committee at stages  1 and 2, and then through Parliament.   Pavement parking was probably one of the most  contentious issues. Agreement was reached,   but the issue was refining the details, so I will  just drill into some of the details, if I may.

The bill gives ministers the ability to  give councils directions on exemptions.   Have you issued such directions and do  you think that those are sufficient? As the convener will know, I was deputy  convener of this committee when it studied   the exemptions regulations as they passed  through Parliament. Some local authorities have  

Identified the roads that they want to exempt,  but many are still in the process of doing that.   Therefore, there is on-going engagement between  my officials and different local authorities,   but it is up to local authorities to identify  which of their roads they want to be exempt.

How far down the line are you? Have  you issued any exemptions or is there   enough time between now and December to  issue the exemptions that are needed? It is an on-going relationship. It  is important that it is done in a   co-operative way between central  Government and local authorities,  

And that engagement continues. It has  been done in a very co-operative way. Perhaps Fred O’Hara can give an indication of the  level of engagement, but I would prefer not to be   issuing directions, if that is the invitation.  It is better that it is done in co-operation.

My understanding is that local authorities  can request exemptions in certain areas. I   am asking whether any local authorities  have requested exemptions and whether   you have indicated that you will accede to them. They are in the process of doing that.  Some will have done so and some will not,  

As yet, have done so, but they  are in the process of doing that. Perhaps Fred O’Hara can give the committee  more information about that engagement. I am happy to come in on that. The exemptions were in front of the committee  last year, so the exemption procedures are now  

Through Parliament and in statute. The  ministerial directions for those at that   time were issued in December last year,  and those were the guidelines as to where   a local authority could potentially exempt  a street. We are in discussions with COSLA   and the Scottish Collaboration of Transportation  Specialists—SCOTS—to look at how many exemptions  

Are being brought in. The process is for local  authorities to follow, which they have been doing. We are actively trying to figure out how many  are coming through, but it is still in process.   We will, in fact, issue a questionnaire  to all local authorities later this week  

To find out exactly where each one of them is  and how many exemptions they are potentially   bringing in. We are trying to get more of  that information out of the local authorities. It strikes me that time is marching on. If you  do not have an exemption, you are not exempt,  

And the areas where there are problems and  bottlenecks might fall within the legislation. It is for the local authorities  to ascertain where those are. We   fully funded the exemption order process  two years ago. We issued £2.4 million of   funding for local authorities to go and  look at the streets that they think they  

Need to exempt. Some are further forward than  others on that. We are pushing to ensure that   they use the funding that we have already  given them to go and assess the streets. Okay. I will crack on with  a few questions that I have.

There are slots, or bays, where drivers  are allowed to park on pavements. There   are some exemptions to allow them to  do that. Are you happy that those are   sufficiently regulated to ensure that  they do not multiply or are not lost? It would be a commonsense  approach for a local authority  

To determine in its own local area whether  it has such bays and what it needs. It is   important to understand that you have in front  of you the regulations for the enforcement and   the penalties and so on. It will be a matter  for local authorities to establish in their own  

Local areas how, and the degree to which,  the regulations are enforced and how the   exemptions—as opposed to the areas that are  already designated for parking—are treated. This is a technical question. The fine  is issued to the person who owns the  

Vehicle that gets the parking ticket, although  they may not be the operator of the vehicle.   Is there an ability to pass the fine on to  the person who was operating the vehicle,   or is it up to the owner of the vehicle to  pay the fine and try to get the money back?

I will ask Elise McIntyre to come in on that. The penalty charge is payable by the  registered keeper of the vehicle except   in certain defined circumstances that are  set out in the regulations. Those include,   for example, circumstances in which the  registered keeper had sold or transferred  

The vehicle before the contravention  occurred; then, the fine would be for the   person who was the keeper of, or who was  in charge of, the vehicle at that time. There are various other possibilities.  For example, if it was a hire car,   the registered keeper would be the hire company.

I am sorry—I am going into too much detail. I understand that, if you hire a car,  you are responsible for it. However,   there are lots of other situations.  For example, within a family,   if the registered keeper was a parent but it  was their child who was racking up the fines,  

The parent would be the one who would  cop it. Are you happy with that? I think that that is normal  practice for these things. Is it? The registered keeper has the responsibility for  fines. There is an awareness issue, and we are  

Going to try to raise awareness among everybody.  However, if I were in a family in that situation,   I think I would be telling my children not  to pavement park, because there should not be   pavement parking anyway and because I would  not want them to make me liable for fines.

Okay. I have a final question, which  I know other committee members have,   too. In some loading bays, for very good  reason, there are dropped kerbs to allow   people to move stuff from lorries up  on to pavements. As I understand it,  

If a dropped kerb is not being used by or is not  designated for wheelchair users, it will not be   caught under this legislation. It would help  to have clarity on whether that is the case. I think that that is correct. If a  dropped kerb is outside commercial  

Or residential premises, it will  not be caught by the prohibition. Thank you. Monica, do you have  a question that you want to ask? Yes. Good morning, minister and colleagues.  Convener, you have touched on some of the   questions that I had about the work that  is being done to survey the streets and  

See which ones should be exempt. I think  that Fred O’Hara said that £2.4 million   in funding has already been allocated to local  government. It would be good to get more detail,   after today’s session, of how that money  has been used over the past two years to  

Resource this exercise and to get an update  on which streets, if any, will be exempt. I also have a question on the attitude  to enforcement. I appreciate that it   is for the local authorities to carry  out enforcement, but I wonder whether  

The minister has a view on the approach that  should be taken. We know what the procedures   are. Some might call them intelligence led,  but sometimes there is a lot of discretion,   which leads to a lot of variation. For example,  my office has been asked to look at enforcement  

Around engine idling. We did some freedom of  information requests on that and found that   most local authorities take a non-enforcement  approach to engine idling and try to identify   teachable moments to educate on it. Does the  minister anticipate that councils will take  

A similar approach to pavement parking,  or will there be a more robust approach? There are a number of things to say on  that. I think that the committee has   looked at clean air enforcement issues more  generally and has reflected on the fact that  

Local authorities use their discretion. In some  circumstances, however, they have taken a stronger   enforcement line when they have been trying  to persuade people to understand the issue. It is clear that local authorities have powers  in this area. Normally, the Government gets  

Criticised for being overzealous in telling local  authorities what to do, but this is an issue on   which we have to respect local authorities, who  know their communities, their towns and their   areas, and so they know the level of enforcement  that they want to carry out. That is why they  

Have discretion in the extent to which they  carry out that enforcement. We are giving them   the powers to enable that, and the penalties  will be, we hope, a diversionary implement. The use of “teachable moments”—if that is  the term that you used—is really important.  

We all know that there are many behaviours  in relation to cars—such as not wearing seat   belts and drink driving—that, over many years,  have changed in line with changes in what is   acceptable. In recent years, coming through the  pandemic, people have walked their streets more,  

They own their places more and they want  to be able to do that in comfort. All of   us who have children have probably been  in a situation with pavement parking—I   was reflecting that I had two children  in a double buggy. The most frustrating  

Thing when someone is pavement parking is that  they are, by and large, forcing women with young   children on to the streets. We are saying,  “Do you know that that isn’t acceptable? Why   don’t we just agree that we don’t do  that ” There is a behavioural aspect,  

Which is why there will be a marketing campaign  to persuade people to change that behaviour. On enforcement, local authorities have the tools,  they have the legislation and they now have the   opportunity to use penalty notices as well.  We are providing the tools so that, if they  

Want to use the stick, they can. However,  why do we, as a country, not just say,   “Let’s stop pavement parking and allow people  to use the pavements with freedom”? Whether   we are talking about people with guide dogs or in  wheelchairs, elderly people walking their dogs in  

Narrow spaces or parents or grandparents with  buggies, we should let people use the pavements. In your opening remarks, you talked about  public support for the legislation and its   aim of reducing the impact on people of  pavement parking. You also mentioned that   it is important that back-office functions  are resourced properly to ensure effective  

Enforcement. Can you give an update on  the funding picture for the measure? We have some estimates, but again we are  working with SCOTS—that is, the transportation   officers—and with local authorities on what  they think that they will need. Obviously,  

It is part of the on-going discussion that we  are having with COSLA and local authorities. Thank you. We have a whole heap of questions  to get through. I call Douglas   Lumsden, to be followed by Bob Doris. I remind the committee of my entry in  the register of members’ interests, which  

Shows that I was a councillor at  the start of the current session. As far as inconsiderate parking is  concerned, minister, I think that   we are all behind you with regard to  the situation that you have described   of buggies and wheelchairs trying to get down  the pavement. Indeed, I would say that other  

Areas, such as hedges overgrowing  pavements, need to be tackled, too. Sticking with pavement parking, though, I can  think of streets in some of our bigger cities   that have tenement buildings on either side of  quite narrow roads. As a result, people park on  

The pavement to ensure that there is still space  down the middle. I guess that, come 11 December,   people who live in one of those areas could get a  ticket every day. Is there anywhere that residents   can go to see whether the council considers  their street to be an exemption zone? Is there  

Some process by which residents can lobby the  council to make their street an exemption zone—as   long, of course, as the pavement is wide enough  to cope with wheelchairs, buggies et cetera? The committee looked at the exemptions process  in the regulations last year. That is the process  

To enable local authorities to identify such  exemptions, and part of that is consultation   that the authorities carry out. I do not know what  has happened in each of the 32 local authorities,   but that is the process for identifying streets  where there might be issues. My understanding  

Is that local authorities are able to advertise  whether an area is eligible for pavement parking.   Some authorities have done that work, and some  are in the process of doing it. Again, though,   they will need to take a commonsense  view as to what is practical. At the  

Same time, this is, as you have said, about how  we make sure that our streets are accessible. I am concerned about the issue, as we are  not that far away from 11 December. Given   that we do not know how many applications  there have been for exemptions, how will  

Residents know whether they will still be able  to park outside their house in a month’s time? I will bring in Fred O’Hara to give you some  information, but I would have thought that the   sensible thing would be for local authorities to  identify and publicise that on their websites.  

However, they will also want to go through a  process with their committees on how to enforce   the measure. We know that that discussion has just  started in Edinburgh, where the council thinks   that it will be the first to put the measure in  place. There might be a period of time before  

Local authorities know that they are ready to  enforce the penalties that we are providing them   with the powers to enforce, should the committee  and the Parliament agree to the instrument. The local authority has the power to  introduce exemption zones but, in doing so,  

It has to sign and line where people are allowed  to park on the pavement. This is a national ban,   and it applies unless one of those sign-and-lines  areas is on the pavement outside your house. It is for local authorities to advertise the  process, which is what the committee looked at  

Last time. The exemption order process is  there for them to follow, and it includes   advertising the orders and putting them on  their websites—and even in the local press,   if they so wish. The process is very similar  to, for example, the traffic regulation order  

Process that already exists for double yellow  lines. A local authority’s website should have   a list of the exemption orders that it is already  putting through as well as any potential orders. I come back, then, to the convener’s  original question: have you seen them?

We have seen some from certain local authorities.  We have seen some movement from Dundee and   Inverclyde, for example, and they have things up  and running and are looking at what they need to   put in. I have not seen any that are complete or  which are on the ground yet, but that is certainly  

How they are going, and most of the other local  authorities are following this through, too. Would you expect local authorities to have  a bit of leeway to start with—maybe to issue   tickets that will not be enforced, just to  make people aware that they cannot carry on  

With their behaviours until an exemption order is  in place or they can ask for an exemption order? We have been through the process with local  authorities and talked about how they would   handle this in the initial period. Some of them  are going with a soft launch campaign, in which  

They will put leaflets, as opposed to tickets, on  windscreens. They are looking at raising awareness   first; then, once their exemption orders  are in place, they will start ticketing. Minister, you said that there is still quite  a lot of work to be done in the background—I  

Think that you said that it is some admin.  Will that all be done before 11 December? Again, it is up to local authorities to decide  what they need to do when it comes to their own   processes. Some are further ahead than others,  but we are providing the powers for them to carry  

Out enforcement using penalty notices if they  choose to do that. It is up to them to work out   their level of enforcement. Clearly, some local  authorities might want to take a heavier hand   sooner rather than later, but the more commonsense  point of view, which has just been illustrated,  

Is to give people notice in some shape or form  to raise awareness—it is about saying, “Look,   this is coming in now,” whether that is through  leaflets or whatever, in the relevant streets. I had no interest to declare but,  as I was listening to the questions,  

I thought that perhaps I should mention that  I am patron of the Glasgow Access Panel, which   is based in Maryhill in my constituency, and that  there is a crossover in some of the work. Although   that is not formally declarable, I put it  on the record for the sake of transparency.

I have a couple of questions. My first relates  to the education and awareness campaign. Most   people accept that pavement parking is pretty  inconsiderate—drivers know what they are   doing, but they are a bit inconsiderate.  We have to change that culture. However,  

Drivers are often oblivious to dropped kerbs.  That is an unintended consequence, which is due   not to wilful ignorance but to a lack of  awareness. Will the education campaign   take that on board? There is a difference in  where drivers are in relation to those things.

I was keen to bring forward the marketing  campaign because, although there was a lot   of awareness at the time that the Government  adopted Sandra White’s member’s bill into   the Transport Act 2019, which was passed at  the end of that year, time has passed since  

The ban was brought in on double parking,  dropped kerb parking and pavement parking.   That is why it is important to remind people  that the Parliament passed that law in 2019,   and that what is happening now is the  delivery, the operation and the final  

Elements of bringing it into force by providing  the enforcement and the penalty notice process. There has to be action on awareness, because  of the passage of time. There is a duty and   responsibility on us all to help in making  sure that people are aware—because, I suspect,  

They might not be aware. Although they might  be aware of pavement parking as an issue, they   are not necessarily aware of the dropped  kerb issue. That is a challenge because,   as you said, people might not be sighted  on dropped kerbs. Again, it is for  

Local authorities and their enforcement  officers to identify what is reasonable   or unreasonable, and what a commonsense  approach would be in such a situation. I want to ask about enforcement  and the guidance on that. Glasgow City Council—certainly  in my constituency—is very good.  

I have constituents who use wheelchairs and  mobility scooters and who had no access to   local services. The council had a direct  conversation with them about their lived   experience and put in dropped kerbs  to allow them to go about their lives. However, when it comes to enforcement,  there are breaches from drivers. I get  

That enforcement has to be intelligence  led, practical and cost effective. That   might lead to enforcement in areas where other  enforcement is already taking place—where there   are clusters of potential driver breaches.  In addition, it might not be in their local   communities that those on a mobility  scooter or in a wheelchair have their  

Lives devastated by not being able to cross  the road. A constituent of mine has had to   travel an alternative route of almost one mile  because of breaches involving dropped kerbs. What guidance is there that local authorities  should not focus their enforcement only  

On clusters of potential breaches or on  areas where enforcement is cost effective,   but should carry out enforcement  where there are individual breaches   that could absolutely devastate the  lives of those with mobility issues? That is an important point. Again, it is a  decision to be made by local authorities,  

But local authorities should be informed by  local communities. The continuous dialogue   that is helping to inform the guidance on parking  standards will come out at the same time as we   commence the regulations, should they be agreed  to when the committee and the Parliament vote.

On the responsibility of individuals, councillors  will no doubt be approached by people who   have individual circumstances. They can take  that up with the local authority. Similarly,   MSPs will no doubt be contacted. Local  authorities increasingly have access   panels of the type that the member spoke  about, and the Government consults the  

Mobility and Access Committee for Scotland to  get its advice. That is proper and responsible   community engagement. Any individual issue  can be addressed with representation,   but I cannot make local authorities do  that; they have to do it themselves.

That is all positive, and I get it and have  sympathy for local authorities. They are on   tight budgets, and they need to be practical and  realistic about where enforcement will take place,   but is there guidance to ensure that they  do not focus only on areas where they can  

Get the largest amount of income or have  the biggest impact in enforcing breaches,   rather than individual cases such  as those that I highlighted, where   enforcement might have a much bigger impact  in changing the quality of a person’s life?

The guidance is being prepared and finalised. Mr  Doris makes a very good point, and I am sure that,   if it is not already shaped in the guidance,  we could consider putting it in. It is a   very good point; it is not about whether  the regulations have either a mass impact  

Or an impact on the quality of life for  one individual, because both are important. Good morning. I welcome the fact  that the regulations are being   put in place to implement these  important aspects in the 2019 act. Quite understandably, during the process of the  2019 act, the needs of businesses for deliveries  

And unloading were considered, and exemptions were  made in section 55 to allow pavement parking in   reasonable circumstances as long as there is  a gap of 1.5m at the edge of the pavement and   the parking does not take place for more than 20  minutes. Unfortunately, in my constituency and  

Others in urban Scotland, deliveries take place  in an unreasonable way, which means that there is   not adequate space left at the side, and delivery  vehicles are parked for longer than 20 minutes. We do not want to punish people; we want to change  attitudes and practices—as the minister said—so,  

As part of the delivery of the enforcement  of the regulations, as well as a public   marketing campaign, will there be significant  engagement with businesses, organisations,   the large supermarkets and the prominent delivery  companies—of which there is a long list—such  

As Parcelforce, DPD and UPS? It will be important  to inform the drivers that change is coming. Engagement with key delivery companies  has been continuous. It has been   part of the process of drawing up the  regulations. Marketing will be general,  

But communications can be done nationally,  and I am keen that that takes place. However,   I also expect local authorities, along  with their local Chamber of Commerce,   to actively engage with businesses on particular  streets where they will want to enforce the  

Measure. I reassure you that ensuring that  drivers are aware is part of an on-going process. In reflecting on the issues with  parking, we have recognised that,   although some deliveries take place  in branded vans and white vans,   so we know who they are, increasingly, they are  done by people in their own vehicles. However,  

If someone is making deliveries for a  business purpose, as long as they abide   by the regulations that the member referred to,  they will not be subject to a penalty notice. Those were all the questions that we had;  there was quite a lengthy list this morning.

The next agenda item is a debate on  the motion calling for the committee   to recommend approval of the draft  Parking Prohibitions Regulations 2023. Minister, would you like to speak to  the motion and move it, or just move it? I am happy to just move it. I move,

That the Net Zero, Energy and  Transport Committee recommends   that the Parking Prohibitions  Regulations 2023 be approved. Do any members want to make a contribution? It is not a contribution but, given the  nature of what has just been discussed,   I refer to my entry in the register of  interests, under the voluntary section,  

As I am a patron of Disability Equality  Scotland. I want to be transparent about that. That is noted. As no other  members have any comments,   minister, can I ask you to sum  up and respond to the debate? I thank the committee for its  questions and contributions,  

And I hope that there is support for this  important final part of the regulations. The question is, that motion S6M-10704, in the  name of Fiona Hyslop, be approved. Are we agreed? The committee will report on the outcome of the   instrument in due course. I invite the  committee to delegate authority to me,  

As convener, to finalise the report  for publication. Are we agreed? Jackie, you look nervous about  that. Are you happy about it? Yes, I am delighted. Welcome back. Our next item of business  is an evidence session with environmental   advocacy groups as part of our stage 1  scrutiny of the Circular Economy Bill.

I am pleased to welcome Phoebe Cochrane,   who is the sustainable economics  officer at Scottish Environment LINK;   Michael Cook, who is the chief executive officer  of Circular Communities Scotland; James Mackenzie,   who is the circular economy advisor at Action  to Protect Rural Scotland; and Kim Pratt,  

Who is a circular economy campaigner from  Friends of the Earth Scotland. Thank you   for joining us today and for submitting evidence  in response to the committee’s call for views. I   also welcome Murdo Fraser MSP, who is joining us  in connection with a specific aspect of the bill.

We have allowed up to 75 minutes for this  agenda item and we will move straight to   questions from committee members. I will kick  off with an easy question and will give each   witness an opportunity to answer. You will not  get the opportunity to answer every question,  

But the first one is easy. Is it useful to have  a circular economy strategy as part of the bill,   and should that be in the bill rather  than something that is produced later? James Mackenzie, would you like to begin?

We do, of course, support having a circular  economy strategy. It is not clear to us why that   should be a statutory requirement when ministers  could make their own strategy. However, the   bill as drafted, or perhaps as amended, has the  potential to enhance the way in which Parliament  

Can scrutinise ministers and see how  they are living up to their objectives. It would be more useful if the bill included an  explicit purpose, like the aims in the National   Parks Act 2000 and in some other legislation.  This bill does not have that. It says that  

There should be “regard to” various elements  of the circular economy, but it does not have   the core purpose that would help to inform  the strategy and other policies in the bill. We support the provisions in the  bill that relate to a strategy. I  

May be stating the obvious, but it  is better to have a strategy than   not to have one. Providing for a strategy  in the legislation means that its frequency   can be set, with the potential to set out what  other legislation must be taken into account.

I agree with what James Mackenzie said  about a purpose. We would like there to   be greater clarity on what we are  trying to achieve with the strategy,   and in what timeframe. That might include taking  a top-down approach to the waste hierarchy,  

Or valuing the environmental and social  impacts that the circular economy can deliver.   We would like those things to be explicitly  stated, but we are supportive of a strategy. We support a strategy being in the legislation.  After all, we have had a strategy since 2016,  

But a lot of that has not been delivered.  Putting a strategy into legislation,   with the reporting requirements that go along  with that, would give it greater strength.   We also think that the strategy should  be linked to the delivery of the targets,  

Once those have been set, but  that is not included in the bill. We generally welcome the bill  and any comments that I make here   today are about making it as robust as possible. We also support the strategy being included  in the bill. We suggest that the Climate  

Change Act 2009 is a useful template for  the framework that should be in the bill.   That act includes a strategy—the climate  change plan—and that strategy is quantified,   is linked to targets and sets out plans for each  sector. That is what we need for this bill, too.

Thank you; that is useful. Some parliamentarians—I  put myself in that bracket—are very nervous about   framework bills, which leave a lot of things  to be agreed after the legislation comes into   force. To my mind, that does not allow for full  parliamentary scrutiny. Are you concerned as I am,  

Or are you happy that this is a framework  bill and that the meat will come later? I will start in the middle of the  panel and work my way outwards.   Michael Cook, you are just about in the middle.

Framework legislation has its place but, by  itself, it is like a chair with one leg—it is   not stable. You need to be clear not only what  powers you are creating but how those will be   used and what the unintended consequences of those  powers might be. In this case, with this bill,  

The waste route map is another leg to that  chair, and it should be seen alongside the bill. With regard to what is in the waste route  map, if we have the power to create charges,   what would we plan to use those charges for, in  what products and what might be the unintended  

Consequences of that? The devil is always in  the detail. Therefore, we are supportive of   the powers in the bill, but we are keen to  know how those will be used—as you will be. I will turn to James Mackenzie.  I am just throwing the question  

Around so that you cannot predict  when you are going to speak next. That is absolutely fine, convener. I am  happy to be put on the spot. In general   terms—more broadly than this legislation—I  share your concerns about the extensive   reliance on framework legislation. There is a  middle position where there are more detailed  

Framework parameters for how ministers should use  powers under secondary legislation. Obviously,   the use of secondary legislation reduces scrutiny.  By the time that a statutory instrument comes   to this committee, you cannot  amend it. It can go only up or   down, and you will have to rely primarily  on the Government’s consultation process.

From our perspective, the framework ought  to be broader. Not for the first time,   I will talk about producer responsibility.  There is nothing in the framework on producer   responsibility, which we think  should be the core of the bill. I will go back to Phoebe Cochrane.

In these circumstances, we support a framework  bill. For issues such as the circular economy   and climate change, which are multifaceted,  legislation needs to operate at all levels   and in all sectors. Those are also fast-changing  areas, with innovations and policy developments   coming through all the time. Without keeping  the option of a broad-scope approach,  

You would come across hurdles that  require more legislation down the line. Kim Pratt, you have predicted that you are next. Yes, I agree that we need framework  legislation to create a circular   economy. We need to completely change the  way that we use materials in our system and,  

To create those system-wide changes, we need a  strong clear framework to lead us on that path. Again, the Climate Change Act 2009 can be a  useful guide for that. We see the need for   four main elements in the framework for the bill,  drawn from that climate change legislation, which  

Was supported by this Parliament. We want  consumption-reduction targets to be set in   primary legislation. Those should be based  on science and be legally binding. We need   a strategy. We need monitoring and reporting  requirements that are specified in the bill   rather than by ministers; that should include  a new independent body to monitor progress.  

We also need just transition principles,  which are completely missing from the bill. I am hearing mixed messages of support.  That is where I am at with those responses. Good morning. Kim Pratt, you have gone  straight in to talking about targets,  

Which I wanted to ask about, but we have  already heard about the link between the   strategy and the targets and what those  might be, so I might come back to you. Phoebe Cochrane, perhaps you can go first to  say a bit more about what circular economy  

Targets you would like to be introduced  and whether you are satisfied with the   framework that the bill provides for setting  those targets. The committee is also interested   to hear any relevant international  examples of consumption-based targets. I will not pretend that the targets are  not a difficult area, but we definitely  

Need consumption-based targets. That is the  backdrop to the urgency of this legislation   and our climate and biodiversity crises,  of which our material consumption is the   key driver and is increasingly recognised  as such. We need targets that relate to the  

Quantity of materials that we are consuming and  the environmental impact of that consumption. We   have proposed that targets are introduced  on our carbon and material footprints. We recognise that there will be arguments  against those targets with regard to the   reliability of the data. However, the carbon  footprint especially is something that we  

Already report on—we have done so for some  time—but no target has been associated with   it. We have been publishing the material  footprint for a couple of years now, and the   data on that is improving, so that  could also be used to set a target.

The Dutch Government introduced a material  footprint target a good few years ago. It was   one of the first Governments to do so. The  European Parliament has approved footprint   targets and various other jurisdictions have  footprint targets, including Flanders and—I am   struggling to remember other examples now;  they are somewhere in my notes. Kim Pratt  

Will probably jump in with other examples.  Those targets look at overall footprints. On the other end of the process,  residual waste per capita is a   useful target for which we definitely  have data, and that aspect is easy. Looking at the most harmful and most  carbon-intensive materials or goods,  

Food waste is a target that should be in  legislation and there should be increased   ambition on that. Food waste is one of the  key areas that can have the biggest impact,   on both biodiversity and climate, with regard to  increased circularity. I will let others come in.

That is really helpful. I will come back to  Kim Pratt and ask Michael Cook to respond next. Targets have their place. So far, we have talked  about strategy and targets. To put it simply,   targets are about where we want to go and  strategy is about how we are going to get  

There. In this case, targets without  system change are targets that we will   miss. I point to the current recycling  targets as an example. We had a target   of 60 per cent by 2020 and are currently  at 43.3 per cent for last year. Therefore,  

Targets have their place, but you will  not hit them simply by setting them. We support Friends of the Earth’s  call for a consumption target,   but one target that we would love to see and that  is missing is a re-use target. There is a lot of  

Focus in the bill and, indeed, in current targets  on recycling. However, re-use is a lot better for   the environment and for people than recycling.  I will give an example to make that clear. If I  

Recycle a laptop, I recycle the plastic, the glass  and the metal but, if I re-use it, it remains a   laptop, and, if it is broken, I fix it. That  is so much better for jobs and the environment. We believe that we need—this is slightly  technical—a preparation for re-use target.  

That target would be on the percentage of material  that is presented at local authority household   waste recycling centres that goes for re-use  over other processes, whether that is landfill,   incineration or recycling. That would  be a huge strength for this bill,  

Because re-use is a second-class citizen  to recycling with regard to how money is   spent and how facilities are orientated  to the behaviours that come afterwards. On international examples, Flanders has  implemented a re-use target. Instead of doing  

It in an abstract way, it has related it to head  of population, so it is expressed as kilograms of   re-use per person living in an area. That makes  a city comparable to a rural area, for example.  

Undoubtedly, that has driven up levels of re-use,  which has, in turn, created jobs and made it more   convenient and easier for the public to re-use  more, so you have a sort of virtuous circle. Thank you. If there is a perception that, in the  waste hierarchy—to use your words—“re-use is a  

Second-class citizen” compared with recycling,  are you nervous that the opportunity to redress   that balance in the bill might be missed? There  is a lot of discussion about the recycling part   of the bill, so are you nervous that re-use is  not given the prominence that it perhaps needs?

Yes, absolutely. If you imagine the waste  hierarchy as a ladder, the bottom rungs   of that ladder are landfill, incineration  and recycling. The top rungs are re-use,   repair and tackling consumption—they are to  do with the reduction of consumption. The  

Bill contains a huge amount about recycling and  a lot about litter and fly-tipping. All those   are good and well-intended initiatives, and we  support them, but they are really only taking   our feet off the ground and putting them  on the bottom few rungs of the ladder,  

When we should be focusing on the  top rungs and where we need to be. Zero Waste Scotland’s circularity gap report in  2023 said that Scotland is 1.3 per cent circular.   I will give an example of the problem with  bottom-up policies. If you have a landfill ban,  

It will drive up incineration capacity. We would  then have an incineration review, tackle that and   move on to recycling. We have a target to achieve  net zero by 2045. There is not time to take the   waste hierarchy ladder one rung at a time, in  effect building capacity for the next level,  

And then to decide that, actually, we  want to move to the level beyond that. Therefore, we need a clear signal to the  industry and local authorities that we are   moving to a re-use and repair economy  in which we make products last. That  

Name of the 2016 strategy that Phoebe Cochrane  referred to is “Making Things Last: A circular   economy strategy for Scotland”. Of course,  if something cannot be re-used, recycle it,   but, if it can be re-used,  that is what we should do. That is really helpful.

I draw a distinction between targets that the  Government sets for the country as a whole,   regardless of whether it has  the measures beneath them,   and targets that Government can set for  individual producers, retailers or sectors. I completely endorse what Michael Cook  said about focusing on the top of the  

Waste hierarchy. In many respects, the bill  focuses on litter, waste and recycling rather   than the top end of the hierarchy. There are  really good examples around Europe right now of   requirements being placed on producers to build  in re-use. For example, in 2020, Austria passed  

Legislation with a binding and enforceable re-use  target of 25 per cent by 2025. Portuguese law   requires that 30 per cent of all packaging—of any  material—on the market must be re-usable by 2030. A Government target is an ambition. There is an  ambition in the climate change plan and there is  

An ambition in the bill to be a circular economy,  but the examples that I gave are requirements in   the same way that there were requirements in the  deposit return scheme legislation that said, “You   must get this return rate.” Those requirements  really drive action. They tell businesses that we  

Need to shift away from single-use products—this  linear economy, which is not even a race to the   bottom; the race is finished and we  are almost at the bottom right now. There are plenty of examples of such requirements.  Everyone is talking about different targets,  

And I apologise for adding to that target-fest,  but, from our perspective, the targets that would   be very important would be those that are placed  on producers. It is about producer responsibility. I recommend to the committee a paper that was  published recently by Zero Waste Scotland and  

Others—its title briefly escapes me but it is  about recovery. It focuses on another target:   the reduction in the use of virgin materials.  That is kind of a market measure. It uses   commercial pressure to say, “You can achieve  this any way you want. If you can achieve it  

Through reduction by lightweighting, that is  great. If you can achieve it through re-use,   that is great. Refillables—that is fine”.  However, you set those targets and place them on   industry. It has to meet them, and then it  is up to the industry to innovate in order  

To do so. Those targets are binding. The  target on a Government is never binding,   as we have, regrettably, found out  in a number of other policy areas. I will try to get through the  next couple of questions quickly,  

But that was really helpful. Kim Pratt,  I will come to you. If you have anything   to briefly add to that first discussion,  please do, but are you satisfied that you   will have the opportunity to engage in the  detail of target setting and the scrutiny  

Of proposals via secondary legislation? The  bill sets out what that process might be. We need targets to guide the  scale and pace of change and   that those targets should be set in  primary legislation, in the bill. The goal of a circular economy is to make the  consumption of materials more sustainable,  

So the targets must reflect that. At the  moment, Scotland measures the impact of   its consumption in two ways: through  its material use and through the carbon   impacts of that material use. Those are  sometimes called our material footprint and  

Our carbon footprint. We would like our carbon  footprint to be used as the primary driver for   a circular economy. That is because we  have a better understanding of carbon;   we have been measuring it for longer  than we have been measuring material use.

It would also stop the problem of carbon leakage  that we have with our existing climate targets.   Those focus on reducing our emissions within  Scotland, which is important, but those are   only part of the impact that Scotland has.  In fact, 58 per cent of Scotland’s carbon  

Footprint comes from our imports, which are not  currently being included in our climate targets. We would therefore like to see the carbon  consumption targets within the bill being   used alongside our existing climate targets  to ensure, together, that Scotland’s progress   towards a more sustainable future is  as effective as possible. To do that,  

They need to be in the same units, of greenhouse  gas emissions; they both need to have the same   goal, of net zero by 2045; and they need  to be set at the same legislative level in   primary legislation so that one is not  seen as more important than the other.

Phoebe Cochrane, can you come in on the  opportunity to engage in the process? I cannot quite remember what the provisions in the  bill say in that regard, but I think that there   would be a consultation on the targets.  If there was stakeholder engagement and a  

Normal consultation in relation to developing the  targets, we would feel that that was adequate. If there are no other views on that  point, I will ask one more question. The bill provides that the Scottish ministers  “may” set targets. Are our panel satisfied that  

That goes far enough? In the context  of the climate and nature emergency,   what should be the timeframe  for setting the targets,   and should that also be reflected in  the bill? Kim, do you want to go first? We would like to see mandatory targets in  the primary framework of the bill, because  

We know that Scotland’s consumption impacts  are already extremely serious and extensive.   Earlier this year, Friends of the Earth Scotland  published a report called “Unearthing injustice:   A global approach to transition minerals”, which  looked at Scotland’s supply chains for certain   materials and found extensive environmental  and social impacts right across those chains.

That does not align with Scotland’s  goals and aims. For example,   our national performance framework  goals include the economic outcome that “our economy is ecologically accountable  as well as socially responsible.” At the moment, that is not the  case with the way in which we use  

Materials. We need to change the  whole system to make that happen. Moreover, the fact that, at the moment, we do not  account for materials in our policy making is a   risk to the success of those policies. The  energy strategy is a particularly important  

Example of that. When the energy strategy  consultation was published earlier this year,   there was no plan for how we would obtain the  materials needed to transform our energy systems,   despite the fact that some of those materials are   rare and difficult to obtain. That is  a risk to the success of those plans.

Does anyone have any further contributions? I think that “must” would make  more sense than “may”. I agree   with Kim Pratt—we are in an urgent situation. I will quote very briefly from the  Zero Waste Scotland paper that I   talked about. It refers to the United Nations  Environment Programme in pointing out that

“a circular economy allows us to end our war with   the planet without giving up  the benefits of modern life”. That seems like a good objective,  which we should expedite. Should there be mandatory targets? Yes—and the correct targets and action plan.

I will add just one little footnote, which is  that the bill is being considered at the same   time as a future vision for the circular  economy is being developed. Doing both at   the same time seems rather peculiar. I can see  the point of having the vision first and then  

Creating the primary powers to deliver  it, or of having the primary powers and   then setting the vision for how to use them, but  we are slightly held back by the current process. Thank you. I should point out that the  Official Report notes only what you  

Have said, not your nods, so I just want  to get this right. You all appeared to nod   when the point was made that the bill should  say “must” rather than “may”. Is that right? Yes. We want mandatory targets. Yes. Yes.

You believe that the word should be “must” rather  than “may”. That is clearer for the record. The deputy convener has some questions. Good morning. We have heard from  you about recycling and reuse,   but what are your thoughts on the  opportunities to redistribute unsold  

Goods rather than dispose of them? What  initiatives are there already in Scotland   to build on that? Is there anything you  would like to cite for our awareness? We support—indeed, strongly support; let us go  that far—the proposed powers around restrictions  

On the disposal of unsold consumer goods.  There have been stories in the media about   examples of perfectly good goods not being used  once and going to incineration or recycling. There are limits to the bill as proposed and areas  where we would like it to be improved. We would  

Like an acknowledgement of the waste hierarchy,  because reusing a product for its original   purpose is better than recycling. There is also  an opportunity to maximise the social impact by,   for example, donating things to a charity or  redistributing them to help the economically  

Disadvantaged. Thirdly, we need to keep it  local, instead of exporting. There is a clothing   mountain in the Atacama desert that is visible  from space, and we do not want to add to it. We talk about reuse; in many cases,  though, products have not been used once,  

So it is not even reuse—it is just use. The  simple truth is that a product that has been   created has carbon embodied within it. It took  carbon to run the factory where it was made, to   extract the materials to put into the product and  to bring the product here. Although there would be  

Certain exemptions—on health and safety or medical  grounds or with things with a best-before date—we   believe that perfectly good products should have  a useful life and that that useful life should   be maximised. Therefore, it would be worth  sending a clear signal to the private sector  

That we cannot just destroy things because  there is a brand to protect or whatever. I will mention a couple of words from the bill.  The first is “consumer”, which suggests the end   of the supply chain, but what about further up  the supply chain? The bill refers to durable  

Goods or “unsold consumer goods”, but what  about food and food waste? One of our members   is FareShare, which already does a lot of work  on food waste, and a simple statistic from it   is that food that is fit for human consumption  and which is eaten is 17 times better for the  

Environment than food that goes to animal  feed. We should not have both food poverty   and food waste. A food waste target would  support that approach, but could measures   on the destruction of goods include food? Could  it include food further up the waste hierarchy?

That sort of thing is being done in Europe. In  2016, France passed a bill specifically on food   waste. Spain has passed legislation relating to  durable goods being destroyed, and it has seen   greater levels of reuse and all the environmental  and social benefits that come from that.

That is interesting. Building on that, food  providers currently have relationships with   FareShare, and big retail companies have  relationships with community third sector   organisations—indeed, that happens in my  constituency. You talked about legislation   being key—obviously, we are looking at a bill—but,  as part of the practical implementation of the  

Circular economy, should the state be doing more  to connect such organisations so that we get that   flow-through and ensure the utilisation of  products rather than the creation of waste? I do not think that policy makers can get into the   warehouse. Hopefully, the market would follow  the right nudge towards the innovation that  

Needs to follow from a clear statement  that the goods cannot be destroyed. You are saying that, as well as  being encouraged and mandated   through legislation and otherwise,  the private sector needs to step up. Absolutely. Companies—internet retailers,  for example—are fantastic at logistics;  

They do those things so well. What this  requires is the application of that same   skill set to the priority of reducing waste and  maximising the social and environmental benefit   of those goods. In my view, therefore,  the key things that are missing from the  

Bill are statements of the waste hierarchy,  the local over the international and social   as well as environmental benefit. Those three  protections would avoid unintended consequences. One unintended consequence that we want to avoid  is a situation in which a retailer already has a  

Partnership with a local charity and gives goods  to it; the requirement to do this sort of thing at   a different scale suddenly creates a big private  sector industry; and that charitable enterprise   and the local benefits of that activity get  swept away. One example of that is the extended  

Producer responsibility legislation in France;  it used to be done at a small scale but, in the   desire to do more for the planet—which is good—the  social benefits got lost. We want to avoid that. Therefore, there are three provisos:  the waste hierarchy; the social impact;  

And the need not to export in  order to get around the problem. It is all about being cognisant  of unintended consequences. Everything can have unintended consequences  in such a complicated economy. When you bring   in more circular practices, you have  to be clear that a balance is needed.

Thank you. I see that James  Mackenzie is looking to come in. I will do so very briefly, deputy convener. I completely endorse everything that Michael  Cook has said. It is quite extraordinary to   find a way to make something that is worse than  make, use and dispose; what we are talking about  

Is literally just make and dispose. It is  an iconic moment of corporate bad behaviour. However, although I completely support what  has been said, the problem is relatively small,   albeit totemically awful. The policy memorandum  says that, on an estimate based on per capita  

Figures from France, it would involve £22  million-worth of goods. That should not be   happening—and I support what is in the  bill—but I would just note that that is   a little less than one seven-hundredth of 1  per cent of the Scottish economy. It is good  

That the provision is in the bill, but we should  not overstate the difference that it will make. Do any of the other panellists want to come in? We definitely support this element of the  bill. It places a responsibility on producers   and retailers and has the potential to  change business practice. At its best,  

It could change the type of goods that producers  and retailers produce and manufacture. If they   have to deal with returned goods, they  will want those goods to have some value,   so that could affect their choice of how the  goods that they produce and sell are manufactured.

Recently there was an interesting paper that  reported on a series of interviews with retailers   about that very problem and talked about what they  called the “downstream” side—that is, the problem   of passing those goods on. It talked not just  about third sector organisations such as Michael  

Cook’s, but about the development of big  enterprises whose purpose would be to refurbish   and manage those goods. That is an example of  what, potentially, is needed, but it would be   even better if the organisations and businesses  that had produced those goods altered their own  

Supply chains to incorporate those goods  back in. That would be the best outcome. That sort of approach works well when combined  with the reporting requirements, because those and   other measures in the bill are needed to identify  where the surpluses are, to raise awareness  

Of them and as a way of informing where the  restrictions should be applied. I have read that   that aspect is not included in the ban in France,  which means that it has been less effective. We also support that element of  the bill. I agree with what my  

Colleagues have said already, but  I would make one further point:   extended producer responsibility could be used  to hold businesses more to account in paying   for the cost of cleaning up their products.  That could be included in the bill as well. Many international producers operate  here in Scotland. What about the  

Challenge of legislating in one place  when producers have a wider operation? Under the powers in the Environment  Act 2021, Scotland has the power   to take such measures. There is a  similar issue with other types of   progressive environmental policies,  which can have wider impacts, too.

We want to bring in larger corporations  that act outside of Scotland. At the moment,   the profits being made by large  corporations do not stay in Scotland,   and that money could be used to fund a  circular economy. That is why extended  

Producer responsibility is so important; it is  how we will fund a circular economy in Scotland,   so it is disappointing not to see more  such opportunities being taken in the bill. We could talk about that particular point a lot  more, but I think we should move on, convener.

Just before we do so, I think that we might have  a chance to develop the point. I understand that   there is already something of an opportunity  to redistribute unsold goods, but if goods   that belong to a company operating across  the United Kingdom are unsold in Scotland,  

Surely the answer is just to pop them on a  lorry and send them south of the border to   be used down there, where the legislation  does not apply. Do you think that we need   to work in lockstep across the United Kingdom  to ensure that these measures work properly?  

Can Scotland go it alone on this policy, or does  the United Kingdom have to work together on it? I   can see such scenarios happening—perhaps  I am seeing bears behind trees, though. Does anyone else want to comment on  that? James, do you want to say anything?

In general terms, if a progressive and  sensible environmental policy that is being   developed in Scotland is in line with what  is being developed in the rest of the UK,   that will be beneficial. With the deposit return  system, for example, it is perfectly possible for  

Scotland to go off by itself, but systems that  are compatible—even if they are not so in every   detail—are beneficial. As for the relevance to  unsold goods, I suspect that, given the scale of   the problem, it is not going to be worth  it to large distributors to change their  

Distribution habits to stock from Newcastle  or Carlisle rather than the central belt. I was not suggesting that. I was suggesting  that, if goods are unsold in Scotland,   it would be very easy to put them on a  lorry and into a warehouse in England,   rather than change the stocking system.

Yes—and, as Michael Cook said, the closer  the better. The next closest place from   distribution or being given away in Scotland  is obviously over the border in England. As for the deputy convener’s  question about producers elsewhere,   the normal proxy is to use importers  where it is not possible to regulate  

The producers directly when  stuff is coming into the country. I am sorry—I missed that.  Could you say that again? If you are trying to bring in producer  responsibility to deal with large international   supply chains, the importer is effectively  treated as a producer, as in the deposit system.

So, if there is different UK legislation,  it puts a border on to Scotland. That would be a strong way of putting it.  It would be a matter of our regulating   for Scotland—or your regulating for Scotland, I  should say—and that would be the way to do that.

The potential unintended consequences  that you mentioned are real, but there   are some things that would mitigate them.  One is the requirement for waste reporting,   to allow scrutiny of what people are doing  with their waste. At the end of the day,   for a retailer or wholesaler, redistributing  goods to hard-up households in Scotland  

Makes a better story than trying to  get around environmental legislation. Another way of mitigating this is the idea  that what this is trying to achieve for   people on planet is a good thing. After all,  waste is not a good thing. One response might  

Be to manage our supply chains better  so that we do not create surplus stock,   which would be an alignment between  what the environment would ask for   and the producer’s profit motive. That  might create a more efficient industry. With the greatest respect, Michael, if you  were able to make stock match demand perfectly,  

You would be in huge demand from some of  the big multinational companies. However,   that sort of thing is not always possible. I am not saying that it should totally  match demand, but it should do it more. I take the point. Bob, you have some questions.

The deputy convener has worked through most of  the questions that I was going to ask; however, I   will take the opportunity to put something  additional on the record. We have talked about   needing different business models, particularly  from large manufacturers and retailers, and not  

Only in Scotland but internationally, rather than  having a “take, make and dispose” economy. I am   conscious that the word “use” is not always part  of that, given what we have been talking about. Do you want to say any more about the business  models that are really damaging our environment  

And the circular economy? It would perhaps  be more constructive to talk about business   models that are being developed that the bill  could incentivise or drive, if we could make   it stronger. I put that on the record; the deputy  convener has covered most of what I wanted to ask.

If the witnesses all look away, that  means that I have to nominate somebody.   That is always a dangerous thing. James  Mackenzie—thank you for putting your hand up. I was inviting you to nominate,  but I am happy to speak. No—I am nominating you.

That is fine. That is the core question on  what the bill should be about, so I thank   you for asking it. From our perspective, as  I said earlier, and as others have mentioned,   the way to change is for products to  remain the responsibility of producers,  

Even when they pass through your  hands. That is how to close the loop. At the moment, we have an economic system in  which, when two companies are competing with   each other, if one of them brings its used  products back in, refurbishes them and puts  

Them back on the market, that is a costly  process. The other company externalises its   costs on the environment, local taxpayers  and society, and maybe blames the public   for littering. As soon as you require  companies to close that loop—as soon  

As they cannot externalise their costs on to  us in terms of climate, waste, biodiversity   loss and costs to local authorities—you  start to build a circular economy. The Scottish Government talked about  that in 2016 in “Making Things Last”,   which others have talked about.  It is a good document. It says:

“We intend to explore the concept of a  single framework for producer responsibility,   bringing together common elements into  one flexible and transparent system,   making it simpler for businesses who  are involved in more than one product   type and making it easier to add new products and  materials to the producer responsibility regime”.

That is what I would like the bill to  do—that is how to close the loop. That   is how to give an economic advantage to  companies that handle and design their   products better—that capture their products  more efficiently, that lightweight them,  

That make them easier to reuse, or that  reduce demand for them in the first place. For me, the absolute core of environmental  economics and the circular economy is that all   producers should be responsible  for their products at end of life,  

And all fillers should be responsible for  their packaging, unless they have a really   good case for why that does not work. That will  take time in some sectors. The matter needs to   be considered with delicacy, and you need  to talk to industry to work out what can  

Be done when. Without that principle, we will  stick with a 1.3 per cent circular economy. I would like to mention one element that  businesses will need to incorporate as we   transition towards a circular economy: we must  make sure that we do that in a just way. There  

Is no mention of a just transition in the Circular  Economy Bill, despite the fact that we in Scotland   acknowledge that we will have to create the future  that we want in a way that incorporates people. In order to do that, the bill must include  three elements of a just transition. First,  

We have to think about how we support people to  transition into more circular jobs. We could be   using the just transition principles in the  Climate Change Act 2009 as a starting point.   We also have to think about how communities  have to change their materials and make sure  

That they are involved and supported through  that change. I am thinking particularly of   people with disabilities and ethnic minority  groups who might have language barriers, for   example. We also need to think about our supply  chains, which are extremely unjust at the moment.

We also need to think about how  we can support a global just   transition by embedding just transition  principles in the Circular Economy Bill. If you do not mind, I will widen  the question from the business   model to the system, as my co-witnesses have done.

I fear that the bill will do a lot in favour  of recycling but no more than that, and I have   said that previously. I will give some tangible  examples. The Scottish Environment Protection   Agency lists 177 local waste and recycling  centres. Note the language that we use there:  

They are waste and recycling centres, not resource  and reuse. I will move beyond that quickly. We know that four out of the 177 centres have  a co-located reuse facility. Why do they not   all have one? Greece has passed legislation  that says that any town of more than 50,000  

People should have a local authority reuse  facility. It can be in partnership with a   charity—the local authority does not have to run  it—but there must be one in a town of that size. The benefits of that include job creation. I am  a member of Rreuse, the European body for reuse.  

Every 10,000 tonnes of waste that goes to landfill  creates six jobs, if it goes to incineration it   creates one job, and if it goes to recycling,  in creates 36 jobs. Great. Let’s recycle. But hang on—reuse of 10,000 tonnes of waste  creates up to 296 jobs depending on the material  

Stream. The number for information technology  material is higher than that for textiles, for   example. Reuse is therefore an opportunity to  create jobs, and the jobs are more skilled. It   takes more skill to repair a broken laptop than it  does to strip it down. We can see that ourselves,  

When we think it through. I would not be able  to repair a laptop, but I could break it up. Reuse also has social impact. A couple of  weeks ago, the Charity Retail Association   for the UK published a report saying that, for  every pound that is invested in charity reuse,  

Charity retail and your local charity shop, we  get £7.35 return in social impact in the area. That is all on the social side. Reuse is  good for people and it is obviously good   for the planet. It is terrible for  the environment to build a product,  

To use it only once and then, because something  in it is broken, not to repair and keep using it. Our whole system is geared towards recycling. We  are not getting spectacular levels of recycling;   43 per cent does not compare well  with what Wales is getting, for  

Example. The best way to turbocharge that  change is to take a top-down approach. I know that some members are concerned  about fly-tipping—Mr Fraser is here for   that reason. One of the reasons why we have  fly-tipping is the actions at the bottom of  

The waste hierarchy, where we use sticks  more than we use carrots—the landfill tax,   for example. People find a way round that by  not doing the right thing with that resource   and taking it to the local authority site, and  instead throwing it out at a beauty spot. A  

Top-down approach to the waste hierarchy will  help with litter and fly-tipping. If we change   our relationship with stuff and see items as  reusable or refillable, they will have more value. Thank you. Have you finished, Mr Doris? Yes; that is fine.

I have a small question. You have made  some impactful points, Mr Cook, but is   accessibility of facilities not also important?  A council recycling site can sometimes be reached   only in a motor vehicle. As we consider the  process, do we need to think harder and more  

Imaginatively about having reuse facilities in  the high streets of towns and cities in Scotland? For example, the Edinburgh Remakery, in my  Edinburgh Northern and Leith constituency,   is doing remarkable work with laptops. However,  if an iron, for example, broke, I would not—nor,  

I think, would my constituents—have any idea  where to take it to get it repaired, rather than   buy a new one. That is just one of many possible  examples. Could the charity shop network provide   innovative possibilities, given that it has retail  units that are already in prominent locations?

I totally agree with the premise of the question.   My reason for wanting reuse  facilities at HWRCs is that— I should clarify that I was  not arguing against that. No. I visit those sites and I see perfectly  good things that should not be thrown away being  

Thrown away. That does not mean, from a  consumer point of view, that we do not   want to make the process more  convenient. That could involve   using local shops or collection services.  Kerbside collections work for some goods. In my opinion, we need to change how we  think about waste so that we think about  

It as a resource. We go to fines and bans quite  quickly, but what will change behaviours is our   making the process easier, more convenient and  more attractive for the 80 per cent of people in   the mainstream middle, and giving them the hours  of opening that they need. That is what they would  

Respond to, but that all requires investment;  charity shops cannot do that on their own. James Mackenzie made the very valid point that,  at the moment, the reuse operation is competing   with internet retailers that are able to get  people a new item tomorrow at a very cheap  

Cost. Sometimes that is because the costs have  been externalised by being put on people in the   supply chain or on the environment, either in  manufacture of the goods or in the end-of-life   treatment of those goods. We all pay the cost  of treating waste, through our council tax.

We need to level the playing field by saying  that the cost of a product on the environment   and on people should be part of the price of the  product that is paid at the counter. That means   having producer responsibility and a charge for  the waste. We would love that money to be used,  

Not to implement a system of subsidising  recycling, but to facilitate reuse and repair. In Austria, a scheme for repair vouchers has  recently been created, whereby any member of   the public can go to a local shop and say,  “I want to get this fixed.” As the consumer,  

They do not have to fill in a form.  The form is filled in by the shop,   which then fixes the item. A budget has been  set for 400,000 items to be repaired by 2026.   The fact that 560,000 items have already been  repaired shows that demand has been high.

One might say that the cost of that is high,  but the advantage of the scheme is that people   pay only when it is used. They do not just pay  anyway; they pay when the scheme is used. If   such a scheme was paid for out of extended  producer responsibility fees for the people  

Who provide the products that get broken  and need repairing, it could fund itself. Thank you. Douglas Lumsden is next. I will move on to charges for single-use  items. What are the key environmental   opportunities of the proposed powers for  charges on single-use items? How should  

Charges be incorporated strategically  in Scotland? Who would like to respond? I am sorry—could you repeat your first question? What are the key environmental opportunities   of the proposed powers for  charges on single-use items? It has been shown that charges for single-use  items can be effective in influencing consumer  

Behaviour. The aim should be to reduce  the consumption of those single-use items,   and where there is a clear alternative option  for consumers, a charge can be useful in doing   that. The idea has been thought about mainly  in connection with single-use beverage cups.  

Quite a lot of work has been done on that,  and trials have shown that a charge alone   could reduce consumption by about 20 per cent.  In order for charging to be very effective,   we also need parallel mechanisms to  encourage consumers to use alternative cups.

There is definitely absolutely  no place for single-use items in   closed-loop settings such as restaurants,  sit-in cafes, hotels, or even at airports,   festivals and canteens. You do not need  single-use items in any setting where   people do not move far from the place to consume  their hot drink or eat whatever they are eating.

We think that there should be a deposit system  for reusable cups—the bigger the scale the better,   because people could then drop off the cup  anywhere. Ideally, such a scheme would be   Scotland-wide but—being less idealistic—there  could be city-wide schemes. There is quite a  

Lot of experience of those in Germany.  Such schemes get around the problem of   people not carrying around reusable  cups by their being able to access   a reusable cup for a small deposit  then return it at numerous locations. I was going to ask about that, Phoebe, because  your submission mentions a national reusables  

Scheme such as has been used in other areas. Would  such a scheme mean that a plastic cup from, say,   Starbucks, could be returned to  Costa when you get your next cup? Yes. Ideally, cups would be unbranded so that  people could return a cup from one city in another  

City—for example, if they hop on the train. You do  not want lots of competing reusable cup schemes,   because you do not want people ending up  with lots of reusable cups. You want people   to have one at home and to have access  to others when they are out and about,  

If they have forgotten theirs. The  interoperability of such a scheme is   really important to make it effective. If the  overall aim is to reduce material consumption,   the last thing that we want is  people having lots of reusable cups.  

There is obviously considerably more material  in those cups than there is in a single-use cup. I come to Michael Cook on the same topic. In your  submission, rather than talking about reusable   cups, you talk about trying to ban all single-use  items where available alternatives exist.

A range of policy interventions—from a ban, to a  charge, to a voluntary industry-led scheme—have a   higher intervention threshold. Phoebe Cochrane  talked about single-use cutlery and plates in   canteens. We should just ban such use, not  charge for it, because a charge might end  

Up having the same effect as a ban but be  harder to implement. In that environment,   there is really no need for the convenience and  no justification for having single-use items. In some cases there could a justification. Under  the charge option, it needs to be clear that  

There is a readily available alternative to the  single-use option. The purpose of the charge is to   make what is, in effect, an unconscious habit on  the part of the consumer—I buy a cup of coffee and   it happens to come in a cardboard cup—a conscious  choice, because there is, say, a 20p charge for  

The cup and I would think, “Do I want to pay that,  or do I want to pay for the reusable option ” However, that only works when there is an option.  If there is no viable option, or the option is  

Inconvenient or unattractive, it is just a tax—it  is just a way of generating revenue. Where there   is an alternative, the hope of the policymaker  is that they will create a charge that will   bring in money that will deliver systems and  behaviour change, and the charge will disappear  

Over time because no one will use the product  any more. There will not be a market for it. One approach is a nudge to change consumer  behaviour; the other is a tax to generate   revenue. Where the consumer and the voter  will be least enamoured by a charge is  

Where it is claimed that it is taking one  approach, but it is clearly the other:   we would be doing it for environmental reasons,  but it would seem just to be creating revenue.   Does that make sense? You need to understand  clearly what alternative behaviour you want,  

What target you will set for it and  whether the alternative is attractive   enough to deliver that change. If it is  not, you have to invest in the alternative. You mentioned revenue. Where would you  like the proceeds from charges to go?  

Would you like the money to be ring  fenced and used for specific things? The approach that was taken with the  carrier bag charge, which is not a tax,   whereby retailers were able to set  out a worthy recipient of the money,   helped to achieve greater buy-in  and less resistance to the idea.

Another point to make is that it feels as though  the responsibility is always being put on the end   user—the consumer. I echo the point that James  Mackenzie made earlier in a different context,   about the system giving me two bad choices, so I  feel bad if I do not make the better choice from  

The two bad ones. As we said in our submission,  we do not have time to look at one product at a   time. If it were up to us, we would say that  unless there is a real need for single-use  

Products—there might be a clear medical or  health need for them—their use must stop by a   certain time and we must find an alternative.  That would set a clear direction of travel. We should be clear that a positive  alternative must be provided. It  

Should not just be about taxing  the consumer. If money comes in,   it should be used to mitigate the adverse  impact on the planet of bad behaviour. I support what my colleagues have said. In  relation to cups, we recognise that a lot of  

Work has gone into the process so far, and we  do not want that work to be wasted. However,   in general, we do not have time to change  our economy one product at a time. There is   an urgent need to address the climate crisis, and  charges are sometimes not a strong enough measure.

Cups are quite a harmful product. They are not  recyclable—they contain plastic, so they should   not be incinerated because that releases  fossil fuel pollution into the atmosphere,   and they usually contain cardboard, so they should  not go to landfill because methane is released. We   should be thinking about banning harmful products.

In the long term, the biggest  environmental opportunity will   come from having a system in which, when  producers design products, they think   carefully about whether it is worth bringing on  to the market an environmentally harmful product. To provide a bit of balance, I  note that, in its submission,  

The Scottish Environment Services Association  says that, although single-use disposable cups are “visible”, they amount to only “0.036% of Scotland’s total waste. We would  therefore suggest that there are other,   more pressing parts of the waste management  system in greater need of the Scottish   Government’s resources … with greater  potential for carbon impact savings.”

Kim Pratt said that we should not focus on  one product at a time, and this is an example   of that. Members will remember the interest in  straws. Your colleague Mr Golden once explained   to me that, if we melted down every straw that  was given away or sold in Scotland in the year  

Before the ban, that would fill only one of  the largest builder sacks. That is not nothing,   but we are talking about national  usage. In relation to prioritisation,   I think that this is an easy win,  because it can readily be done. In response to the Scottish Government’s  consultation, even the packaging and retail sector  

Said that it did not think that a charge was  the right course of action; it would prefer the   introduction of a mandatory take-back obligation.  There is no reason not to do it, but we need to   prioritise addressing the things that cause the  gravest and most substantial environmental harms.

I want to clarify something. Is it being  suggested that single-use items should be   banned as a group because we do not have time  to look at each and every one of those items? Where there is a practical alternative— Sorry, I am just trying to  follow this through so that I  

Understand what is being suggested. The viable  alternative to single-use nappies would be cloth   nappies, with people washing them. Would  you like single-use nappies to be banned? They are not on my list. They are on Kim Pratt’s list, though.  She said that the most dangerous products  

Should be banned, because they contain  plastics, including microplastics. Single-use nappies are an example of a product  for which there are viable alternatives,   and we should be looking at making those the  main options. Yes, I think that we need to— It is quite bold to make the  comment that you have just made.  

From a legislative point of view,  there could be some disagreement. We would need to make sure that people were  supported in the process of moving over to   those systems. We know that many reusable  options are cheaper for consumers in the   long term, and nappies are one example of that.

We need to appreciate that some of those   changes have unintended consequences for  businesses. However, up against that is   the climate crisis and the emergency that we are  facing right now. We have to balance those two   things because, at the moment, our climate is  at breaking point and we need to do something.

I understand that. I was trying to give  a specific example of something that   may cause a problem if all single use  items were banned. I regret doing that,   because I have opened Pandora’s box. Monica  Lennon and Bob Doris want to come in.

I waved my hand because I want to talk about  nappies, which is one of my favourite subjects.   Thank you for raising it, convener. I have  had a discussion with the Government about   the opportunity to amend the bill to make it  easier for people to transition from single  

Use nappies to cloth nappies—those that can be  washed—as well as other similar products, such   as period products. The good news is that there  is consumer demand for them. I believe that some   local authorities that have schemes to help people  to access those products have waiting lists.

More seriously, we have had bad news  this week. The trailblazing Tots Bots   company, which is based in Glasgow,  has gone into liquidation and 47   people will be made redundant. The company  has been innovative with reusable nappies   and other products and it has supplied  nappies to the baby box in Scotland.

Trading conditions are difficult. We need  to consider whether there are opportunities   to work with businesses, nappy libraries and  the third sector to give people an awareness   of those products so that they can access them  in a way that is affordable or where they can  

Be provided for free. For example, North  Ayrshire has a cost neutral scheme, because   the council saves money on landfill and people  in the area receive reusable nappies for free   for as long as they need them. We need to join  up those activities and conversations, because  

The last thing that we want is for responsible  and innovative businesses to go bust when we   should be doing more on existing supply chains and  procurement. I will put that out for discussion. I am conscious of time. I will let a couple of  

People come in and then I need to  go to Bob Doris and Jackie Dunbar. My point was about amending the  bill. Do we have an opportunity   to be more proactive and put  a duty on local authorities? I totally get your concerns about an  outright ban on all single-use items,  

Convener. It is our job as environmental bodies  to ask for that and it is your job to question it,   which I understand. I will use some language  that I think will resonate. We need a pathway  

To a future where we do not have single-use items  when there is no good reason to have them. At the   moment, convenience is trumping the cost on the  environment, again and again. There are different   tools in the toolbox that policymakers can use:  a ban, a charge, or an investment in alternatives  

So that they become more attractive, such as  what Monica Lennon described with nappies. However, I think that we need to send a message  that we are here but we need to be over there.   There is no future for the planet in single  use; our resources are too valuable for that.  

A single-use product is the opposite of a circular  economy, which is about using resources over and   over again. When those products contain damaging  materials, create pollution issues and have   problems with plastics and microplastics,  it compounds the problem. I am not an  

Idealist; I will not say, “Ban them tomorrow.”  However, I think that we need a pathway from   where we are now to where we need to get to.  At the moment, nappies are a great example   of where we are just externalising the cost.  The environmentally responsible thing to do is  

Less attractive and less convenient.  We need policies that change that. I will bring in Bob Doris so  that he can ask someone else   a question. They can answer Monica  Lennon’s question at the same time. My question was not inspired by nappies,  although I should declare an interest as I  

Have a two-year-old and it would be a significant  burden on me to move to non-disposable nappies.   However, I am willing to be convinced  for the sake of environment. It is more   about the point that Kim Pratt made that we  identify straws, bags or cups case by case,  

And move at a relatively slow  pace, knocking off one at a time. Is there a need for the bill to cover, or for  Government more generally to legislate on, a   cluster of items for which we can all  agree that single use should not exist,  

Rather than simply asserting that all  single-use items should be banned as   a matter of course? Is there a better way of  doing it than moving forward one campaign at   a time? We could bring a cluster of items  together and try to legislate on that.

James Mackenzie looks keen to come in, so I  will bring him in, and then go to Jackie Dunbar. I suppose this is a case of “I would say this,  wouldn’t I ”, but the argument with regard to   most products, which allows us to generalise  in the way that the 2016 Scottish Government  

Strategy talks about, is that we make  the producers responsible. In some ways,   that can negate the need for a ban or for  something complicated in regulation. If   producers are responsible for that aspect, and  they have a target for how much they have to get  

Back and they have to use that responsibly,  single use suddenly becomes uneconomic,   because the cost that they put on to  us, they are putting on to themselves. There is a socialist argument that the  current system externalises and socialises   the costs and privatises the profits,  but there is also an Adam Smith argument,  

Which is that the system gives an economic  benefit to those companies that are prepared   to innovate and invest, and reduce their  carbon footprint and material usage. There are complexities—for example, we are not  going to get to take-back requirements on period  

Products. There are things which are not in that  category, so the current approach does not get   us out of all the complexities. Nonetheless,  across a wide range of products and packaging,   that simple framework builds the system  that delivers the outcome that we need.

I go to Jackie Dunbar—I will give  Phoebe Cochrane and Kim Pratt a   chance to answer that question at  the same time as other questions. I go back to what Michael Cook and Phoebe Cochrane  said about charges of 20p or 25p for single-use  

Cups, and the idea of folk hiring reusable cups  instead because they are more environmentally   friendly. For me, hiring a cup would prove to be  the more expensive option. Do you think that folk   should be charged the same price for single-use  cups and for hiring reusable cups, so that they  

Are not being financially penalised  for trying to do the right thing,   or should single-use cups be even  more expensive than reusable cups? I can jump in—I am sorry if I did not  explain that clearly. For the reusable cup,   it would be a deposit, so there  would be no outlay. You would  

Just put down a deposit for it, which you  would then get back when you returned it. So there would be no cost. There would be no net cost. For the period that  you were using the cup, you would pay a deposit. You are speaking to someone  who has about 10 reusable cups.

The evidence from the SRU on what it is  doing with cups at Murrayfield was useful. I go back to Douglas Lumsden,  for his next question. My next question is on the UK Internal Market  Act 2020, which was mentioned earlier. I do  

Not see that single-use coffee cups would  be an issue under the 2020 act, but when   we start talking about things like nappies,  that could potentially—I think—be an issue. Let us say that we banned some single-use  products such as nappies or disposable  

Barbecues in Scotland. I guess people could  still order online, and that could be a   potential issue. Would you agree, or do you  think that that is something that we could   overcome if we had to? I know that James  Mackenzie mentioned the 2020 act earlier.

Yes—I spent 10 years working on deposit  return, so I became unduly familiar with   the operation of that legislation. It  is clearly a relevant factor. If we   talk about charges on single use, that  is a condition at the point of sale,  

Which is one half of the matters that are covered  by the 2020 act and would require an exemption. Our view is that the Scottish Parliament and  the Scottish Government should deal with the   2020 act by legislating to make good policy.  If that legislation requires an IMA exemption,  

They should seek one and should ideally be  provided with one. If there were two equally   good ways of getting to the same objective  and one of them required an IMA exemption,   I would recommend the one that does not require  the exemption, in order to expedite the process.

Bans and charges are explicitly covered  by that. You hear stuff about glue traps   being banned in one part of the UK and not  in others. You can end up banning the use   of something but not the sale of it. Action  to Protect Rural Scotland wrote to the Prime  

Minister and other party leaders from across  Great Britain arguing that there should be a   qualified automatic exemption from the 2020 act  for public health and environmental measures. Part of the premise of devolution was  that we would get to try and do things  

Differently, and sometimes things would work and  sometimes they would not. The carrier bag charge   is an example of that. One of the merits of a  take-back requirement is that it is not about   the point of sale, so it does not require an IMA  exemption. Most of the producer responsibility  

Stuff that I have argued for today is untouched by  the IMA, which makes it easier to act in that way. I will add to what James Mackenzie  said. Friends of the Earth Scotland   believes that the 2020 act must be  considered when we implement any  

Environmental progressive policies in  Scotland in the future, but it should   not stop us making the legislation that  we know is needed in the first place. A lot of good progress has been made  in the past when one nation in the   UK has taken forward an environmental  policy that has proved to be successful  

And has then been adopted throughout the  rest of the UK. We would not want to stop   that mechanism from being able to be used. We  would like legislation to be made regardless   of whether an IMA exemption is needed. If we  need the policy, we should legislate for it.

Making legislation that would not be allowed to  go through would be quite wasteful, would it not? We have to assume that it would go through  with an IMA exemption. If we decide that   we need something such as a circular economy  bill, we should make that legislation in the  

First place regardless of whether there  is a potential barrier down the road. I offer a little quote in support of that. The  IMA was amended to include the common frameworks   that the committee will be familiar with. The  resources and waste common framework said that

“Where EU Directives set minimum standards/targets  etc., different parts of the UK have been able to   set higher standards or targets where they wanted  to, and often have done so for waste issues.” The fact that it might require an IMA exemption  does not mean that it will not go through. You  

Cannot assume whether it will get one or  not. It requires all four Governments to   take part in that framework process in  good faith and look at the evidence,   and then ultimately persuade UK secretaries of   state whether to bring in an exemption to  the schedule of the internal market act.

It seems that we are almost in a situation where  we can ban the use of something but perhaps   not ban the sale of something, which would,  for nappies, be a crazy situation to be in. Have we run out of time, convener?  I am happy to leave it there.

We have a lot of questions to go,  so I will move on to the next theme. The committee visited the Byng Group last  week, and it was interesting to see what   it is doing with recycling and moving away  from landfill. I will ask a simple question,  

Which you can all just say yes to if you  like—I invite you to do so. We heard that   the 32 councils across Scotland have  32 different recycling schemes. Some   of them are the same but some of them are  different and you could have five bins in  

One council area and two bins in another. On that  visit, we heard that we should have a standard   system across all councils in Scotland. I am  looking for a yes or no answer—do you agree? Yes, but with caveats. Okay. I will take that. What about you, Michael? Yes, absolutely. Phoebe?

Yes, but probably with a few caveats,  in that a densely urban situation would   require slight differences from  a sparsely populated rural area. Kim? Yes. Thank you. I will move straight on to the   deputy convener, after which  I will bring in Murdo Fraser.

A number of you have mentioned considerations  around waste crime. That is a consideration   in the bill and it is a challenge more widely  for all of us. Further to what you have said   already, do you have any thoughts as to what  additional measures the bill could take to  

Tackle waste crime? That includes fly-tipping,  but feel free to broaden it out to any points   beyond that. I know that Mr Fraser will  ask about fly-tipping more specifically. I should just state that, in  different ways, fly-tipping   is as much of a concern in urban  Scotland as it is in rural Scotland,  

Although I appreciate the significant  challenges in rural Scotland. Does anyone want to make a point? If nobody else fancies it, I will have another go. Ending fly-tipping would move us from  the absolute lowest point. Fly-tipping   is not even in the waste hierarchy,  because it does not deal with things at  

All—it just involves putting them in the sea,  at beauty spots or round the back of Leith Walk.   Therefore, it is important to end that, and it  is definitely a worthwhile objective. However,   the further down the chain you start, the  harder it is to make change. If you just  

Try to police the public’s activity,  you have already lost the battle. There might be measures that will have some  effect, but we are in a system where it is   cost effective for somebody to just chuck their  mattress in a Perthshire glen, for example, rather  

Than have it reprocessed. I know that this  is stuck-record stuff—recycled records—but   the situation would be different if there  was an incentive to get that mattress back   to the manufacturer to get it reprocessed. The  British industry wants that, because it is being  

Undercut by imports that do not do that. That  is just one example of fly-tipping, although it   is quite commonplace. If we had  that incentive, we would suddenly   start to engage the higher levels of  Michael Cook’s ladder of the hierarchy.

If you want to enforce fly-tipping measures  right at the bottom, you need to start above   that—above the local authority level. Local  authorities are just picking up the detritus   of a linear economy at the best of times,  anyway. As soon as there are incentives to  

Take stuff back, why would people fly-tip? Why  would people fly-tip something if they could   get value out of it and it was part of a circular  chain? I am not saying that we should not address   the issue at the bottom level, because it  is a matter of serious concern to APRS,  

But the more effective measures will always  be those that start further up the chain. I will give one example of what  enforcement looks like. We recently   looked at Highland Council data and  found that, over the past five years,   the council issued just 19 fines for  fly-tipping. Of those, 19 were not paid,  

And no further action was taken. On the council’s  enforcement across environmental fines—not just   fly-tipping, but every single environmental  measure that might involve a fine across   the Highland Council area—five years ago, 1.7  full-time equivalent people worked on that but,  

This year, it is 0.15 FTE. That is about five  hours a week to deal with all those issues across   a third of Scotland. Having more powers in this  area is one thing, but that is the reality. That is interesting. Enforcement is a  consideration but, in your view, being  

More punitive is potentially a less practical  solution, and creating more opportunities   for recycling, reuse and upcycling would  have greater potential to effect change. If people got paid £5 or £10 to hand a mattress  back, rather than having to pay to get it taken  

Away, they would probably not go to the trouble  of taking it in a van in the middle of the night. In addition, fly-tipping is an extremely  difficult crime to enforce against. The   average bit of Borders countryside does not  have closed-circuit television by the burn.   Stopping fly-tipping further  up the chain is the priority.

I agree with James. I will put a slightly  different lens on this—it is not the whole   picture, but it contains some valuable insight.  Fly-tipping is exacerbated, or happens more,   when the policies at the bottom of the waste  hierarchy have not been totally thought through,  

As I referred to earlier. I will give the  example of a landfill ban. When every tonne   of waste involves the payment of a certain  charge, that creates the potential for a grey   economy that will not charge that amount and  will instead throw away waste in the nearest  

Beauty spot. The problem is too much stick and not  enough carrot, if you know what I mean by that. Where is the £10 deposit on a mattress, if I do  the right thing? Why not even make it £10 and you  

Will collect it from my house? We should make  it really easy. When do I need to get rid of a   mattress? Often, it is when I buy a new one,  so I should be able to hand the old one back  

In a take-back scheme in which the same delivery  driver can pick one up and drop one off and I can   get £10 off. That is a carrot at the top of the  waste hierarchy, instead of a stick at the bottom.

When it comes to waste crime, if you lined up  the whole population in quartiles according to   how environmentally conscious they are, at one  end of the spectrum are people who will go out   of their way to recycle something—they will  take it to the local charity shop to donate  

It—and they are already using reusable cups, for  example. Sadly, at the other end of the spectrum,   people will break the law—either for themselves,  in throwing their own things away out of the car   window, or for other people, in collecting goods  and fly-tipping them. Although we need to deal  

With that, please do not forget the mainstream  middle. The 80 per cent of people in the middle   want to do the right thing if it is convenient,  easy, attractive and cost effective. Please focus   on creating policy for them that makes it far  easier to get their mattresses recycled. Give  

Me confidence in the system such that, if  I send goods to the local authority site,   they will be reused or recycled, and pick-up does  not require me to put something out on the street   the night before, when it will rain, meaning that  the item cannot be reused. I am talking about the  

Sorts of policies that make it easier and  more convenient for the mainstream middle. To represent a key member interest of ours,  fly-tipping happens in different ways. We think   about it happening at beauty spots. However, it  can happen that well-intentioned members of the  

Public want to donate to a charity shop. They turn  up there. Maybe the volunteer did not come in that   day, and the shop is not open, so they leave the  donation outside the shop, thinking that it will   be used. It rains—weather happens—and, the next  day, when the shop is open, the volunteers have  

Waste to deal with, for which, by the way, they  potentially have to pay when it gets sent away   as waste, because it cannot be used any more,  because it has been ruined. Given that fly-tipping   happens in different ways, it is necessary  to have incentives, not just penalties.

That is an important point. In  urban Scotland in particular,   a lot of people fly-tip unwittingly. This might  be a good juncture to allow others to come in. I will bring in Murdo Fraser. Interestingly,  on our trip last week, we heard that it was  

Very easy to print off a waste disposal  certificate to allow for the disposal of   waste, and that no checks were done online. I  declare my interest as somebody who owns land:   it is not the council who pays for it but the  person whose land it is dumped on. That can be  

Prohibitively expensive if, for example,  50 tyres are thrown out on to a field. Murdo Fraser, I am sure that you are  going to talk about that, so over to you. Thank you, convener. Good morning—it is still  morning—to the panel. As you probably know,  

I ran a consultation on a member’s bill on  fly-tipping, in which I looked at a number   of specific measures. I attracted broad support  for taking that bill forward, and it is currently   going through the drafting process. However, there  are opportunities to use the Circular Economy Bill  

As a vehicle to introduce some of the  changes that I proposed, which is welcome. The Scottish Government produced a national  litter and fly-tipping strategy that was   published in June, which is helpful. Before  I talk about some of the detail of that,  

I will pick up the point that Michael Cook and  James Mackenzie made about barriers. One thing   that came out strongly from the consultation  that I ran is that, when we asked people about   barriers, they said that if legal routes  to recycling were more easily available,  

That would help to tackle the problem.  Recently, local councils have reduced   access to recycling centres. For example, a  number of recycling centres in the area that I   represent have reduced their opening hours due  to budgetary issues. Some have introduced a   booking system—people cannot just turn up  but have to book—or queueing system. Some  

Are closed at weekends. To what extent does that  contribute to the problem? How can we tackle that? Of course, if recycling is made harder to  do, is more expensive, is more awkward or   can be done only while people are at work,  those factors will compound the issue.

I sympathise with local authorities. They have  tight budgets and, even when stuff comes to them,   they have no input into what it is or how it  is made. They have no product design role.   They are just left to deal with whatever has  been bought, sold and—ideally—used. That is  

A tough job by the time we get to the waste  facilities that should be reuse and recycling   facilities. It becomes labour intensive and  difficult to manage. It is understandable   that recycling centres end up reducing  their hours, but your argument is correct.

I am sorry to say it, but if there is a  responsibility on the producers who made   the products, that will take the burden  off the public and the local authorities.   There are arguments about whether the costs  will get passed on. We pay the costs anyway,  

Whether those costs are for an amenity,  resource use or local authority staff   time or cleansing time. We need to ensure  that there is an incentive right from the   start to get everything back in. If it is not  the individual’s responsibility—if you are not  

Left with an unmanageable item that needs to  be dealt with by a large uplift—but the one   who made the money out of selling it has the duty  to pick it up, that stimulates economic activity   and reduces pressure at the bottom end of the  hierarchy. Fly-tipping is the absolute bottom.

It is below the bottom. It is. I encourage the committee to invite an  organisation such as Keep Scotland Beautiful,   which is more expert in litter and waste crime   than we are, to give evidence.  We just see it incrementally.

For example, I do not know whether the committee  is aware of this, but there are concerns about   persistent organic pollutants—POPs—which are  also known as forever chemicals. Understandably,   for the environment, more controls are being  introduced for the destruction of those. One  

Fear that we have about that is the knock-on  impact that it will have for fly-tipping. If it   is more expensive for me to dispose of my sofa  or my fridge because there is more charging,   it becomes more expensive to do the right thing—to  dispose of it responsibly—than to do the wrong  

Thing. There is no booking system at the local  beauty spot. People can just go out at night time. Often, the consumer does not fly-tip  directly. It can happen as a result of   an intermediary saying, “I’ll pick that up,”  or “I’ll clear the house.” It is really almost  

A small business. Fly-tipping is a problem, but  I encourage you to lift your eyes off the bottom   of the waste hierarchy. Taking the right  action upstream would help to mitigate the   problem. James Mackenzie’s mattress example  strongly supports that. We should make  

The process convenient so that people  can have items picked up and recycled. The independent review on incineration that was  conducted for the Government last year made some   relevant points. In particular, it said that there  was not enough national co-ordination of recycling  

Services, which is leading to an imbalance in  the system. The overcapacity for incineration is   pushing us towards that, rather than more circular  measures. National oversight is important as well. I will ask about more specific items. In  my consultation, I proposed four changes,  

One of which was an enhanced duty of  care with regard to waste generators.   I am pleased to see that that is now  covered by section 10 of the bill. However, there were other measures that I  consulted on, which are mentioned in the national  

Litter and fly-tipping strategy but do not appear  in the bill. There are three measures. The first   is improved data collection. Although it is  mentioned in the strategy, there is nothing in   the bill about that. The second is the point that  the convener referred to, which is the question of  

Liability on the part of the innocent landowner,  which seems to be an inherent unfairness. The third is the question of penalties. At  present, the maximum fixed penalty is £200.   All the evidence is that that is nowhere near  the level that it needs to be in order to be  

A deterrent. In fact, we heard evidence from  council environmental health staff that they   catch people in the act of fly-tipping,  who say, “Just give us the £200 fine,   because it’s cheaper for us to pay that than  it would be to legally dispose of this stuff.”

Therefore, could the bill be amended at stage 2 or   3 to address the measures that I have  referred to? Would you welcome that? I was waiting to see whether someone else  would jump in. I am trying not to hog the mic.

I gave the example of Highland Council.  That was after the fines were increased,   but the council does not have the capacity to  deal with the issue and it is not doing it. Even  

When it has issued an FPN, if it is not paid, it  does not follow that up in the majority of cases. I also have concerns—this is about the  fixed-penalty notices in the bill rather than   the ones that you are talking about—that there  is a risk that they will be disproportionately  

Applied to people on lower incomes, people who  have chaotic lifestyles, people who do not have   English as their first language or people who  live in areas where the provision is worse. There is another risk, which is  that the penalties will not get  

Used at all. Our friends at Keep Wales Tidy  have been in contact with Swansea Council,   which has brought in fixed-penalty notices in  relation to household waste. Just this month,   it said that, since 2019, it has issued  two such notices. I believe that it was  

The first place in Wales to adopt the  measure. Instead, the council is using   a traffic-light system and sending out letters  that basically say, “Please do better. Really,   please do better. Honestly, now.” However,  that has led to only two fines being imposed.

There is a need for systemic changes that provide  more of a carrot for doing the right thing,   rather than using the stick on a  member of the public who did not   really have a say in how the system was devised.

Michael Cook’s example of persistent organic  pollutants is a really good one. You did not   know that you were buying some toxic waste—you  thought that you were buying a couch. Now it   is your problem to deal with this really  complicated thing, but it should be the  

Producer’s problem—they need to come to collect  it. As soon as that is the case, we will remove   a lot of the incentives to fly-tip. Why would you  pay somebody with a van to take something away  

When the producer will collect it for nothing and  you know that it is going to be handled properly? There is room for enforcement once all those  things have been done—to catch what remains of   that behaviour, which will come down to people who  are particularly lazy or irresponsible. However,  

I think that that is quite a minority of people.  Most people just find themselves in a quandary   and stuck in a system that is not designed  to help them to get their stuff dealt with. On your point about people struggling to  pay the fines, when we did some research,  

The committee found that, increasingly, organised  crime is involved in collecting industrial   waste in particular and dumping it. As you fairly  said earlier, it is a crime that is very hard   to detect, and the chances of being caught  are, therefore, very low. If you are caught,  

The penalties are so low that they are not a  risk. The idea of increasing the fines is more   to catch those people rather than the householder  who gets rid of a mattress in the wrong place. I think that that is right and, in a way, that  is absolutely consistent with my argument about  

Internalising costs. That is a business that  has decided that it can make some more money by   chucking something in the Tay—or getting someone  else to do it. At that level, fines are really   the only way to internalise those costs on to  business. You will then have to spend a lot of  

Time and effort on enforcement and pursuing the  fines, but I fully agree with you on that point. On the data side, I am not very familiar with  your consultation, so I am not sure exactly   what type of data it was regarding, but would the  provision in the bill on reporting on waste and  

Surplus already cover what you are thinking of  or could it be modified or expanded to do that? Yes, I am sure that it could. One of the  confusions is that, at the moment, too many   different bodies are involved in collecting  data. There is a role for local authorities,  

A role for SEPA and a role for Zero Waste  Scotland. My intention was to look at how   we might create a duty for the Scottish ministers  to properly collect, publish and report on data   so that there would be a single collection point.  The issue is covered on page 8 of the fly-tipping  

Strategy, but it does not appear in the bill.  That is why I thought that it could usefully   be put in the bill. I am interested in looking at  amendments to the bill that would bring that in. Again, we have people nodding their heads—for  the benefit of the Official Report , do you  

Agree that it would be useful for the  Government to collate data on fly-tipping   or are people happy with how it sits with  all the other organisations at the moment? I was nodding in understanding more than in  agreement. I do not disagree; it is just not  

My area of expertise. I think that you would get  some good answers from Keep Scotland Beautiful,   for example, or maybe from the local authorities—I  believe that you are seeing them next week. Murdo—you can have one further question  and then I will have to move on.

No, I think that I am done, unless the  panel members want to come back on anything. Clearly, there is an opportunity for members’  bills to complement the circular economy bill, so   good luck to Murdo Fraser. I think that colleagues  are aware of my interest in ecocide prevention.

We have talked about small-scale fly-tipping.  As MSPs, we all know about its impact on our   communities. However, as Murdo Fraser was  saying, the major challenge is organised   crime gangs. The “Disclosure” programme on the  BBC, which I think we mentioned more than a year  

Ago to the previous cabinet secretary,  Michael Matheson, set out how thousands   of tonnes of waste is being buried  illegally across Scotland right now. Just a few weeks ago, SEPA put out  a press release about the scourge   of illegal sites for end-of-life vehicles.  SEPA believes that there are more than 100  

Unauthorised ELV sites across Scotland, hidden  in plain sight. We all know about the impact   of that. One insider in a criminal network  told the “Disclosure” programme that waste   was the new drugs and that these waste gangs  are also involved in moving around drugs,  

Weapons and other illegal items. SEPA knows about  that and has made it a priority, along with the   ELV sites, but SEPA does not really seem to have  the resources to do anything meaningful about it. To go back to the circular economy bill,  are you concerned about whether SEPA and  

Other regulators will have the  resources and capacity to do   anything? From what we are hearing about the  scale of this, it is an emergency. A litter   and fly-tipping emergency has already been  declared and SEPA is clearly very concerned  

But it does not seem to be able to do anything  about it. Is that a concern that you share? It is not my area of expertise but, on a very  high level, my understanding is the same as   yours—SEPA does not have the resources  that it needs to carry out its duties.

Thank you. Does anyone else want to comment? Sorry to jump in but my comment relates to a  point that Mr Fraser made. There are so many   different bodies that might be responsible  for dealing with fly-tipping. Also, gathering  

Data on it is very difficult and enforcement is  tricky. We have not talked about a police role.   It is like so many things—if you are going to  have effective regulations, you need to be able   to keep track of when they are being broken.  I often think that that is forgotten about  

In a number of environmental policy areas. We  legislate with good intentions but implementation   gets lost in a guddle between various levels of  government and non-departmental public bodies   and all the rest of it. My optimistic hope is  that some of that might be addressed through  

The vision document that I mentioned  earlier, which I believe will come out   while the bill is still under consideration.  That might be a good source for questions. In its recent press release, SEPA talked about  the role of Scotland’s serious organised crime  

Task force and the joint unit for waste crime. I  do not know much about the latter, but the public   will find that interesting, because there has been  a lot of discussion about the need for behaviour   changes on the part of individuals and about  the possible use of sanctions—or sticks—against  

Individuals at a time when gangs are operating  at a national and international level. Even   though those gangs are causing havoc in all our  communities and destroying the environment, no   one is going after them in the way that  we need. We sometimes get pushback from  

The public if they feel that we are going  after individuals rather than the big gangs. That is an issue that the committee  can reflect on in our stage 1 report,   along with the question of whether there are too  many organisations, whether the system ought to  

Be streamlined, and the collection of  data. Those are all valuable points. Bob Doris has a question, after which I will go  to the deputy convener. Bob, you must be brief,   because we are now up against the clock  and the clock always wins—I cannot stop it.

I will be very brief. The witnesses  might not need to respond, but I want   to put on record the fact that the site  of the hugely serious fire at the former   Promat factory in my constituency was one where  there had been industrial and commercial illegal  

Fly-tipping over a prolonged period  of time. I cannot say too much more   about that, but SEPA has made it clear that it  needs to have additional enforcement powers. This   is my first day on the committee, but that issue  is one that I would like us to look at as the bill  

Progresses. Given my constituency interest in  the matter, I wanted to put that on the record. As we move towards a conclusion,  there are a few issues   on which I would like to hear the witnesses’  views. What are the most problematic waste  

Streams that should be subject to waste or surplus  reporting? What criteria should the Scottish   ministers apply when deciding which waste  streams to prioritise for such reporting? There are different forms of “problematic”,  but I would highlight carbon impact, because,  

In that respect, one tonne of waste is not  equal to another tonne of waste. I would   say that textiles and clothes are quite high  up on the list, because we are talking about   material. Although its tonnage may not  be that high, the carbon impact is much  

Higher. I cannot remember the stats, but I could  email them to the committee after the meeting. The other form of “problematic” is to do  with the fact that doing the right thing   is disproportionately difficult. We have a system  that is more biased towards doing the wrong thing,  

Behaviourally speaking. Single-use vapes  are getting a lot of publicity at the   moment—another committee is looking at that  today. It is estimated that, in Britain alone,   the lithium in the batteries in the single-use  vapes—this does not include the non-single-use   vapes that might be treated as single-use  vapes—that are thrown away in a year would  

Be enough to create 5,000 electric car  batteries. That is a loop that I would like   to close. We should take that lithium and use  it, because lithium is a really rare resource. I would set two criteria. The first is to do  with the carbon impact or the impact in terms  

Of CO2 emissions, and the second relates to rare  materials. There is conflict abroad on our behalf   to get those materials, so closing the loops  there should be at the top of the shopping list. Thank you; that was very helpful.  Does anyone else wish to comment?

I would not disagree with what Michael Cook  has said. The life cycle impact assessment   of a product group should tell you about the  environmental impact of the manufacture and   disposal of that product. We have mentioned  food and the carbon associated with that,  

And textiles. Electronics come out  quite high on the list because of the   processes that are involved in manufacturing  them and in acquiring the minerals and   metals that are used in them. Obviously,  plastic is a stream that we need to focus on,  

Because it is harmful to the environment—it does  not break down—and it is a fossil fuel material. Thanks for that. I will go to Kim  Pratt and then James Mackenzie. To add to that list, textiles and plastic are  obviously very important from a carbon point  

Of view, and also chemicals. We have  a big chemicals industry in Scotland   and there is a high carbon impact  associated with their production. In relation to what are sometimes  called the critical or transition   minerals that we will need in Scotland  in order to move away from fossil fuels,  

The UK has a list of about 18 minerals that  will be needed to create a sustainable future,   and I recommend that the  committee considers that list. In relation to priority, the committee will  be unsurprised to hear that I agree with  

All of that. However, I would be looking  for triple alignment. I would like to see   those priority items that my colleagues have  talked about being the ones that are reported   on and also the ones on which action is  either being taken or being considered.

There is a bit of a perception that the  environmental movement wants to put endless   costs on to business just for fun, and I can  assure the committee that that is not the   case. If ministers have definitively ruled  out acting on a sector or product category,  

There is no point in gathering the data on it. It  is worth gathering the data only if you are either   building the case for what would be an effective  intervention that would help to build circular   economy practices and bring those economic  opportunities and environmental benefits,  

Or if you have already done an intervention and  want to know whether it is working and whether   people are complying with it. There is a bit of  a risk that the Scottish Government will end up   recommending reporting across a variety of  sectors where it does not intend to act,  

Which, I am afraid to say, is simply  a business cost for no purpose. Thanks for all of those contributions. I will ask a question, because a single-use  plastic that has not come up today,   or in our deliberations on the bill thus far, is  nurdles. In coastal communities, including my own,  

And particularly where there is extensive shipping  activity and industry, the plastic pollution   from nurdles on our beaches is significant. If  witnesses want to feed in anything on that matter,   either quickly now or in writing after the  meeting, I would be interested to see it.

I will jump in, because I am sure that you will  all want to contribute something to that comment,   and we are up against it  on the clock. I apologise. I also have a further question, which I would  encourage you to respond on in writing to the  

Clerks. We have had a lot of very useful  discussions today and covered a huge area   of subjects, but we might have missed something  that you want to see in the bill. If you have not  

Put it in your evidence, I urge you to write to  the clerks about that when you are writing about   the question that the deputy convener raised  about waste at sea, so that we can consider it. I thank you all for being very fleet  of foot around the subject. You have  

Answered lots of different questions, very  persuasively in some cases. I would normally   have suspended the meeting to allow you to  depart, but because we are so up against it,   I ask that you accept our thanks and quietly  leave the room while we continue in public  

Session with the issue that we have to  deal with next. Thank you very much. The next item of business is consideration  of a type one consent notification for the   Heavy Goods Vehicles Regulations  2023. That is a snappy title. It is a proposed United Kingdom statutory  instrument, where the UK Government is seeking  

The Scottish Government’s consent to legislate  in an area of devolved competence. On 18 October,   the Minister of Transport notified the  committee of the UK SI. The committee’s   role is to decide whether it agrees with the  Scottish Government’s proposal to consent to  

The UK Government making those regulations  within devolved competence and in the manner   that the UK Government has indicated to  the Scottish Government it wishes to. If members are content for consent to be  given, the committee will write to the Scottish  

Government accordingly. In writing, we have the  option to pose questions or to ask to be kept up   to date. If the committee is not content with the  proposal, we can make a series of recommendations. Before I set out possible recommendations, I  ask whether any member would like to express  

Views on the regulations. I  see no indications of views. Is the committee content that  the provision that is set out   in the notification should be made in  the proposed UK statutory instrument? As we are agreed, we will write to the  Scottish Government to that effect.