���˿���

I welcome the committee’s report, which had some useful information in it.

The information in the financial memorandum is the best information that we have. We can go through in detail how each of the estimates in there was produced. They were produced in consultation with local authorities and businesses, where we have the relevant information, and by examining the costs of parallel or roughly equivalent projects that we have undertaken in the Scottish Government, for example, using data from Zero Waste Scotland.

In relation to assumptions around things such as fixed-penalty notices, the assumption in the financial memorandum of a payment rate of 100 per cent relates only to the provisions that introduce a new civil penalty regime on littering from vehicles. A range of costs associated with enforcement were included. Robust data on payment rates is not held centrally. I recognise that we could probably benefit from a comparative figure, but it is fairly marginal in the overall costings of the financial memorandum.

When it comes to anticipating the costs, the convener is right to say that there is a range. That is because there is a substantial range in relation to the variability of the current readiness of our councils and their existing recycling rates, which vary from about 20 per cent all the way up to around the 50 or 55 per cent mark. We are aiming for 60 per cent as a country, so some of our councils are very nearly there and some are a very long way away.

The convener can imagine that the cost of bringing councils over that line will vary enormously. It depends entirely on what we agree to be the code of practice and the target. The comparative number that we have set out is £88.4 million, which is Zero Waste Scotland’s estimate for bringing all councils up to the current code of practice, which is a voluntary code of practice to which most councils do not adhere.

Those are the best numbers that we have available to us.

Of course I am concerned about the equality impact of these matters. It is absolutely true that improved enforcement can benefit deprived communities because, in many cases, they are the ones that are suffering most from the impacts of litter. Wherever we take action on litter prevention and give local authorities and SEPA more powers on litter prevention, we intend to benefit deprived communities.

Yes, we absolutely share that concern. Dealing with POPs waste is a regulatory requirement; it needs to be incinerated safely. However, I would note that sofas that have fire-retardant chemicals on them are perfectly safe to use and reuse. We need to look at how we get those items into the reuse stream and not consider them to be waste when they are still perfectly good to use. It is only when they come to the end of their life that we need to ensure that they are disposed of properly.

I am not aware of goods being shipped around the world, and the intention is to prevent the disposal of goods, not their re-export. Do any of the officials want to come in on that?

The only comment that I think pertains to me came from the deputy convener. What he has asked for is not a problem at all.

I correct myself. I am trying to remember what I did. If the record says that I met Amazon, then I did. I would have to go back and see the minutes of the meeting. That was last year. The convener will know that I have many meetings. If that is on the record, we can find out what the minutes of that meeting say.

I am keen to get the route map to you as quickly as we can. Do we have an updated timescale?

For the national targets, we are looking at using the affirmative procedure, not the pre-laying procedure, as Ailsa Heine has pointed out.

I absolutely agree that the bill can be used in that way. The member will note that, in section 1, which is on the circular economy strategy, many of the provisions specifically refer to “consumption of materials”. That is not limited to the impact of the consumption of materials on Scotland, so one could absolutely use those provisions to look at global footprint. Earlier this week, I had a meeting about a report that is to be published on Scotland’s global footprint and how we will look at that. Work is being done on that in parallel with the work on the bill.

I do not know whether any of the officials would like to come in on that.

No—I do not think that stakeholders need to be nervous. Since he gave evidence to the committee, I have had a meeting with Ewan MacDonald-Russell of the Scottish Retail Consortium to clarify exactly that point. He was concerned that the definition might include food and other perishable goods, so I wanted to reassure him that that is not the case. The description of “consumer goods” is intended to be used in relation to durable goods, not perishable goods. I have agreed to write to Mr MacDonald-Russell to clarify that point.

The intention is to cover goods that are currently being disposed of that have a significant impact. The model that we are examining is the one that applies in France, where rules have been imposed for electronics, textiles, hygiene products and cosmetics. That is the model that we will consider, although we will do a full consultation before we implement it.