Meeting of the Parliament 20 March 2024
I am pleased to make a short contribution to the debate on behalf of the Finance and Public Administration Committee. As members might know, my committee colleagues are in London for a meeting of the interparliamentary finance committee forum, so you are stuck with me—I think that I am also the oldest member of the committee.
The committee has scrutinised the bill’s financial memorandum, and I would like to highlight some of the key issues that we identified in our report, which was published on 30 November last year. Our report raised concerns about the lack of certainty and potential underestimates in the FM. We noted that a number of the bill’s provisions remain subject to co-design and, therefore, do not have clear associated costs at this stage. Even so, the evidence that the committee received suggested that the FM underestimates costs in relation to enforcement, education and communication campaigns and the infrastructure required to ensure that local authorities are able to adhere to the mandatory code of practice.
A 100 per cent payment rate for fixed penalty notices, which is assumed in the financial memorandum, is incredibly unlikely. Our report raised further concerns regarding the interaction of the bill with related schemes, including the deposit return scheme and the United Kingdom-wide extended producer responsibility scheme. We received evidence that those have created an uncertain environment, which has led to local authorities entering into short-term contracts that can provide little value for money. In relation to local councils, there is also the issue of their coming into alignment with the existing code of practice, which Zero Waste Scotland estimates is costing about £88 million.
The Scottish Government’s response to the report, which was received last week, provides some additional clarity on areas such as enforcement costs and the publication of a national litter and fly-tipping strategy year 1 action plan in May 2024. We also note the minister’s commitment to provide regular updates on costings as regulations are developed.
However, as has been the case with other bills recently, the finance committee remains concerned about the Scottish Government’s approach of introducing a framework bill and using co-design to develop the detail of the policy as the bill progresses through Parliament. Although we do not disagree with the principles of co-design and engaging with stakeholders on policy proposals, both of which support better outcomes and improve decision making, we are unconvinced by the argument that co-design and engagement must follow the legislative process instead of being used to inform and refine policy proposals in advance of legislation being introduced.
The increasing use of framework bills that seek to provide future Governments with enabling powers and that do not, as a result, enable the best estimates of all the costs, savings and changes in revenue to be identified risks the Parliament passing legislation that might, once outcomes are fully understood, be unaffordable. Ultimately, we believe that it poses long-term risks to the Scottish budget, both now and for future Governments.
The finance committee still has reservations about the sequencing that the Scottish Government has opted for in introducing this bill, and, as is stated in our report, we are not convinced that the FM meets the requirements set out in the Parliament’s standing orders to provide
“best estimates of the costs, savings, and changes to revenues to which the provisions of the Bill would give rise”.
We will scrutinise closely the updates on the expenditure that would be incurred, as has been committed to by the minister, alongside any savings that would arise from the bill, but we request that those updates be provided every six months, as the committee recommended, rather than as the regulations are developed, as is proposed by the minister.