Seòmar agus comataidhean

The committee’s stage 1 report went into some detail on the options to put more detail in the bill or requiring what could effectively be called a super-affirmative process, which was originally used for the establishment of the DRS regulations back in 2019. That involved Parliament taking extensive evidence from stakeholders in advance of the regulations being laid and seeking reassurance from the minister about how the regulations would be altered in light of the committee evidence before finally being laid.

I just wonder if, in lodging his amendments for this morning, Mr Simpson had considered what an enhanced parliamentary process might look like. Co-production, whether with industry, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities or individual local authorities, is critical, as these are the folk who will be delivering the schemes in practice. They are the people who will be selling the coffee, taking cups back, administrating charges and so on. They will be setting up the systems for dealing with waste, biodegrading, composting and all of that. If those people and organisations are the experts, surely there is a way to bring co-production into Parliament, allowing for greater scrutiny ahead of something being introduced. To write a scheme into the bill at this point without any of that co-production or scrutiny would perhaps ring alarm bells within industry, whereas an enhanced parliamentary process might be more appropriate. The committee was wrestling with working out where a super-affirmative process might add value to the bill and where it might not. A Scottish statutory instrument process would be adequate.

Bob Doris makes a good case. I do not know to what extent that is already under discussion and whether there is a desire in local authorities and COSLA to move towards something that is more consistent and unified across Scotland or whether there are cases for local authorities to take slightly different approaches. I am not aware of the details of that.

I will certainly listen to what the minister says, and I hope that there will be more discussion ahead of stage 3. If there is some uncertainty about whether that option is being treated seriously within the development of the code of practice, it might be appropriate to put something into legislation.

However, what we have heard in relation to this group of amendments—indeed, in relation to considering amendments over the past couple of days—is calls from members of the committee and people outside the committee for more certainty about how things are being developed, what the state of play is among those who are involved in co-production, and what assurances we can have that certain key things, such as reuse and repair, will not be dropped because they are not in the legislation. That is where the frustration and residual concern are coming from—certainly from me, and from a number of members of the committee.

Will the minister take an intervention?

Thanks to Monica Lennon for championing a range of different, really important approaches, which are being driven by communities and social enterprises. Some of the work that has been happening around Scotland on nappies over the past 20 years is really valuable. There is certainly more that can be done to promote best practice and to ensure that it is rolled out across different councils.

Maurice Golden makes an important point. We have had 20 years, particularly on nappies, and evidence has been brought as to what the most effective way forward is to reduce waste and to treat the inevitable waste that we will continue to get from disposable nappies. We have also had evidence on what is driving behavioural change and what the barriers are to that. It is important that the Government reflects on all of that. The most appropriate way to pursue the work on reusables is through the route map, which is where the discussion with Monica Lennon and Lorna Slater got to.

Social enterprises are doing incredible work. We have some good examples of amendments being lodged involving nappies and mattresses. We could lodge a whole range of other amendments here: I would highlight bikes as being massively important, with social enterprises taking bikes out of landfill, doing them up, selling them on and generating skills and training. Those bikes can then be used in schools for bikeability training. There are lots of examples, and another one is furniture.

The question is what it is appropriate to do in the bill. Although I am reassured by some of the comments that the previous minister made about the route map, I am wondering, ahead of stage 3, whether there is an appropriate anchor in the bill that ensures that local authorities and the Government are doing the planning around reusable items. I do not have clarity in my own head about what that might look like.

I do not think that it is the amendments that are before us from Monica Lennon, but there is something in there around having certainty that local authorities are carrying out appropriate planning on reusable items. For me, part of the discussion that is needed in the time that we have between stage 2 and stage 3 is about what might be appropriate in the bill.

Will the member give way?

I live in a rural area. There is a difficulty in carving out a particular type of property from the enforcement provision. It needs to be applied proportionately and in a way that recognises that communities are different and that waste collection is different.

We heard throughout the stage 1 evidence that, when local authorities are doing their educational piece and looking at how they support householders, that is important work, and applying a sanction is an absolute last resort. I appreciate that there are complexities with tenements, but there are complexities and risks of contamination with any form of bin collection at a road end or bin collection with shared use. It is good practice to work these things through. Local authorities are generally good at that, and it would be difficult to carve out a particular exemption.

I accept a lot of the arguments that members have made on standardisation, but is there also an element of responding to innovation? Recycling technology will, presumably, improve over time. In the future, there might be an economic argument for introducing kerbside collection of certain materials that does not exist now. There might be a need to segregate materials in the future.

I am not sure what that would look like, but baking standardisation into law feels a little bit excessive. A code of practice that could be developed further with local authorities might be the most appropriate way to drive things forward. I am a little bit nervous about saying that we must use a specific colour and size of bin. In my local authority, collection systems have changed over time due to the price of recyclate, not because of any lack of willingness to standardise. Perhaps it is a hostage to fortune to bake in a fixed model, because that is what we think will drive things forward.

Will the member take an intervention?

If Scottish ministers issued such guidance, would that cut across any collective bargaining that the unions might put in place with COSLA on issues related to terms and conditions? That is a genuine question.

Will the member take an intervention?