Seòmar agus comataidhean

Okay. Thanks, convener. I will maybe come back in later.

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?

I recognise that the focus of the bill is on co-production with local authorities. We have had a number of debates about targets and putting more certainty in the bill. However, I believe that the best way forward and the best way to drive up recycling rates is to really double down on areas such as the code of practice and to get local authorities working together to try to deliver that. There should be uniformity where it makes sense to deliver that.

I am sympathetic to what Maurice Golden is looking to insert in the bill with amendment 161. I was thinking along the same lines. However, I am interested to hear the minister’s response to that.

There is a need to ensure that there are proper facilities for reuse and repair not just in one local authority area or a handful of exemplar local authority areas, but across the whole of Scotland. Embedding that into the bill is really important. I am interested to hear the minister’s response to that and how, if that cannot be supported today, it can be taken forward for stage 3.

Likewise, there is a need to get on with the code of practice. Maurice Golden’s amendment 58 would introduce a date of the end of 2025. I do not know whether that will be welcomed by local authorities, but we need clarity on what that date is and progress in relation to the code of practice.

To be honest, I am less clear about Bob Doris’s amendments, because there are some quite big choices for local authorities in that space. I speak as a former councillor—albeit that I was a councillor some time ago now, before I entered Parliament in 2016—when I say that the decision on whether to invest in a household garden waste service is a difficult one. Driving around in big trucks and picking up garden waste is not always the best environmental option. It is also important that councils configure household bulk uplift services in a way that is just. Those are important choices that councils need to make.

I am not entirely sure about the extent to which all of that can be codified in a code of practice. I am also not entirely sure that consistency is always the best approach.

When does the minister think that the code will be produced?

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?

It has been an interesting debate. In summing up, can you say whether you believe that there is a role for single-use item charges at all? What I have heard from you has been pretty negative.

I am not quite sure about the analogy of chip paper—as a consumer, I certainly would not want to reuse chip paper. What do you see as the role of single-use charges? They have been effective for carrier bags, and there has been a long-standing policy development around the use of charges in relation to coffee cups and other hot-drink cups.

I am interested to know the thrust of what it is that you are trying to achieve with your amendments. If you are trying to achieve clarity by putting more requirements in the text of the bill in relation to schemes that are brought forward, or trying to design in exemptions around the nature of biodegradability and everything else, I can understand where you are coming from, but that seems to be quite a negative place. It seems that you do not, fundamentally, see a use for such charges, which may be seen as punitive, but which—it could be argued—nonetheless have a pretty critical role in reducing waste and delivering behavioural change.