Seòmar agus comataidhean

I hope that it would not, because the amendments are about standing up for trade unions and the workers whom they represent. It strikes me that, ultimately, the bill could result in changes to terms and conditions. I am quite happy to work with the committee or the Government to make any changes to the wording, because that is the ultimate intention of the amendments.

I am happy to, Monica.

I have not, but I would be happy to do that. Obviously, there will be front-line workers who are not represented by trade unions. As the grandson of a front-line waste operative—or bin man, as I called him—I understand the practical realities that the bill could change. It might sound a small thing, but if someone is looking to build a strong case of evidence, they could ask front-line operatives to check bins beyond a cursory glance, which could lead to confrontation. The provision of training might be required beyond what is normally expected of our front-line waste operatives.

There are a host of areas where a seemingly small change could lead to drastic changes in the skills that are required and in terms and conditions—maybe not in every local authority area, but in certain areas—for certain parts of the workforce. I am trying to flush out any unintended consequences of an additional policy interaction from this place. That is what we need to achieve.

If we consider bin fines, it seems from the evidence that we have heard today that quite a high level of evidence will require to be built. It will vary between local authorities but, at present, some front-line operatives might be asked to take a cursory glance at the top of the bin, so contamination will be identified only if it is at the top. If we are to ensure that there is a full audit of the bin—we do not know whether we are looking at that, because we have not seen the guidance—further evidence might be required that is deeper in the bin. That could lead to a host of unintended consequences. There could be a drastic change to practices and new ones might be required. Perhaps front-line operatives, if they notice contamination at the top of the bin, will be required to look throughout the bin to establish whether it was a mistake or whether it is part of a pattern of behaviour.

We can see how creating bin fines could drastically change some work practices. The issue therefore needs to be fully considered before the provision is put in place.

I move amendment 66.

I think that we have already covered the substantive argument behind amendment 46, which I will be happy to move.

Amendment 65 is an additional ask for Scottish ministers to provide the funding to local authorities for auditing receptacles of household waste under amendment 46. It is very important that the inspection scheme for proper disposal is funded and appropriate.

Amendment 57 is based on the reflection that, if we went back 20 years, we would know that it is really simple to get a recycling rate of 60 or 70 per cent without breaking sweat: all you need to do is to roll out consistent collections with the same-coloured bins across the vast majority of Scotland. Ultimately, you get more bang for your buck in terms of communications, because it is all very similar.

Unfortunately, however, we are not sitting here 20 years ago. We have had a real lack of motivation from the Scottish Government in relation to applying the waste hierarchy and recycling, particularly over the past decade. It started out so well, I should add. Given that we know what should have happened, I am keen to understand how we get to that point from the starting point of now. What other solutions are being put in place? It is easy for me to say that we want the same-coloured bins and that that is the right way. However, given that there have been deviations across local authorities, what are the costs around that? The Scottish Government will have them to hand—unlike me, it can work out the costs of all that. What, therefore, is the reasonable ask in that space?

What is the evidence-based approach around achieving the targets that the Scottish Government has set previously—not my targets, but its own targets? I recognise that it is very easy to achieve the 2013 target. However, as we go higher and higher, issues such as that addressed by amendment 57 become far more prevalent. The Scottish Government will have all the evidence. It could release that and say, “Well, actually, we cannot go to those colours, because it will cost certain local authorities X, Y and Z.”

Amendment 161 adds reuse and repair to the code of practice on household waste recycling. A lot of the time, quite rightly, recycling is considered and is the focus of our attention. However, recognising the waste hierarchy, I note that prevention and preparation for reuse and associated activities are more important than recycling in terms of our ambitions. Therefore, I have lodged amendments 161 and 162 to recognise that. I think that we can do more in this space, but that is a starter for 10.

Amendment 58 references the code of practice, which it says

“must be prepared and published by the end of the year 2025.”

That is also easy to put in place. It is a very simple date.

Amendment 59 is about having sufficient funds for local authorities. Amendment 163 is about consultation with “the general public”; as we know, public participation is a key environmental objective.

I move amendment 161.

We are conflating two different things. I think that you are speaking about the overall recycling rate, for which the target is 70 per cent. There is an opportunity to meet that, which is certainly to be welcomed. The focus of discussions here—rightly or wrongly—is household recycling rates, which are clearly different. Most of our discussions have been on that, and they are quite separate discussions. When you start talking about the overall recycling rate, you bring in commercial and industrial waste, and you might be looking at special waste. We are then down a whole different track although, actually, it is a track that I would welcome. Separately, we have household waste, where we are flatlining and where some very simple measures can be put in place to improve the figures. That has been the general theme of the discussion. In this group of amendments, the focus is on that, although I think that there is room for both.

Contextually, when we are talking about overall recycling rates or household recycling rates, we are talking about the first rung on the ladder of net zero. We need to quickly bank what I hope will be successes and move on to some really difficult conversations. If you think that this discussion has been difficult, I suggest that the future conversations on net zero—around transport, sustainable consumption and heating our homes—will be even more challenging. That is where I would like us to be now, but we are not there, and we still have some of the early work to do. As I said, that is no reflection on the current minister.

I will press amendment 161.

I will not press amendment 66. Thank you, convener.

Amendment 66, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendment 67 moved—[Maurice Golden].

Given that the Scottish Government has clearly picked this area for a policy intervention, what assessment has the Scottish Government made of the potential emissions reductions that would result?

In advance of stage 3, it might be beneficial if the committee and Parliament were to understand why, in this case, charges for single-use items as a policy intervention were chosen over other policy interventions, so that we can better understand the impact on emissions, behaviour change and the circular economy. At the moment, I am not clear, and I wonder whether the member is clear, why we are discussing this particular policy intervention.