Seòmar agus comataidhean

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].

I have a question on reporting. Will the minister commit to publishing previous reports on nappies and absorbent hygiene products that have been produced but are not currently published, which would both benefit Parliament and help to inform the debate?

I am happy to.

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.

Amendment 55 means that ministers must, rather than may, issue guidance on the operation of the household duty of care. It appears that the Scottish Government is supportive of that. Amendment 56 means that fines can come into play only after the guidance is published.

I move amendment 55.