Seòmar agus comataidhean

This is no reflection on the minister, who has been in post for a very short time, but trusting to deliver is a theme in this area, where there is very little trust, based on the Scottish Government consistently setting targets that it makes no attempt to meet. Next year, it will be interesting to see whether the food waste target of a one third reduction by 2025 is met. I agree with the minister that that is the first line of the waste hierarchy.

I have concerns about the date of March 2026 for the production of the code because, as members will be aware, if there is a short delay, there might be only a few of us who are here to pick up the issue in the next session of Parliament—although I wish everyone well in that election. That is a genuine concern. Again, this is no reflection on the minister, but there is a genuine concern over the multiple delays to the bill. However, we are where we are.

I am happy to.

Amendment 66 seeks to protect front-line waste operatives from assaults, via guidance. I lodged the two amendments in the group because changes could be made to the terms and conditions of waste operatives as a result of the bill. In case there are any changes as a result of bin fines or contamination inspections, I seek to ensure that ministers must get approval from trade unions and local authorities before implementing legislation to get waste operatives to inspect bins.

Clearly, our front-line staff are out there already and, under their current terms and conditions, they may on occasion, depending on the local authority, be required to engage in certain practices. However, based on our earlier discussions, it appears that there could be a significant change to work practices as a result of the bill. It is important that workplace safety and working conditions are to the fore when we consider the legislation, and that is what the amendments in the group are about.

Amendment 67 does not seek to change any reserved law. It just recognises that changes from the employer, which could be the local authority, need to be recognised. That is ultimately a result of the Scottish Government’s policy to change the terms and conditions of the front-line operatives. That is the key point. It is the Scottish Government—not the local authorities—that is seeking to change terms and conditions.

It is within the scope of what the Scottish Government has defined that I have suggested that trade unions should be involved. This has nothing to do with Westminster. Otherwise, the Scottish Government should remove all its amendments in relation to bin fines. I am just commenting on the pitch on which the Scottish Government has decided to play.

With that, I will not press amendment 66.

That is my point. The Scottish Government will have an exact cost for that. There might be changes. It might be impossible for the colours of the bins to be standardised and it may not work. The purpose of the amendment is for the Scottish Government to say, “Look, this is where we are at. We can’t turn back time. Therefore, this is how we are going to meet our own targets.” I am just trying to help the Scottish Government to meet its targets more than a decade late. I can get to the 50 per cent household waste recycling target on my own, so I am sure that the Scottish Government can. Beyond that, things will get more challenging. That is why we need the information that the Scottish Government will have access to in order to answer your question. I do not know how much it will cost. I know that it can be done, but I do not know how much it would cost individual local authorities.

That is important but having the same colours would make it easier. Glasgow did a television ad with the message, “Put X into your blue bin” that bled into East Renfrewshire and Renfrewshire. East Renfrewshire residents were confused, because that was not what they needed to put into their blue bins. That speaks to the importance of my amendment 57. It is about the Scottish Government saying, “This is how we are going to achieve very basic targets.”

I will put the discussion in play and relate it to tackling net zero: if we cannot get kerbside recycling right, we should forget net zero. We may as well all go home; there is no point. My suggestions are basic things and we can lift and lay the ways in which to do them from other regions in the UK and other countries. I think that it is important to highlight some of these aspects, because I am increasingly seeing local authorities doing different things, such as Angus Council taking glass out of its dry mixed recycling bin and asking people to take glass to bring sites. There are pros and cons with all these things, but it is clear that the guidance that is given to local authorities on achieving targets will be important.

We do not need to go far for those examples. England did not have the same positive narrative on recycling or the same ambitious targets as Scotland, and, broadly, it has a very similar recycling rate. Wales took a different approach. It had the Scottish version of, if you like, positivity about recycling and words, but those have been linked to actions, which is why its recycling rates are so high.

That is not the only way to do it. That is the central point of my amendment: the easiest thing to do would have been to start with the Welsh approach 15 or 20 years ago, and to roll it out in that manner. We need to ask what we do now: can we lift and lay the Welsh approach? We have a patchwork quilt, and it will be more challenging.

It would, but I want to know from the Scottish Government whether that is possible. In response to Monica Lennon’s question, we know that the Welsh model works. I want to know whether that can be imported. I cannot answer that question without the information that the Scottish Government and local authorities have.

I move amendment 46.

Will the minister give way?

I have two questions. First, given the investment that local authorities have made, I appreciate your comment about the colours of bins. Would the Scottish Government consider coloured stickers that are linked to numbers or letters as part of a standardisation process?

Secondly, the co-design process that has been articulated is essentially the same process—as far as I can tell—that has gone on for a decade or more and that has resulted in a flatlining of recycling rates. How will doing the same thing again drastically change the outcome?