Chamber and committees

Mr Lumsden is absolutely right. I will say a little bit more about that later. I also note that everything that I just listed that the Government suggests could be in the strategy would not have to be in it either; those things “may” be included. Likewise, in my amendments 217 and 218, bulk uplift and garden waste “may” be included, but there would be no compulsion. As I said, I believe that not listing those items is an omission. Ideally, they would be in a code of practice that would empower action in that area, if it is considered appropriate.

To be fair, I believe relatively strongly that, in an ideal world, they would be in any such code of practice. I am increasingly concerned about small-scale, often everyday, fly-tipping in urban areas, particularly in the area of Glasgow that I represent, Maryhill and Springburn. I have spoken to colleagues in the Parliament, and I know that there is a wider issue with that. Some of it is unintended fly-tipping, where people put out mattresses, couches, fridges and other items in a place that five or 10 years ago was the collection point for bulk uplifts, although that service no longer exists in the local authority area. Some of it, I have to acknowledge, is unintentional in that way. I also believe that charges are an issue.

Although there is no statutory duty for local authorities to offer bulk uplifts or garden waste provision, they all have strategies on it already. Thirty-one of 32 local authorities charge for bulk uplifts; Fife is the only local authority that does not. Of those 31 local authorities, two have an annual fee—you pay your fee and you get a bulk uplift over the course of the year—and the rest have a variety of methods. Some are per item and some are for bundles of items. Glasgow City Council, the City of Edinburgh Council and East Lothian Council, for example, charge a household £5 per item for bulk uplifts, but East Renfrewshire Council, among others, has bundled charges, where uplift of up to five items is £40 and six to 10 items is £50. It varies across the country; for example, Inverclyde Council and Aberdeenshire Council have similar models to East Renfrewshire’s. There is a patchwork of provision.

I should point out that seven councils have reductions or exemptions for low-income households or households that are local authority tenants, but most councils do not. I say bluntly that, if someone is in a flat, has no garden, has no car and is on a low income, and there are charges in place, when they have to get rid of a carpet, a sofa, a mattress, a fridge or whatever, which maybe that household struggled to purchase in the first place, there is always a chance—although I would hope that it would not—that occasional fly-tipping might happen as a result.

There will be a relationship between the charging regime in each local authority area and the pattern of fly-tipping that we see across the country. We have already heard about issues with data on fly-tipping. There is not enough data on it more generally, and this will be another area on which we do not have enough information.

Earlier, we also heard about a householder duty of care when they have contracted a “man with a van”—I think that that was the expression used—or a person with a van, to discard their bulk-uplift items. We are putting the duty of care on householders for what those contractors do, but they are effectively competitors with the local authority, if it offers a similar service. Again, there is a direct connection to local authority strategies.

We need greater consistency in this area. We need to look at that relationship when local authorities offer bulk uplift and garden waste removal.

I should also point out that six local authorities offer no garden waste service whatsoever. In six local authorities, there is no garden waste service, and seven offer it for free. Again, there is a patchwork of provision across the country.

I do not suggest that having a consideration of bulk uplift and garden waste in the code of practice would change all that. I merely ask that during the co-production process these issues are looked at as a matter of course, as what should be in the code of practice is decided.

I started off by saying that these are probing amendments, and they remain probing amendments. However, the more that I have heard of the debate, the more I feel compelled to say that this matter must be resolved somehow. If that is not done through these amendments, I would certainly welcome further conversation with the minister.

And I have apologised.

I find it quite helpful to have some of the concerns explained. During our stage 1 scrutiny in preparation for our report, we had a debate on the extent to which the bill should be a framework bill. One of the reasons for its being a framework bill is that a lot of the matters that you are raising need to be ironed out: it might be impractical to include such things in the bill or it might make the legislation too rigid. Would you accept that there is a balance to be struck, Mr Lumsden?

Convener, I have been named, so I seek an intervention.

I apologise to Monica Lennon if I was not constructive in relation to that.

I was about to conclude, but okay.

I do not agree, Mr Lumsden, but that is a helpful intervention. These amendments are not about placing further statutory obligations on local authorities—absolutely not. For the other areas that could be included in the code of practice, the language that is used in the bill is “may” and not “must”. I would not agree with giving those things an undue status compared with the other areas that can be in the code of practice.

However, there is a meeting of minds about the need to resolve some of the issues that I have outlined. Amendments 217 and 218 might not be the way to resolve them, but they have to be discussed by Parliament. I raised them during the stage 1 evidence session, and Mr Macpherson, the deputy convener, also had a concern in relation to some of this.

I am happy to keep these as probing amendments, but I would like further discussions with the minister ahead of stage 3 to see whether there is a more appropriate way for me to get assurances that we can tease out the relationship among charging regimes, the mixed approach across the 32 local authorities and the strategy that will be produced by co-production.

Mark Ruskell may, in fact, be right. Certainly, things are less clear in relation to garden waste. I accept that. That is why I separated the matter into two amendments.

In relation to domestic bulk uplift waste, I think that the approach would be desirable. I could, of course, be wrong. The amendment would simply ask the co-production model to consider and not to compel.

Given the testimony that we have heard from witnesses and in our own caseloads across Scotland, occasional fly-tipping from domestic waste, the potential relationship with charging regimes and what services are offered at the local authority level are very real issues.

Does Mr Ruskell think that it would be no bad thing for the co-production model to at least consider bulk uplift regimes across 32 local authorities?

I was not suggesting that, if £700 million became available, that is how we would spend it. That will simply not happen. I was making the point that, if a small amount of money was to become available, there are lots of ways in which the Government could use it to support frail older people to get mobile and live an active life. There are other demands on the money that could meet the needs that the mobility component is supposed to be trying to meet. Will the cabinet secretary think in an innovative way about how we could do some of that?

Yes, thank you, convener. There are some quite stark financial realities here, cabinet secretary. Some modest but very welcome changes to the new Scottish system have already led to a forecasted additional cost of £87 million beyond the money that is provided from Westminster. I think that you have put on the record that introducing the mobility component would cost £700 million and that the cost would rise each year. That is eye watering. Across the parties, that is just a non-starter, if I am honest about it.

However, there are lots of frail older people with mobility issues. Some will qualify for pension age disability payment; others will not. I know that money will not become available tomorrow. The Government and we, as a country, are in a really difficult financial situation. If money became available, would it be sensible to bring in any element of mobility component for older people, or are there other ways that we could use any new moneys to help a lot of older people who are struggling with mobility to get out and about and live active lives? Are there ways to invest other than through the mobility component?