Chamber and committees

I lodged amendments 217 and 218 as probing amendments. I am sorry, minister, that I have not had time to discuss them with you in any detail, but I will say a little more about that at the end of my speech.

Section 12 of the bill, entitled “Code of practice on household waste recycling”, is aimed at producing greater consistency and co-ordination across local authorities. We have heard much debate on that already. The bill states that the code of practice “may” address receptacles used for collection, frequency of collection, items for recycling and composting, management of contamination of household waste and communication with the public on collections and recycling. What is not contained in that code of practice, from what I can see, is the relationship between any potential strategy and bulk uplift or garden waste items, which amendments 217 and 218, respectively, refer to. I believe that that is an omission. My amendments would not compel local authorities, or the strategy, to contain provisions for those items, but the amendments would allow those items to be included in the strategy. I hope that those things would be looked at during the co-production process that the minister has been speaking about.

I agree with the minister about local circumstances, and I am pleased that we can have further discussions ahead of stage 3. The minister said that the bill as drafted does not technically preclude the issue from being in the code. Is that because there is nothing in the bill that says what is not allowed to be in the code so, theoretically, anything could be in it?

I am sorry if you answered this in your response to Mark Ruskell’s intervention but, for clarity, do you have an example of anything in the bill that will cut across long-standing processes in relation to terms and conditions in the trade union movement? That is a genuine question. I cannot see such an example in the bill, but I am open to hearing more.

In real time, Mr Simpson.

Will the member take an intervention?

But will you take an intervention?

I seek clarity because Mr Simpson made an assumption. If I could intervene constructively, that might add something to the debate.

I am sure that Monica Lennon is aware that there is already lots of good practice on that front, and that reusable water bottles are given out in significant quantities. Speaking as the father of a son aged eight, I know that we have a cupboard full of reusable bottles. I am sure that when my son starts primary 4 he will want the latest bottle because of the various fashions and trends. Young people are collecting several bottles to keep up with the latest trends. Is there a wider issue about trying to encourage culture change, whereby each person would have only one reusable bottle? It is self-defeating to have 10 such bottles in a cupboard. I am probably confessing something about my home life there.

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.