Chamber and committees

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.”