I think that every member of this Parliament has a place in their constituency that has become a rubbish bin because people have chucked their rubbish out of their car window. I am reminded of that every time I drive north on the A9, on the dual carriageway just north of Dalnacardoch in the First Minister’s constituency, where rubbish is strewn down the verge. It is dumped by people because they know that they cannot be seen there.

The problem is that those areas where rubbish is dumped are usually inaccessible, which makes it very difficult to catch people and also dangerous to recover that rubbish, often leading to the closure of the road. We have seen the A9 closed on occasions, as I believe the M8 or lanes of the M8 have been closed, to allow the rubbish to be recovered.

These are the people who drive along in their cars and are able to take their rubbish home but cannot be bothered so they throw it out of the window. To me, that is totally unacceptable. It litters some of the most beautiful places in Scotland. My proposal is to increase the fine for what we colloquially would call tossers to £250. It seems to be logical. That fine could be reduced if paid within seven days to £125, which would take it down to the same level that someone is charged if they park in a privately-owned car park for three minutes over their time. Many car parks charge £100 for that offence. In fact, if it was the second time that someone had offended in an low emission zone, they would be charged £120. It is the same level of money.

It is a question of what we believe is the right level to discourage people, and it is my belief that £250 would certainly discourage people. It is difficult to catch them; therefore, we need that money to be available to local councils to ensure that it is enforced. If we do not give them the resources to do that, they will not do anything.

That is my argument: it would be a simple and effective way of stopping the dumb dumpers of rubbish out of car windows.

I move amendment 63.

Most single-use vapes lie around our streets after they have been discarded. What concerns me about the amendment is that there is no way to stop that happening or to encourage people to hand them back. A ban may help in the long term, but I do not think that this will help in the short term. Can you convince me that the amendment will make people hand them in rather than throw them under the nearest bush that they pass?

I see that I have inspired members’ enthusiasm for the colours of bins across Scotland. I will give way to Mr Macpherson.

I agree with the deputy convener of the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee, because he speaks entire sense, but if we do not know which bin we are putting the recyclate in, we are hardly likely to be able to improve its quality.

I think that I have made enough of a song and dance about the colour of bins, although it would be eminently sensible to come up with a standard policy across Scotland. I move amendment 11 and will listen to the arguments.

Amendment 11 came about as a result of some of the visits that the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee undertook to look at the removal by operators of household waste. It became entirely clear that some people were not acting entirely in accordance with the law and that householders were unclear who was responsible for ensuring that the person they had employed to remove their waste—probably for a small charge—had the correct licence. It also became clear during our visit to Binn Group, a skip company, that one very simple way to do that would be to display the licence on the outside of a van.

When we discussed the idea at stage 2, the minister was reticent because of the additional cost that would result, so I went to a local printer to ascertain how much an A3 vinyl sticker to go on the side of a van would cost. I was told £40. That is not a lot of money. It is not a lot when the licence has to be applied for through SEPA, and it could be easily added to the cost of the licence, so that the sticker would be displayed and the householder would know for sure that the person who came to collect their waste had a licence. They would not have to go any further than that, and anyone seeing waste being transported would know that the person was a proper licensed operator. It sounds so simple: why would anyone not like it? Well, I cannot think of a reason why members would not like it, which is why I will move amendment 11.

I turn to amendment 56. Initially, when I made a similar proposal at stage 2, the minister was reticent about supporting it. I have tried to come up with a household waste recycling plan that would be the same across all of Scotland, which is what amendment 56 attempts to introduce. The first part would require the Scottish ministers to work with COSLA to

“prepare a household waste recycling plan”,

and then to provide coloured recycling receptacles across Scotland.

I will not bore members with my chart, which I take with me wherever I go in Scotland so that I know which colour bin I am to put which bit of rubbish in, because that varies. The most common bin is a blue bin—[Interruption.]

I have stopped the noise, Presiding Officer. The most common colour bin is a blue bin, where you can put paper and cardboard, except, of course, if you are on the Isle of Lewis, where you have to put mixed recycling into blue bins. If you go to Arran, you have to put dry recycling into those bins.

Then there is the grey bin, which is for paper and cardboard in Fife, whereas Falkirk has burgundy bins for recycling those items. If you go to Edinburgh, red-lidded boxes are for cans. In Aberdeen, because they are so different to Edinburgh, they have to have orange bins. There are green bins for cans in West Lothian, purple bins in North Ayrshire and blue bins in Falkirk, which is complete mockery. The final example that I will give is that brown bins in Moray are for garden waste, but in East Dunbartonshire they are for plastic, glass and cans.

We seem to have worked out a way in Scotland to have 20 different recycling schemes among 32 councils. I hope that, if the Government is not going to agree to my amendment 56, it will prepare a chart so that people, as they move around Scotland, know which bin they are to put their recycling in.

Although penalties are available, the real issue is: how many councils across Scotland have ever prosecuted anyone for fly-tipping? I will give the minister a starter: Moray Council has not issued any penalties.

Mr Mason is entirely right, which is why my amendment states that a plan must be drawn up within one year of royal assent and that the colour of the recycling receptacles are to be standardised, where possible, within a 10-year timeframe. That would mean that, as bins came to the end of their life, they could be recycled to make bins that are the same colours across all of Scotland.

If local authorities cannot manage to do that within 10 years without spending a huge amount of money, I am not sure that we will ever reach the stage where we recycle all our waste. However, my amendment suggests that, if local authorities cannot do it within 10 years, the minister should come to the Parliament and explain why that is.

It is really simple to come up with a standardised policy—

I will give way, but Jackie Dunbar might need to move her microphone up so that I can hear her.

Given the lateness of the hour, I have no intention of reiterating my argument. However, I will note that the offence is attached to the owner of the vehicle, which I think is the right place for it to be, and, to me, a fine of £250 for putting road workers’ lives at risk seems paltry. Therefore, I will press amendment 63.