Chamber and committees

Convener, are you open to me taking more interventions?

I agree with Mr Macpherson on that point, but I also agree that local authorities know best how to work together on how they enforce that.

I come back to Mr Macpherson’s earlier point: all those householders are doing their best to wash the items to be recycled, to ensure that they are not contaminated, and to put them in the right bins, so there will be considerable anger when individuals are contaminating that waste. However, it is right that that is evidenced.

Householders will not be fined for simple mistakes or if someone else puts the wrong item in a bin. That would be completely disproportionate. A civil penalty or a written warning will be issued as a result of an individual’s having been identified as responsible for failing to comply with the requirement. I come back to that deliberate, gross and wilful contamination. The powers would not allow for an enforcement officer to issue warning notices or penalty notices for simply everyone who uses a particular communal bin. This is about persistent, gross, deliberate contamination and evidence thereof.

I move to the issue of the consistency of the colours of bins throughout Scotland. Convener, I want to clarify the arguments that I gave you privately when you initially talked about that. I said that I was concerned about a couple of things. First, a mainland Scotland approach, in which, no matter which local authority area you are in, everyone knows the score with regard to which bin to put things in, is laudable. The co-design process might arrive at that point, and I would congratulate local authorities on arriving at it, but it would be for them to decide whether that is the approach that they want.

I said to Mr Mountain that I would be concerned about the associated plastic waste if that consistency were compelled. Ms Lennon made the point in the debate about the plastic waste of councils if they were compelled to change their bin colours by a certain point. The co-design process might come to a point at which all local authorities agree that they want to standardise the colour, but they might need to take into account when that is done.

For example, Aberdeenshire Council has recently introduced a separate colour of bin—an orange bin. It is newly rolled out, and we are all getting used to it. We have three recycling bins—four including food waste. Those are new bins. If the council had made a procurement choice for all those bins and decided on that colour, and I said that we would now standardise everything—that everything would have to be the same colour and there would have to be the same number of bins as in another local authority—the council would justifiably turn around and say, “That is our decision to make, so why are you taking away that power from us? How much plastic waste will be made as a result?”

First, the code of practice is voluntary at the moment. Whatever is decided, the bill will make that code of practice mandatory.

Secondly, I have faith that those in local authorities will react to incentives around statutory targets and to a code of practice that is mandatory, not voluntary. They will decide together how best to achieve those targets, and we need to give them a chance to do so.

All too often, in this place, the Scottish Government gets criticised for a top-down approach on things. That is not in the spirit of the Verity house agreement; it is not in the spirit of working with our local authority partners or of empowering local authorities. However, the arguments that everyone has made today about standardisation were made very well, and those involved in the co-design will probably listen to them. I would be surprised if standardisation were not a main focus of the co-design process.

In general, it is about a balance between having things in the bill that compel, and trusting and enabling a co-design process in which the people who will have to deliver better recycling rates on the ground are actively involved. That is what I am striving to do and what my predecessor strived to do, and that is what the committee recommended that we do.

I will talk about amendments 161 and 162. Reuse and repair are, of course, important to achieving a circular economy—and, frankly, there is not enough of it going on. That has been a common theme over the past three weeks, as it was at stage 1.

The bill already makes provision for the code to address preparation for reuse. I envisage that the development of the new code, alongside wider work through the route map, will enable further consideration of how we can maximise local authorities’ contribution across and further up the waste hierarchy, including reuse and repair.

A number of members have made that point throughout the process. It would not be appropriate for the new code to provide mandatory requirements in relation to the provision of wider reuse or repair services, as those do not fall within local authorities’ statutory waste management functions. That is why I cannot support the amendments as written, and I hope that Mr Golden understands that.

The committee should note that, in the current voluntary code of practice, there is guidance on desirable reuse activities, approaches and communication that local authorities should consider in their ways of working. I would be keen to build on that approach through the planned co-design of the new code and to explore opportunities to enhance local authority activities to promote reuse and repair on a voluntary or recommended basis, even if those do not become statutory.

We are currently developing the improvement programme as an alternative to financial penalties for local authority recycling targets. That could offer a more practical route to share best practice on waste prevention measures, which I think are the first line in a circular economy—it is about prevention of waste in the first place. For those reasons, I will not be able to support amendments 161 and 162.

On amendment 89, local flexibility is very much in the spirit of the Verity house agreement, so I will support the amendment, and I urge the committee to support it as well.

On amendment 58, I understand the desire to ensure that the new code of practice is available as soon as possible. However, I cannot support the amendment, because I do not want to set a statutory deadline that could potentially prevent meaningful co-design and consultation on the new code. Again, it comes back to the balance.

Will Mr Golden take an intervention?

Yes.

In the spirit of getting us over the finish line, I will not go over the reasons why I support amendment 55, but I am supporting it. I am also supporting Jackie Dunbar’s amendment 160.

However, on amendment 56, in response to Mr Golden, I cannot support an attempt to restrict consultation with local authorities. The guidance on the approach to enforcement will be created in consultation with local authorities and ensure that enforcement officers have comprehensive and practical guidance on the application of those provisions, including the steps that must be taken in relation to any enforcement action, as I have already mentioned. Therefore, I will not be able to support that amendment as it stands.

I agree that we need to go faster and harder in improving our recycling rates, but does Mr Golden agree that it is a matter of fact that our recycling rates at the moment are the best that they have been since records began? The 62.3 per cent recycling rate is not as good as we want it to be, but it is certainly the highest that it has been.

Amendment 66 would require ministers to issue guidance to waste collection authorities on how to respond to assaults, as we have heard. I understand the motivation for the amendment, but assault is already a serious offence and we would expect that it would be reported to the police. Statutory guidance that was issued by the Scottish Government in that area could contradict or otherwise interfere with the duties of Lord Advocate as head of the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service. That is why I cannot support amendment 66.

I want to pick up some of the points that have been made. The current voluntary code of practice, which includes sections on workforce development and operational delivery, sets out measures to involve staff members in the planning and preparation for service delivery and ensures that staff are properly equipped for the necessary tasks. That includes training. I expect local authorities to continue to uphold those standards, given the importance of the issue.

I also point out how seriously we take violence against waste staff. In 2022, we provided grant funding to the Scottish waste industry training, competency, health and safety forum—the SWITCH forum—to support a campaign against violence and aggression towards recycling industry staff. We take that very seriously.

On amendment 67, I acknowledge the importance of working with employee representatives on safe working conditions and workforce development for waste workers. Councils have serious responsibilities as employers. However, Mark Ruskell and Bob Doris made important points about the relationships that already exist between trade unions and local authorities, and I would not want to do anything to jeopardise those.

There is also a serious constitutional point, which is that industrial relations, employment law and health and safety law are all reserved matters. Imposing a duty on ministers on those reserved matters via amendment 67 would fall outwith the legislative competence of this Parliament. I do not think that that is what Mr Golden intends. The amendment is well meant but, if it was agreed to, it would jeopardise implementation of the entire bill.

I am happy to look at that point. I am always wary of putting something in legislation that is already against the law. It is already against the law to assault somebody, regardless of where they work. However, the review of the code of practice and the new code of practice can take into account whether employees have the correct training and empowerment around, and knowledge of, how to deal with a situation.

Ms Lennon has made the important point that Mr Golden might want to speak to the unions to come up with something workable, but it will have to be competent and not impinge on reserved matters. We butt up against that issue all the time in the Parliament. You know my views—I believe that we should decide on employment law in this place, because the fact that our hands are tied in that area comes up time and again from all parties, regardless of the bill.