Chamber and committees

The improvement programme that I mentioned is a vehicle, and a confidential one, for those conversations to happen. I go back to the reusable nappies argument about the cost neutrality of existing schemes. They do not want to publish that information, for the reasons that Ms Lennon gave, but doing so would enable those conversations to happen from local authority to local authority, and for the case to be made about why it is cost neutral. Ms Lennon also makes the great point that the more local authorities get involved in the scheme, the more the costs will come down.

With regard to amendment 216, I understand the reasons why there is an interest in such an approach to mattresses. The Scottish Government is already committed to taking further steps to tackle the environmental impact of items such as mattresses. Our draft waste and circular economy route map highlighted the potential for mattresses to be included as a priority in our future stewardship plan. It is useful to have this discussion, because there are companies that sell mattresses that operate a takeback-of-all-mattresses scheme, so when a person buys a mattress, they know that the mattress that they no longer use will be taken back by the company. When I was buying a mattress recently, I looked for companies that did that, because, frankly, it took away the hassle. I also looked into what they were going to do with the old mattress. That shows that there is a commercial aspect to that approach for those companies, so it is a useful conversation to have.

As I mentioned in previous meetings, it is vital that we take the necessary time to engage effectively in co-design of the new code of practice for household waste, in order to understand what new reuse and recycling services most benefit householders, to consider what is feasible and affordable for local authorities and to allow local authorities to make those decisions.

I ask Ms Lennon not to press her amendments. She and I have had a discussion in private about what we might put in place, as part of the co-design process, to engender those types of decisions and the knowledge sharing that has been discussed today.

Data on unauthorised practices is really difficult to get, simply because the practices are unauthorised. However, we know that it is a big problem. Getting specific data on how many people are carrying out unauthorised waste collection would be quite difficult, because they are, so to speak, operating under the radar.

However, the wider point—and probably the most important—is that people need to understand the power they have and that they have a responsibility to ask for authorised carriers’ identification and the associated certificates. Mr Lumsden is right that most people do not know that they have that power.

Yes.

This is about the wording in the bill. If the term “local authorities” is used, it includes any local authority that is represented by any organisation. That is where I am coming from.

In addition, although the intention behind the amendments might not be to explicitly obtain approval from COSLA, there could be unintended negative consequences if such language is used. As I have said, for those reasons, I cannot support the amendments.

You will need to join the queue, Mr Simpson. I will take Douglas Lumsden first.

No, I will not, because I think that the convener would like me to move on.

It is becoming a little back and forth between me and Mr Simpson, so I will take Ben Macpherson’s point. I want to get to the end of my points, but I want to take a new point that is going to be made by Ben Macpherson, which might advance the debate.

I will keep making my point.

That was the initial thing. However, the idea of having a standardised approach across Scotland might be something that the co-design process arrives at, which would be a great thing. It could be that standardisation with the other local authorities kicks in at the point when a local authority is making a procurement decision.

The cost of such an approach was mentioned, too. If that is debated among those who are involved in the co-design process, they can evaluate that cost during that process.

I absolutely get the frustration that Maurice Golden has articulated. If we leave it all up to local authorities to decide what they do in that area and they keep making the same decisions that do not improve recycling rates, we might have a problem. However, the bill articulates what we expect to happen. We want the recycling rates to improve and local councils to work together to decide how they can best do that work. It is about that knowledge sharing. Going back to Ms Lennon’s point—although I do not want to reopen the nappies debate—it is about sharing our best practice.

I do not want to prejudge the outcome of that co-design process, but I imagine that those who will be involved in it are listening carefully to Mr Mountain’s and Mr Golden’s points, and even to mine. Is standardisation the way to go? I will not say that it is, from the top down; I want that to be part of the process.

[Interruption.] The end of March 2026 is the indicative date. I thank my official for stepping in there, because I did not have that at the front of my brain.

It is a priority action for the Scottish Government to continue progress, and I am happy to keep the committee informed of that. Again, I say that prioritising measures that prevent waste is a real opportunity for the co-design process.

On amendment 59, I recognise that there are limitations on the resources of local authorities. We have considered previous amendments where we have not been able to put in the bill anything about the funding associated with local authorities. The new code will be agreed with local government, which is best placed to indicate whether it is sufficiently funded for the measures that are jointly agreed. That will then be fed into the annual budget process. I cannot support the amendment.

Bob Doris’s amendments 217 and 218 raise the important issue of bulky waste and garden waste. I understand the intention, and I am happy to work with the member on what we can do on that, but I will not be able to support the amendments as they stand. The consultation on the draft circular economy and waste route map set our intention to undertake a review of waste and recycling service charging by next year. We intend to conduct that review to ensure that we have the right incentives to reduce waste.

Mr Doris made important points about people on lower incomes who do not have access to a vehicle and do not have a garden. What do they do? I point to some of the initiatives that are happening in the private company space where vendors of, for example, electrical items have an uplift service for items that are being replaced. That is to be welcomed, and we should encourage more companies to do it.

The bill already enables bulky and garden waste services to be considered and included in the new code of practice. We need to work with local authorities to decide and put in place arrangements that increase recycling and reuse but reflect local circumstances. I think that Mr Doris made that point.