Chamber and committees

What I know is that repealing section 59 is not the answer. I have said on record, and to Mr Fraser privately, that I am willing to talk to him about what more we can do in this area to ensure that there is support for private landowners and occupiers in tackling fly-tipping on their land. I am open to Mr Fraser’s suggestions about what that could be.

For the reasons that I have outlined, I urge the committee not to support amendment 202.

Given the importance of developing a national understanding of the level of fly-tipping in Scotland, the Scottish Government is happy to support Murdo Fraser’s amendment 203 and is happy to engage with him on the proposals in amendment 204, although we cannot support that amendment as it is currently written.

We agree that amendment 203 could fill a gap in existing data. Work is already under way through the national litter and fly-tipping strategy to improve data collection from local authorities and park authorities, but it is reliant on voluntary reporting.

I am happy to look into that.

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.