Chamber and committees

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.

Indeed. The code will be co-designed by those who will have to deliver on this, but they will also have to meet statutory targets, so the code will have to be robust.

On amendment 163, the bill already provides that the Scottish ministers must consult publicly on the draft code of practice, so I do not think that the amendment is necessary.

I will stop there, convener.

Before I do so, Mr Lumsden, I will continue with my point.

First, a written warning would be issued. Then, only if the failure to comply continues or there is a new but similar failure to comply, a notice of intent to require payment of a civil penalty is issued, with a period of time for representations to be made as to why the civil penalty charge should not be required. After consideration of any representations, a final notice to pay a civil penalty may be served. Again, it is about tackling persistent and deliberate contamination of waste.

A penalty would apply not to a situation where somebody has put something in the wrong bin by mistake but to a situation where there has been evidenced, deliberate contamination.

In any situation where somebody is given a penalty, there has to be evidence behind that. A penalty would be a result of evidence of an individual being identified as deliberately contaminating or failing to comply with the legislation. Mr Lumsden describes a situation where there is a big blanket penalty on the whole block, but that could not be evidenced. Therefore, after consideration of any—

I will continue my point and then I will come to Mr Simpson.

Local authorities, Mr Lumsden, would use those new powers only as a last resort, after other options to engage with and support householders have been attempted. Should the written warning be heeded, there will be no penalty to pay.

Guidance on the approach to enforcement, including the approach to communal bins, will be created in consultation with local authorities. Some local authorities are probably doing well with their levels of contaminated waste, so it is important to share good practice in how they manage that. That is the right way to go about it, rather than a top-down approach from me. It is about enabling co-production in the spirit of the Verity house agreement.

My argument, which you have articulated well, Mr Ruskell, is that we do not want to do anything in primary legislation that is inflexible, does not take into account innovation and would cause a problem if there was a change in the trends in the types of recycling that are required. I absolutely take on board that point. You just made my argument even stronger. We all agree that local authorities and those involved in the co-design process need flexibility, but they also need to bring their experience to bear in that process.

Amendment 65, from Maurice Golden, proposes that the Scottish Government provides resources for an audit of household waste receptacles. I am not sure what benefits would be derived from such an endeavour or, indeed, what the costs to the public purse would be. As part of the co-design process with COSLA and local authorities, research requirements and any gaps in our knowledge will be identified. That could include an audit of the number and types of waste receptacles, but I will leave that to them to identify those gaps. Legislating for such a project before the design process has even begun is counterproductive and potentially a waste of resources.

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.