���˿���

I do not agree, Mr Lumsden, but that is a helpful intervention. These amendments are not about placing further statutory obligations on local authorities—absolutely not. For the other areas that could be included in the code of practice, the language that is used in the bill is “may” and not “must”. I would not agree with giving those things an undue status compared with the other areas that can be in the code of practice.

However, there is a meeting of minds about the need to resolve some of the issues that I have outlined. Amendments 217 and 218 might not be the way to resolve them, but they have to be discussed by Parliament. I raised them during the stage 1 evidence session, and Mr Macpherson, the deputy convener, also had a concern in relation to some of this.

I am happy to keep these as probing amendments, but I would like further discussions with the minister ahead of stage 3 to see whether there is a more appropriate way for me to get assurances that we can tease out the relationship among charging regimes, the mixed approach across the 32 local authorities and the strategy that will be produced by co-production.

Mark Ruskell may, in fact, be right. Certainly, things are less clear in relation to garden waste. I accept that. That is why I separated the matter into two amendments.

In relation to domestic bulk uplift waste, I think that the approach would be desirable. I could, of course, be wrong. The amendment would simply ask the co-production model to consider and not to compel.

Given the testimony that we have heard from witnesses and in our own caseloads across Scotland, occasional fly-tipping from domestic waste, the potential relationship with charging regimes and what services are offered at the local authority level are very real issues.

Does Mr Ruskell think that it would be no bad thing for the co-production model to at least consider bulk uplift regimes across 32 local authorities?

I was not suggesting that, if £700 million became available, that is how we would spend it. That will simply not happen. I was making the point that, if a small amount of money was to become available, there are lots of ways in which the Government could use it to support frail older people to get mobile and live an active life. There are other demands on the money that could meet the needs that the mobility component is supposed to be trying to meet. Will the cabinet secretary think in an innovative way about how we could do some of that?

Yes, thank you, convener. There are some quite stark financial realities here, cabinet secretary. Some modest but very welcome changes to the new Scottish system have already led to a forecasted additional cost of £87 million beyond the money that is provided from Westminster. I think that you have put on the record that introducing the mobility component would cost £700 million and that the cost would rise each year. That is eye watering. Across the parties, that is just a non-starter, if I am honest about it.

However, there are lots of frail older people with mobility issues. Some will qualify for pension age disability payment; others will not. I know that money will not become available tomorrow. The Government and we, as a country, are in a really difficult financial situation. If money became available, would it be sensible to bring in any element of mobility component for older people, or are there other ways that we could use any new moneys to help a lot of older people who are struggling with mobility to get out and about and live active lives? Are there ways to invest other than through the mobility component?

We will give it a couple of weeks, cabinet secretary. Thank you—I have no more questions.

I, too, want to explore short-term assistance. I listened carefully to the cabinet secretary’s exchange with Paul O’Kane. The committee would welcome a note of all the areas for which short-term assistance is a passporting benefit in relation to UK reserved benefits. In that way we might understand the extent of what we might call the exposure from the DWP taking a different view of STA as a passporting benefit, as opposed to claiming back retrospectively once a benefit has been reinstated.

One example is the suite of carers benefits that exists as a passporting benefit. My understanding is that, by autumn this year, that will be wholly delivered by Social Security Scotland. In a Scotland-specific system of passporting benefits, if someone got short-term assistance in relation to pension age disability payment, would their carers payments be passported at Scottish level, or would they have to apply to Social Security Scotland to have them backdated to the point where that would otherwise have been available? Passporting is increasingly happening not just at a UK level but at a Scotland level, too.

That would be really helpful. The committee cannot start to call for things if we do not realise the granular detail of what it means in practice. At some point in the future, we might believe that the status of short-term assistance should change to being a stand-alone passporting benefit for a short period—I do not know. However, unless we can map out what that looks like, the committee cannot make an informed decision. I think that such a note would be welcome.

My only other question is on the lessons learned from the roll-out of other benefits, which you have touched on. Do you want to add anything on that—in particular, on the capacity to process applications or to respond to clients within a reasonable time? I know that you have mentioned that, but this is an opportunity to put more detail on the record and give the committee reassurance.

In this small group of amendments, the committee is working constructively with the Government on some of the concerns in our stage 1 report. Transformative state change is needed to move from a linear to a circular economy, and statutory targets will provide a strong focus for action, certainty and direction of travel across policy. The amendments would provide, as the committee recommended, that initial targets under section 6 of the bill should be subject to an enhanced form of parliamentary scrutiny.

The pre-laying or super-affirmative procedure that is outlined in amendment 150 is in line with section 9(8) of the bill on charges for single-use items, providing a consistency of approach and creating the opportunity for greater scrutiny by Parliament. It requires that the Scottish ministers must lay draft regulations before the Scottish Parliament at least 90 days ahead of going through the usual affirmative procedure. During the 90-day period, the Parliament will be able to scrutinise the regulations in the manner that it deems appropriate, and ministers must take account of any representations, resolutions or reports made by the Parliament ahead of laying the final regulations for approval.

I understand that that is consistent with how super-affirmative procedures have been used before. I encourage members to lock in that enhancement to scrutiny.

If members want to reflect on anything else ahead of stage 3, they can of course do that. I take on board the fact that Mr Lumsden is seeking clarity, but that would be best coming from the minister rather than from me. I urge the committee to support amendments 147 and 150.

Looking at the amendment, I am reminded of my time as convener of the Local Government and Communities Committee in a previous session of the Parliament. When Scottish ministers decide what funding is appropriate for local authorities, there is often a significant disparity between that and what COSLA thinks is appropriate. Is the amendment’s underlying intent not just to release funds but to ensure genuine, constructive dialogue between local authorities and Government about the art of the possible and what can be funded? There will be aspirations that cannot be funded, but there will also be direct funding that is required and which can make a meaningful impact. It is all about dialogue.

I am already intervening on Ms Boyack.