���˿���

It would, but I want to know from the Scottish Government whether that is possible. In response to Monica Lennon’s question, we know that the Welsh model works. I want to know whether that can be imported. I cannot answer that question without the information that the Scottish Government and local authorities have.

I move amendment 46.

Will the minister give way?

I have two questions. First, given the investment that local authorities have made, I appreciate your comment about the colours of bins. Would the Scottish Government consider coloured stickers that are linked to numbers or letters as part of a standardisation process?

Secondly, the co-design process that has been articulated is essentially the same process—as far as I can tell—that has gone on for a decade or more and that has resulted in a flatlining of recycling rates. How will doing the same thing again drastically change the outcome?

The bin fines are, unfortunately, a rabbit hole. They might be worthy of consideration, but, as we heard from the minister, would be used only in the most unusual cases, based on the evidence that is likely to be presented. Therefore, I respectfully suggest that any length of time spent on that measure by the team is a distraction from transformational changes that could be worked on. That is what the Scottish Government wants to make part of its agenda for a circular economy, but I fail to see the argument for that.

Nonetheless, there are opportunities to standardise bin colours or a introduce a more consistent approach. As a result of the approach that is being taken, a cynic might think that the question that is being answered—certainly not by the minister but by a series of previous ministers and cabinet secretaries—is: how do we ensure that recycling flatlines for as long as possible in Scotland? It is another example of how Scotland does that—and there is a long list of them.

Yes, and it is embarrassing that the committee thinks that meeting a recycling target 12 years late is too onerous. If we are in a climate emergency, we should act quickly. The opposite has been proposed and consistently voted on by the committee on a series of measures.

I do not intend to move amendment 57, but there is more work to be done on the possibilities for standardisation. In broad terms, on segregating waste, the industrial reprocessing infrastructure, which has a lifespan of 25 years, is already future proofing the recycling capacity for households as well as commercial and industrial concerns. Without some major public funding to change it, that system will remain locked in—rightly or wrongly. Therefore, it is already future proofed, so we could get standardisation across a host of local authorities and increase our recycling rates quickly and easily if anyone wanted to do so.

I will press it.

After, I think, three sessions and almost 15 hours, I thought that I might have something that the Scottish Government agreed with. I am a little puzzled as to what is wrong with amendment 56, but, nonetheless, I will take what has been said as supportive. I hope that I have not made a mistake somewhere along the line.

Amendment 55 agreed to.

Amendment 160 moved—[Jackie Dunbar]—and agreed to.

Amendments 56 and 57 not moved.

Amendment 66 seeks to protect front-line waste operatives from assaults, via guidance. I lodged the two amendments in the group because changes could be made to the terms and conditions of waste operatives as a result of the bill. In case there are any changes as a result of bin fines or contamination inspections, I seek to ensure that ministers must get approval from trade unions and local authorities before implementing legislation to get waste operatives to inspect bins.

Clearly, our front-line staff are out there already and, under their current terms and conditions, they may on occasion, depending on the local authority, be required to engage in certain practices. However, based on our earlier discussions, it appears that there could be a significant change to work practices as a result of the bill. It is important that workplace safety and working conditions are to the fore when we consider the legislation, and that is what the amendments in the group are about.

Amendment 67 does not seek to change any reserved law. It just recognises that changes from the employer, which could be the local authority, need to be recognised. That is ultimately a result of the Scottish Government’s policy to change the terms and conditions of the front-line operatives. That is the key point. It is the Scottish Government—not the local authorities—that is seeking to change terms and conditions.

It is within the scope of what the Scottish Government has defined that I have suggested that trade unions should be involved. This has nothing to do with Westminster. Otherwise, the Scottish Government should remove all its amendments in relation to bin fines. I am just commenting on the pitch on which the Scottish Government has decided to play.

With that, I will not press amendment 66.

Amendment 161 adds reuse and repair to the code of practice on household waste recycling. A lot of the time, quite rightly, recycling is considered and is the focus of our attention. However, recognising the waste hierarchy, I note that prevention and preparation for reuse and associated activities are more important than recycling in terms of our ambitions. Therefore, I have lodged amendments 161 and 162 to recognise that. I think that we can do more in this space, but that is a starter for 10.

Amendment 58 references the code of practice, which it says

“must be prepared and published by the end of the year 2025.”

That is also easy to put in place. It is a very simple date.

Amendment 59 is about having sufficient funds for local authorities. Amendment 163 is about consultation with “the general public”; as we know, public participation is a key environmental objective.

I move amendment 161.