���˿���

We are conflating two different things. I think that you are speaking about the overall recycling rate, for which the target is 70 per cent. There is an opportunity to meet that, which is certainly to be welcomed. The focus of discussions here—rightly or wrongly—is household recycling rates, which are clearly different. Most of our discussions have been on that, and they are quite separate discussions. When you start talking about the overall recycling rate, you bring in commercial and industrial waste, and you might be looking at special waste. We are then down a whole different track although, actually, it is a track that I would welcome. Separately, we have household waste, where we are flatlining and where some very simple measures can be put in place to improve the figures. That has been the general theme of the discussion. In this group of amendments, the focus is on that, although I think that there is room for both.

Contextually, when we are talking about overall recycling rates or household recycling rates, we are talking about the first rung on the ladder of net zero. We need to quickly bank what I hope will be successes and move on to some really difficult conversations. If you think that this discussion has been difficult, I suggest that the future conversations on net zero—around transport, sustainable consumption and heating our homes—will be even more challenging. That is where I would like us to be now, but we are not there, and we still have some of the early work to do. As I said, that is no reflection on the current minister.

I will press amendment 161.

I will not press amendment 66. Thank you, convener.

Amendment 66, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendment 67 moved—[Maurice Golden].

Given that the Scottish Government has clearly picked this area for a policy intervention, what assessment has the Scottish Government made of the potential emissions reductions that would result?

In advance of stage 3, it might be beneficial if the committee and Parliament were to understand why, in this case, charges for single-use items as a policy intervention were chosen over other policy interventions, so that we can better understand the impact on emissions, behaviour change and the circular economy. At the moment, I am not clear, and I wonder whether the member is clear, why we are discussing this particular policy intervention.

That was my only comment on it.

Thanks.

On Jackie Dunbar’s amendments, I understand that having to produce a waste carrier’s licence is exactly what happens currently. In the case of special waste, there should be pre-notification of fridges, say, and other designated materials.

I accept that these are probing amendments. Perhaps some work can be done on an enhanced duty of care and awareness raising for householders. Indeed, the person in question could be a receptionist or some other person who regularly liaises with waste carriers. There is probably quite a lot of work to do on that, so it should perhaps be looked at.

As for my amendments in this group, it might be helpful if I explain where I am coming from on bin fines. My concern is that bin fines are a red herring—or even a rabbit hole—to avoid our taking meaningful action on the circular economy. Nonetheless, what I am proposing is a series of steps for how a local authority might impose a bin fine. I hope that that provides clarity around my amendments.

The first step is to have an efficient kerbside system with appropriate bin facilities, and regular and consistent communications with householders over what can go in which bin and when. There should be bespoke interventions from waste awareness officers, and consistent contamination guidance and checking from waste operatives. Where a household is identified, the local authority should work with it. Initially, that might just involve education, but there could be alternatives such as larger bins for young families, for example, or work to address specific spatial issues that are causing the householder not to do what is required.

I would be shocked if every local authority in Scotland were carrying out all those aspects, which I would describe as best practice. However, if they have all been adhered to, you might be in the space of imposing bin fines. I gently suggest to the committee, though, that if you do get to that final step, imposing a bin fine on the householder is likely to be unsuccessful.

That brings us back to nappies again, because that is generally what the reason is. I do not want to reopen that matter, convener, but it is one of the main drivers for having a larger residual bin.

For all of those reasons, we have this suite of amendments before us today.

I think that we have already covered the substantive argument behind amendment 46, which I will be happy to move.

Amendment 65 is an additional ask for Scottish ministers to provide the funding to local authorities for auditing receptacles of household waste under amendment 46. It is very important that the inspection scheme for proper disposal is funded and appropriate.

Amendment 57 is based on the reflection that, if we went back 20 years, we would know that it is really simple to get a recycling rate of 60 or 70 per cent without breaking sweat: all you need to do is to roll out consistent collections with the same-coloured bins across the vast majority of Scotland. Ultimately, you get more bang for your buck in terms of communications, because it is all very similar.

Unfortunately, however, we are not sitting here 20 years ago. We have had a real lack of motivation from the Scottish Government in relation to applying the waste hierarchy and recycling, particularly over the past decade. It started out so well, I should add. Given that we know what should have happened, I am keen to understand how we get to that point from the starting point of now. What other solutions are being put in place? It is easy for me to say that we want the same-coloured bins and that that is the right way. However, given that there have been deviations across local authorities, what are the costs around that? The Scottish Government will have them to hand—unlike me, it can work out the costs of all that. What, therefore, is the reasonable ask in that space?

What is the evidence-based approach around achieving the targets that the Scottish Government has set previously—not my targets, but its own targets? I recognise that it is very easy to achieve the 2013 target. However, as we go higher and higher, issues such as that addressed by amendment 57 become far more prevalent. The Scottish Government will have all the evidence. It could release that and say, “Well, actually, we cannot go to those colours, because it will cost certain local authorities X, Y and Z.”

We should write to the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care to highlight the petitioner’s submission and seek information on the criteria for determining clinical priorities; an explanation as to why chronic kidney disease is not already designated a clinical priority; and further detail on the Scottish Government’s decision not to increase the number of health strategies for individual conditions, including chronic kidney disease.