���˿���

We should write to the Scottish Government to ask, in light of the consultation responses, whether it intends to regulate alkaline hydrolysis in its development of regulations under the Burial and Cremation (Scotland) Act 2016 and when it expects the outstanding regulations to be implemented.

I think that it would be. Actually, the predecessor committee to this one, the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee, spoke to Glasgow City Council back in 2016 about it underperforming with regard to household waste recycling. That was eight years ago and it is still languishing at the bottom of the table. To put it in context, there are issues in other councils. I do not want to focus only on Glasgow, but it is a good example because it is a large authority that is underperforming, which affects the household recycling rate for the whole of Scotland.

I am happy to press amendment 15.

Douglas Lumsden has given an excellent overview of all the amendments, including mine. I do not want to double up, given the time constraints.

It is important that circular economy targets are reviewed. If they are not met, we and the public deserve to know why and what actions will be taken.

Amendment 13 states that the circular economy act must be reviewed if net zero emissions targets are missed. We all recognise that, if our overall climate actions are not going in the right direction, we might want to take more action within the auspices of the bill.

Amendment 152 states that a public body must produce a circular economy plan for the Scottish ministers for approval. I hope that the committee and the Government agree that target setting, monitoring, reporting and enforcement are incredibly important. This group of amendments does just that.

The problem has been a series of changes to policy, policy direction and support for local authorities. Broadly, the Scottish Government has moved away from supporting local authorities in meeting the targets and is supporting businesses and other organisations. In terms of meeting the 50 per cent target, it is as simple as putting Glasgow City Council into special measures. Based on the latest statistics, its recycling rate is currently sitting at 27.6 per cent, which drags the whole of Scotland down. If you had a change in leadership in Glasgow City Council, you could very easily improve that and help the whole of Scotland.

It is quite a varied picture in terms of what councils are doing and how they are doing. A lot of it is not rocket science, so I am astounded that we are still talking, in 2024, about a 2013 target. It is almost frightening. I would go so far as to say that the Scottish Government has a far more sophisticated record on the delivery of ferries than it does on household waste recycling. To give you an idea, the recycling rate in Scottish Borders is 57 per cent and in Renfrewshire it is 53 per cent. Aberdeen City Council is at almost 42 per cent, so it can be done in a more urban environment as well.

The third amendment in the group, amendment 17, is to reach a household recycling target of 70 per cent by 2030. That one was introduced by me, and I think that it is certainly achievable. I could do it myself, so I am sure that the minister will be able to do it and will agree to that.

Amendment 18 goes back to a Scottish Government target, which I have codified as an amendment. I have not come up with that; it is what the Scottish Government has said. I am sure that members will all vote with what the Government has said. What is the point of putting any targets in, if you do not attempt to meet them?

Amendment 164 changes “may” to “must”.

Amendment 60 is about requirements for reporting on progress. I suggest, convener, that if we had that sort of reporting on progress, something would happen from the failure to meet the 2013 target. That accountability is what I would be looking for, because it is, in my opinion, completely unfair for some local authorities to be doing very well and investing in the area while others are not. That is an uneven playing field and I think that the Scottish Government should be reporting on that, and on where it is making interventions, as it has done in the past.

The amendment says “as locally as possible” and “preferably in Scotland”. That indicates, at least, that there is an international dynamic. I am just seeking clarity that the Scottish Government’s position is that waste materials should not be managed as locally as possible.

—but I have some general comments and a specific comment on your amendment 144. The minister may come to this, but I note that the Scottish Government previously ran a real nappy campaign—I was in charge of that almost 20 years ago—and there must be results from that, with behavioural analysis of many of the aspects. We do not have access to that, but the committee should. The Scottish Government also ran—

I was trying to be helpful in relation to amendment 144 and the minister’s response, but I will turn to my specific question. The amendment includes the word “free”. For completeness, is that part of the picture? You might want to increase the use of reusable nappies full stop. Does that make sense?

I struggle to call these targets because, with where we are now, they are just a very low bar—a bar so low that it could be a rope on the floor in terms of achieving the targets that I have set out. They are not my targets. They are the Scottish Government’s targets.

Amendment 15 is the Scottish Government’s target to reach 50 per cent of household waste being recycled. That was to be achieved by 2013, according to the Scottish Government. I am suggesting that it might be able to make it by 2025, which is actually 12 years after the Government said that it would meet the target. I think that that will probably happen anyway. That target is very easy to meet.

Similarly, amendment 16 is on a 60 per cent household recycling rate, which is not my target. It is the Scottish Government’s target from 2020, so that would be seven years late. Again, unless you are actively trying to push recycling rates down or are completely incompetent, you will meet that, so these are very easy amendments for anyone to make.

I think that we are just checking some procedural points—