³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

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.

Amendment 66 would require ministers to issue guidance to waste collection authorities on how to respond to assaults, as we have heard. I understand the motivation for the amendment, but assault is already a serious offence and we would expect that it would be reported to the police. Statutory guidance that was issued by the Scottish Government in that area could contradict or otherwise interfere with the duties of Lord Advocate as head of the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service. That is why I cannot support amendment 66.

I want to pick up some of the points that have been made. The current voluntary code of practice, which includes sections on workforce development and operational delivery, sets out measures to involve staff members in the planning and preparation for service delivery and ensures that staff are properly equipped for the necessary tasks. That includes training. I expect local authorities to continue to uphold those standards, given the importance of the issue.

I also point out how seriously we take violence against waste staff. In 2022, we provided grant funding to the Scottish waste industry training, competency, health and safety forum—the SWITCH forum—to support a campaign against violence and aggression towards recycling industry staff. We take that very seriously.

On amendment 67, I acknowledge the importance of working with employee representatives on safe working conditions and workforce development for waste workers. Councils have serious responsibilities as employers. However, Mark Ruskell and Bob Doris made important points about the relationships that already exist between trade unions and local authorities, and I would not want to do anything to jeopardise those.

There is also a serious constitutional point, which is that industrial relations, employment law and health and safety law are all reserved matters. Imposing a duty on ministers on those reserved matters via amendment 67 would fall outwith the legislative competence of this Parliament. I do not think that that is what Mr Golden intends. The amendment is well meant but, if it was agreed to, it would jeopardise implementation of the entire bill.

I am happy to look at that point. I am always wary of putting something in legislation that is already against the law. It is already against the law to assault somebody, regardless of where they work. However, the review of the code of practice and the new code of practice can take into account whether employees have the correct training and empowerment around, and knowledge of, how to deal with a situation.

Ms Lennon has made the important point that Mr Golden might want to speak to the unions to come up with something workable, but it will have to be competent and not impinge on reserved matters. We butt up against that issue all the time in the Parliament. You know my views—I believe that we should decide on employment law in this place, because the fact that our hands are tied in that area comes up time and again from all parties, regardless of the bill.

Industrial relations, employment law and health and safety law are reserved. That is just a fact, Mr Lumsden. I return to the point about things that are already illegal, such as assault. In the retail workers legislation, Daniel Johnson put in place particulars—I think that they were aggravating factors, but I cannot really remember as it was in the previous session of Parliament, which seems an awfully long time ago.

I am happy to reflect on what has been said but, as it stands, Mr Golden’s amendment is impossible for me to support, for the reasons that I have stated.

Yes.

Amendment 26 seeks to ensure that all regulations made under the power must include a list of exempt items. Because such regulations will have to specify the items for which a charge is to be applied, it is unnecessary to require them to specify a list of items that will be exempt. If regulations do not specify a particular item, that item will not be subject to the charge and will, in effect, be exempt. I reassure Mr Simpson that secondary legislation will be required to introduce a charge for an item so, as I have said, there will be an opportunity to consider the circumstances in which the charge will apply.

On amendment 27, I agree that it will be very important to set out clearly the scope of future charges to be made using the powers, but I do not believe that the amendment itself is necessary. The focus of the power in proposed new section 87A of the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009, as inserted by section 9 of the bill, is to allow ministers to set a charge for specified single-use items and to require suppliers to levy that charge when they supply the goods to their customers. The regulations do not need to specify who should pay the charge.

Yes, that is in my speaking notes. This particular part of the bill allows regulations to come forward, and everything in relation to where the money goes will be scrutinised. To be clear, the overall purpose of the power is to reduce our reliance on single-use items; the power with regard to the proceeds of sale is identical to that contained in the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009 for carrier bags; and regulations that would introduce any charges under that section would provide further detail. I think that that is quite clear. I had hoped that I was being helpful by correlating this with the use of carrier bags, which everyone will be familiar with.

Amendment 35 would delete section 9 of the bill, which is unfortunate. I have just extended to Mr Simpson the ability to talk about some of the issues that he has raised about the section.