Chamber and committees

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 lodged amendments 217 and 218 as probing amendments. I am sorry, minister, that I have not had time to discuss them with you in any detail, but I will say a little more about that at the end of my speech.

Section 12 of the bill, entitled “Code of practice on household waste recycling”, is aimed at producing greater consistency and co-ordination across local authorities. We have heard much debate on that already. The bill states that the code of practice “may” address receptacles used for collection, frequency of collection, items for recycling and composting, management of contamination of household waste and communication with the public on collections and recycling. What is not contained in that code of practice, from what I can see, is the relationship between any potential strategy and bulk uplift or garden waste items, which amendments 217 and 218, respectively, refer to. I believe that that is an omission. My amendments would not compel local authorities, or the strategy, to contain provisions for those items, but the amendments would allow those items to be included in the strategy. I hope that those things would be looked at during the co-production process that the minister has been speaking about.

I agree with the minister about local circumstances, and I am pleased that we can have further discussions ahead of stage 3. The minister said that the bill as drafted does not technically preclude the issue from being in the code. Is that because there is nothing in the bill that says what is not allowed to be in the code so, theoretically, anything could be in it?

I am sorry if you answered this in your response to Mark Ruskell’s intervention but, for clarity, do you have an example of anything in the bill that will cut across long-standing processes in relation to terms and conditions in the trade union movement? That is a genuine question. I cannot see such an example in the bill, but I am open to hearing more.

In real time, Mr Simpson.

Will the member take an intervention?

But will you take an intervention?

I seek clarity because Mr Simpson made an assumption. If I could intervene constructively, that might add something to the debate.

I am sure that Monica Lennon is aware that there is already lots of good practice on that front, and that reusable water bottles are given out in significant quantities. Speaking as the father of a son aged eight, I know that we have a cupboard full of reusable bottles. I am sure that when my son starts primary 4 he will want the latest bottle because of the various fashions and trends. Young people are collecting several bottles to keep up with the latest trends. Is there a wider issue about trying to encourage culture change, whereby each person would have only one reusable bottle? It is self-defeating to have 10 such bottles in a cupboard. I am probably confessing something about my home life there.

I am following the debate with great interest. On amendment 26, and on putting in the bill a list of items that would be exempt from a charge, does Graham Simpson consider that there is a possibility that, by definition, the absence of any item from the list may lead to concern that every item that is not on the face of the bill might be considered for such a charge, which would not be the case?

The power to levy a charge does not mean that, if something is not exempted in the text of the bill, it is being actively considered for a charge. Having a finite list in the bill itself might lead to greater anxiety. It could also mean that, as new products are made and become available, we would need primary legislation to add them to the list.

That is not a reason not to support amendment 26, but does the member appreciate that I have outlined two drawbacks of his amendment?