Chamber and committees

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.

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.