Chamber and committees

—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—

Yes, I welcome that investment. There are some benefits to being an urban-based council in that when you roll out new kerbside infrastructure you can get benefits from rerouting, which is far more challenging in a more rural community or, indeed, our island communities. It is about infrastructure investment. It is also about linking that to kerbside communications with householders over what they can and cannot recycle, which I think have dropped off the entire Scottish Government agenda, not just for Glasgow but across Scotland. That communication can help to boost the rate.

There appears to have been a vast change in approach. It would be very easy and not costly to meet the 50 per cent household recycling target, which was to be achieved by 2013. I do not think that that would have to rely on investment. I will not name the local authority that was paying a waste contractor to collect air because it no longer had enough waste in its residual bin—we want to avoid that situation. However, as a result of the uncertainty and the unclear market signal that the Scottish Government has sent about what might be required, that could easily occur, which is incredibly concerning.

There is no locus in a human rights bill coming forward to the Parliament because, as we have heard on previous occasions, an intention to introduce a bill—even if it is mentioned in the programme for government—does not mean that a bill will be introduced. Therefore, we cannot predicate any decisions on something that we have not seen and might never see during this parliamentary session.

Yes, I wish to press amendment 215.

To be fair, the Scottish Government has not set that out as a policy, but it is the fact. Let us look at plastic recycling: 2 per cent of plastics that are collected for recycling in Scotland are recycled in Scotland. One could suggest that the Scottish Government is saying that we want to export all our waste and that not accepting the suggestion is evidence of that, because only 2 per cent of plastics are recycled here. I would love to see a plastics recycling facility in Scotland, which amendment 4 would not deliver, but it would signal that that is the direction of travel. However, it is clear that that is the opposite of the Scottish Government’s policy position, which is entirely a matter for it.

In closing, I seek to withdraw amendment 4.

Amendment 4, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendment 124 not moved.

Amendment 100 moved—[Sarah Boyack]—and agreed to.

Amendment 191 not moved.

Amendments 101 to 103 moved—[Sarah Boyack]—and agreed to.

Amendment 142 moved—[Maurice Golden].

I think, conversely, that what you are talking about is changing consumer behaviour. I would suggest that, when a consumer changes their behaviour to more green-friendly practices such as reuse and repair, they are more fastidious on their recycling as well. Therefore, even though I appreciate the argument, they are actually likely to recycle more. However, in terms of behaviour change, it is worthwhile analysis.

There is a big, Scotland-wide push around food waste because if we get our participation rates up that would certainly help. I think those aspects work in tandem. For example, the Scottish Government rolled out food waste collections at the same time as rolling out a campaign called “love food, hate waste” to get people to reduce the same food waste that it was beginning to trial collecting. Fife, and Perth and Kinross, did that back in 2005. I appreciate that the two aspects might appear to compete, but I think that they are complementary in boosting recycling rates. Also, in the context of my amendment 15, we are talking about a target of only 50 per cent. To give some idea of where we are, the national household recycling average is 43.4 per cent, so we are talking about a relatively small increase, compared with where we have come from.

I move amendment 15.