Chamber and committees

If we consider bin fines, it seems from the evidence that we have heard today that quite a high level of evidence will require to be built. It will vary between local authorities but, at present, some front-line operatives might be asked to take a cursory glance at the top of the bin, so contamination will be identified only if it is at the top. If we are to ensure that there is a full audit of the bin—we do not know whether we are looking at that, because we have not seen the guidance—further evidence might be required that is deeper in the bin. That could lead to a host of unintended consequences. There could be a drastic change to practices and new ones might be required. Perhaps front-line operatives, if they notice contamination at the top of the bin, will be required to look throughout the bin to establish whether it was a mistake or whether it is part of a pattern of behaviour.

We can see how creating bin fines could drastically change some work practices. The issue therefore needs to be fully considered before the provision is put in place.

I move amendment 66.

That is my point. The Scottish Government will have an exact cost for that. There might be changes. It might be impossible for the colours of the bins to be standardised and it may not work. The purpose of the amendment is for the Scottish Government to say, “Look, this is where we are at. We can’t turn back time. Therefore, this is how we are going to meet our own targets.” I am just trying to help the Scottish Government to meet its targets more than a decade late. I can get to the 50 per cent household waste recycling target on my own, so I am sure that the Scottish Government can. Beyond that, things will get more challenging. That is why we need the information that the Scottish Government will have access to in order to answer your question. I do not know how much it will cost. I know that it can be done, but I do not know how much it would cost individual local authorities.

That is important but having the same colours would make it easier. Glasgow did a television ad with the message, “Put X into your blue bin” that bled into East Renfrewshire and Renfrewshire. East Renfrewshire residents were confused, because that was not what they needed to put into their blue bins. That speaks to the importance of my amendment 57. It is about the Scottish Government saying, “This is how we are going to achieve very basic targets.”

I will put the discussion in play and relate it to tackling net zero: if we cannot get kerbside recycling right, we should forget net zero. We may as well all go home; there is no point. My suggestions are basic things and we can lift and lay the ways in which to do them from other regions in the UK and other countries. I think that it is important to highlight some of these aspects, because I am increasingly seeing local authorities doing different things, such as Angus Council taking glass out of its dry mixed recycling bin and asking people to take glass to bring sites. There are pros and cons with all these things, but it is clear that the guidance that is given to local authorities on achieving targets will be important.

We do not need to go far for those examples. England did not have the same positive narrative on recycling or the same ambitious targets as Scotland, and, broadly, it has a very similar recycling rate. Wales took a different approach. It had the Scottish version of, if you like, positivity about recycling and words, but those have been linked to actions, which is why its recycling rates are so high.

That is not the only way to do it. That is the central point of my amendment: the easiest thing to do would have been to start with the Welsh approach 15 or 20 years ago, and to roll it out in that manner. We need to ask what we do now: can we lift and lay the Welsh approach? We have a patchwork quilt, and it will be more challenging.

It would, but I want to know from the Scottish Government whether that is possible. In response to Monica Lennon’s question, we know that the Welsh model works. I want to know whether that can be imported. I cannot answer that question without the information that the Scottish Government and local authorities have.

I move amendment 46.

Will the minister give way?

I have two questions. First, given the investment that local authorities have made, I appreciate your comment about the colours of bins. Would the Scottish Government consider coloured stickers that are linked to numbers or letters as part of a standardisation process?

Secondly, the co-design process that has been articulated is essentially the same process—as far as I can tell—that has gone on for a decade or more and that has resulted in a flatlining of recycling rates. How will doing the same thing again drastically change the outcome?

The bin fines are, unfortunately, a rabbit hole. They might be worthy of consideration, but, as we heard from the minister, would be used only in the most unusual cases, based on the evidence that is likely to be presented. Therefore, I respectfully suggest that any length of time spent on that measure by the team is a distraction from transformational changes that could be worked on. That is what the Scottish Government wants to make part of its agenda for a circular economy, but I fail to see the argument for that.

Nonetheless, there are opportunities to standardise bin colours or a introduce a more consistent approach. As a result of the approach that is being taken, a cynic might think that the question that is being answered—certainly not by the minister but by a series of previous ministers and cabinet secretaries—is: how do we ensure that recycling flatlines for as long as possible in Scotland? It is another example of how Scotland does that—and there is a long list of them.

Yes, and it is embarrassing that the committee thinks that meeting a recycling target 12 years late is too onerous. If we are in a climate emergency, we should act quickly. The opposite has been proposed and consistently voted on by the committee on a series of measures.

I do not intend to move amendment 57, but there is more work to be done on the possibilities for standardisation. In broad terms, on segregating waste, the industrial reprocessing infrastructure, which has a lifespan of 25 years, is already future proofing the recycling capacity for households as well as commercial and industrial concerns. Without some major public funding to change it, that system will remain locked in—rightly or wrongly. Therefore, it is already future proofed, so we could get standardisation across a host of local authorities and increase our recycling rates quickly and easily if anyone wanted to do so.

I will press it.