Chamber and committees

I will keep making my point.

That was the initial thing. However, the idea of having a standardised approach across Scotland might be something that the co-design process arrives at, which would be a great thing. It could be that standardisation with the other local authorities kicks in at the point when a local authority is making a procurement decision.

The cost of such an approach was mentioned, too. If that is debated among those who are involved in the co-design process, they can evaluate that cost during that process.

I absolutely get the frustration that Maurice Golden has articulated. If we leave it all up to local authorities to decide what they do in that area and they keep making the same decisions that do not improve recycling rates, we might have a problem. However, the bill articulates what we expect to happen. We want the recycling rates to improve and local councils to work together to decide how they can best do that work. It is about that knowledge sharing. Going back to Ms Lennon’s point—although I do not want to reopen the nappies debate—it is about sharing our best practice.

I do not want to prejudge the outcome of that co-design process, but I imagine that those who will be involved in it are listening carefully to Mr Mountain’s and Mr Golden’s points, and even to mine. Is standardisation the way to go? I will not say that it is, from the top down; I want that to be part of the process.

[Interruption.] The end of March 2026 is the indicative date. I thank my official for stepping in there, because I did not have that at the front of my brain.

It is a priority action for the Scottish Government to continue progress, and I am happy to keep the committee informed of that. Again, I say that prioritising measures that prevent waste is a real opportunity for the co-design process.

On amendment 59, I recognise that there are limitations on the resources of local authorities. We have considered previous amendments where we have not been able to put in the bill anything about the funding associated with local authorities. The new code will be agreed with local government, which is best placed to indicate whether it is sufficiently funded for the measures that are jointly agreed. That will then be fed into the annual budget process. I cannot support the amendment.

Bob Doris’s amendments 217 and 218 raise the important issue of bulky waste and garden waste. I understand the intention, and I am happy to work with the member on what we can do on that, but I will not be able to support the amendments as they stand. The consultation on the draft circular economy and waste route map set our intention to undertake a review of waste and recycling service charging by next year. We intend to conduct that review to ensure that we have the right incentives to reduce waste.

Mr Doris made important points about people on lower incomes who do not have access to a vehicle and do not have a garden. What do they do? I point to some of the initiatives that are happening in the private company space where vendors of, for example, electrical items have an uplift service for items that are being replaced. That is to be welcomed, and we should encourage more companies to do it.

The bill already enables bulky and garden waste services to be considered and included in the new code of practice. We need to work with local authorities to decide and put in place arrangements that increase recycling and reuse but reflect local circumstances. I think that Mr Doris made that point.

Indeed. The code will be co-designed by those who will have to deliver on this, but they will also have to meet statutory targets, so the code will have to be robust.

On amendment 163, the bill already provides that the Scottish ministers must consult publicly on the draft code of practice, so I do not think that the amendment is necessary.

I will stop there, convener.

Thank you, convener, and good morning, everyone. I want to start by addressing some general points that have been made about the regulations that would be introduced under the bill.

Regulations made under section 9 will already be subject to the super-affirmative procedure, which was welcomed by the committee, and will therefore be subject to a high level of scrutiny before they are laid. The Government will make proposals for everything that it would apply a charge to through a Scottish statutory instrument, and those proposals would be subject to the parliamentary scrutiny that would come with that. Any Government would allow for that scrutiny.

I will make a start on this point and then let Mr Lumsden in.

The Scottish Government cannot support any of Graham Simpson’s amendments in this group, but I am, as ever, happy to speak to him about some of his concerns. I will lay out my reasons for not supporting the amendments, starting with amendments 24 to 26, which seek to exempt items from future regulations made under the proposed new power in the bill.

Amendment 24 seeks to prevent the use of the power to charge for single-use items if they fall within the scope of a deposit return scheme or “any ... re-use scheme”. Without a specific definition, it is not clear exactly what the term “re-use scheme” means here and, therefore, what the impact would be of exempting those schemes from future charges. The committee will be aware that, at the moment, the Scottish Government is in discussion with the United Kingdom Government and the Welsh and Northern Irish Governments about a future United Kingdom-wide DRS.

It would be great if I could actually get through a point.

As ministers already have the power to give financial assistance to any person, including small businesses and microbusinesses, for any scheme or programme with the purpose of preventing or reducing waste, I do not believe that amendment 29 is necessary.

I will take Mr Lumsden’s intervention.

So—

Mr Simpson is making the same points that many people have made about the scourge of fly-tipping and the unfairness that exists when landowners have to clear it up.

It is not fair to say that nothing has been done. There is a fly-tipping forum and the national litter and fly-tipping strategy has been delivered, as have the year 1 action plan and a number of activities that are aimed at tackling fly-tipping on private land. However, I think that I have been clear that I want to work with Mr Fraser on the sentiment behind amendment 203.

I do not want to give any impression that we are working with Mr Fraser on repealing section 59 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. We are working to deal with the reasons why Mr Fraser lodged amendment 202; we want to ensure better communication and to allow scope for further guidance so as to achieve what he wanted to with his amendment.