Chamber and committees

Thank you, convener. I want to quote Ms Lennon back. When we have good practice, how can we support local authorities to replicate it? That gets to the nub of the amendments and the debate that we have just had.

I think that we all agree that the substance behind Ms Lennon’s amendments is laudable. I am supportive of their intent, but we have had a conversation and she knows that I will not be able to support them as they are written because I want the co-design process to be the vehicle for such decisions at local authority level.

Sharing that good practice is absolutely vital. There is an improvement programme under development with COSLA and local government, which will offer a practical route to share best practice on waste prevention measures, including reuse, alongside recycling. The fact that we have had this debate today, and Ms Lennon’s efforts in bringing attention to the issue, will mean that any co-design will have to look at the issue, particularly on reusable nappies. As someone who has raised two babies, I have been reflecting on why I did not go down that route—what stopped me. Of course, the Government has commissioned research to look at the barriers, because that is also at the nub of the issue. Is there a perception that such nappies are too expensive, or that there will be an increased workload for an already struggling young mum? Whatever that research finds—it will come out in the next couple of weeks, as has been mentioned—we have had a really good debate.

The question is how to engender knowledge sharing and prompt similar schemes to happen across Scotland without taking empowerment away from local authorities through a top-down approach. I would be delighted if local authorities across Scotland replicated the North Ayrshire scheme. It sounds incredible, and I pay tribute to those involved. I am happy to consider how we can support and encourage behaviour change in the area and the roll-out of that type of scheme, and how we can encourage that co-design. However, it must be for local authorities to make those decisions—as Ms Lennon has said.

We have already included in our draft route map a commitment to facilitate the sharing of best practice in reusable nappy schemes and to support take-up across Scotland. It is good to hear that Ms Lennon is also speaking to Shirley-Anne Somerville about what more can be done with the baby box. The committee also agreed to amendment 138, which requires having regard to behavioural change in the development of the circular economy strategy. If there is anything that can strengthen that aspect of the strategy or the co-design process, I am happy to work with Ms Lennon on it. I have made that offer to her.

We need to ask what has to be taken into account in the co-design process. Ms Lennon made an interesting point about the voices of those in communities that will be taken into account in the co-design process. Will the voices of new parents be included in that? Is there an unconscious bias in the decisions that are being made around policies? We had an interesting conversation on that in private last week.

On amendment 158, we do not need legislation to prepare the report that Ms Lennon proposes. The committee is aware that we are shortly due to publish baseline research into barriers to the uptake of reusable nappies in Scotland.

I understand why members have proposed the amendments. As set out in the response to the committee’s stage 1 report, we are committed to ensuring that the use of the new fixed-penalty notice powers is both effective and fair. We want to ensure that householders are fully aware of their obligations and that local authorities have appropriate and accessible guidance about how they use the power.

I agree on the importance of raising awareness of a householder’s responsibility through education, engagement, communications and the provision of further guidance. In that respect, I would highlight two relevant key points. First, householders are already required to comply with the householder’s duty of care. They can—and should—already check a waste carrier’s registration details, and they can confirm those details on SEPA’s website to ensure that they are using a legitimate service.

Maurice Golden made a point about awareness raising. In week 1 of stage 2, we said that the right information on websites can be buried under layers and layers of clicks, and there is perhaps a lot to be said for updating and reviewing how user friendly some of those communication methods are.

Secondly, ministers are required under section 34(7) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 to prepare and issue a code of practice for the purpose of providing practical guidance on how to discharge the duty of care. The existing code of practice provides guidance to householders on how to meet their duty of care, but it will be amended to take into account the changes made through section 10 of the bill—namely, that a breach of that duty will now be an offence that might be addressed by way of a fixed-penalty notice.

I understand why Jackie Dunbar has lodged amendments 129 and 130, and I thank her for raising the issues. Ensuring that householders are aware of their responsibility to ask for confirmation of a waste carrier’s authorisation or registration to carry waste can be addressed by way of communication and will be included in the updated duty of care code of practice. However, the points that have been made in the debate about displaying that information on waste carriers’ vehicles was helpful. Again, it comes down to the clarity and accessibility of that information.

If there is data on that, I do not have it in front of me. However, just to go back to fly-tipping, I point out that, as part of that strategy, the Government has funded SEPA to analyse the issue and to tackle illegal online trading. That work has already been done, and it will give us a fuller picture.

On amendment 130, an FPN for a breach of the householder’s duty of care may be issued only where there is a reason to believe that the householder has breached the duty by failing to “take reasonable steps”—

Convener, I very much enjoy our private conversations in the lunch queue, and it would be a shame if we could not have those conversations without me being misrepresented. I say that gently because the convener, as a gentleman, has allowed me the chance to come back on that point, and I will address it. I think that I said something slightly different, but we can discuss that when I come to it.

The amendments in this group relate to two themes that have been a specific focus for the committee: first, the importance of ensuring that the new regime for enforcement of household waste requirements is fairly applied; secondly, the potential to standardise the colour of receptacles that are used to collect household waste and recycling. I will address those themes in turn.

Amendment 46 from Maurice Golden and amendment 105 from Sarah Boyack would introduce exemptions from the civil penalty regime, and I will explain why I am not going to accept those amendments.

I agree that, in guidance, we need to consider carefully the intended enforcement approach for communal bins because, clearly, specific factors need to be taken into account. Members have expressed their concerns, and Mr Macpherson expressed his concern about the contamination of waste by passers-by in urban areas. Places such as Edinburgh have a lot of tourists, who might not be familiar with the regime, particularly if the instructions have worn off the bins, as happened in the area of Edinburgh where I live when I am down at Parliament. Some neighbours and I got in touch with the local council to ask whether we could have better signage on the bins, because even I was beginning to get confused about where I should put my waste. Therefore, I completely take that concern on board.

However, I cannot support amendments that would simply exempt a type of householder. If amendment 105 created a blanket exemption for everyone who lives in tenement housing, that would go against the purpose of trying to increase recycling rates. It would be quite a loophole. The provision in relation to civil penalties outlines a clear process and requirements. First, a written warning is issued. It is about tackling persistent, gross, deliberate contamination.

Convener, are you open to me taking more interventions?

I agree with Mr Macpherson on that point, but I also agree that local authorities know best how to work together on how they enforce that.

I come back to Mr Macpherson’s earlier point: all those householders are doing their best to wash the items to be recycled, to ensure that they are not contaminated, and to put them in the right bins, so there will be considerable anger when individuals are contaminating that waste. However, it is right that that is evidenced.

Householders will not be fined for simple mistakes or if someone else puts the wrong item in a bin. That would be completely disproportionate. A civil penalty or a written warning will be issued as a result of an individual’s having been identified as responsible for failing to comply with the requirement. I come back to that deliberate, gross and wilful contamination. The powers would not allow for an enforcement officer to issue warning notices or penalty notices for simply everyone who uses a particular communal bin. This is about persistent, gross, deliberate contamination and evidence thereof.

I move to the issue of the consistency of the colours of bins throughout Scotland. Convener, I want to clarify the arguments that I gave you privately when you initially talked about that. I said that I was concerned about a couple of things. First, a mainland Scotland approach, in which, no matter which local authority area you are in, everyone knows the score with regard to which bin to put things in, is laudable. The co-design process might arrive at that point, and I would congratulate local authorities on arriving at it, but it would be for them to decide whether that is the approach that they want.

I said to Mr Mountain that I would be concerned about the associated plastic waste if that consistency were compelled. Ms Lennon made the point in the debate about the plastic waste of councils if they were compelled to change their bin colours by a certain point. The co-design process might come to a point at which all local authorities agree that they want to standardise the colour, but they might need to take into account when that is done.

For example, Aberdeenshire Council has recently introduced a separate colour of bin—an orange bin. It is newly rolled out, and we are all getting used to it. We have three recycling bins—four including food waste. Those are new bins. If the council had made a procurement choice for all those bins and decided on that colour, and I said that we would now standardise everything—that everything would have to be the same colour and there would have to be the same number of bins as in another local authority—the council would justifiably turn around and say, “That is our decision to make, so why are you taking away that power from us? How much plastic waste will be made as a result?”

First, the code of practice is voluntary at the moment. Whatever is decided, the bill will make that code of practice mandatory.

Secondly, I have faith that those in local authorities will react to incentives around statutory targets and to a code of practice that is mandatory, not voluntary. They will decide together how best to achieve those targets, and we need to give them a chance to do so.

All too often, in this place, the Scottish Government gets criticised for a top-down approach on things. That is not in the spirit of the Verity house agreement; it is not in the spirit of working with our local authority partners or of empowering local authorities. However, the arguments that everyone has made today about standardisation were made very well, and those involved in the co-design will probably listen to them. I would be surprised if standardisation were not a main focus of the co-design process.

In general, it is about a balance between having things in the bill that compel, and trusting and enabling a co-design process in which the people who will have to deliver better recycling rates on the ground are actively involved. That is what I am striving to do and what my predecessor strived to do, and that is what the committee recommended that we do.

I will talk about amendments 161 and 162. Reuse and repair are, of course, important to achieving a circular economy—and, frankly, there is not enough of it going on. That has been a common theme over the past three weeks, as it was at stage 1.

The bill already makes provision for the code to address preparation for reuse. I envisage that the development of the new code, alongside wider work through the route map, will enable further consideration of how we can maximise local authorities’ contribution across and further up the waste hierarchy, including reuse and repair.

A number of members have made that point throughout the process. It would not be appropriate for the new code to provide mandatory requirements in relation to the provision of wider reuse or repair services, as those do not fall within local authorities’ statutory waste management functions. That is why I cannot support the amendments as written, and I hope that Mr Golden understands that.

The committee should note that, in the current voluntary code of practice, there is guidance on desirable reuse activities, approaches and communication that local authorities should consider in their ways of working. I would be keen to build on that approach through the planned co-design of the new code and to explore opportunities to enhance local authority activities to promote reuse and repair on a voluntary or recommended basis, even if those do not become statutory.

We are currently developing the improvement programme as an alternative to financial penalties for local authority recycling targets. That could offer a more practical route to share best practice on waste prevention measures, which I think are the first line in a circular economy—it is about prevention of waste in the first place. For those reasons, I will not be able to support amendments 161 and 162.

On amendment 89, local flexibility is very much in the spirit of the Verity house agreement, so I will support the amendment, and I urge the committee to support it as well.

On amendment 58, I understand the desire to ensure that the new code of practice is available as soon as possible. However, I cannot support the amendment, because I do not want to set a statutory deadline that could potentially prevent meaningful co-design and consultation on the new code. Again, it comes back to the balance.

Will Mr Golden take an intervention?

Yes.