Seòmar agus comataidhean

I thank Mr Doris for taking an intervention. I just want to be clear in my mind. I know that some local authorities pick up garden waste, for example, and some do not. Am I correct in saying that the amendments do not compel the ones that do not pick it up to start picking it up?

Will the member take an intervention?

I was just thinking about the use of the word “may”. Do you not think that it would have been better to compel local authorities to do something about garden waste and bulk uplifts?

I go back to the point that Monica Lennon made. Given that something was put in place for retail workers, why is our looking at waste operatives suddenly a constitutional matter?

I accept that. Mr Doris knows my position on framework bills. The reason why I am so much against their use is that we could end up approving legislation even though it still does not have the detail that we need in order to do our jobs properly. That sums up the problem that we have.

One issue is what will be covered by a charge. VAT is another issue. Graham Simpson mentioned unintended consequences. Section 9 might make ordering a cup of coffee less affordable.

We are serious about having a circular economy, but the Government could have tackled the issue differently. We discussed in committee the use of reusable coffee cups, with each vendor handing out and taking back the same cups. That is something that would give us a real circular economy, but no proposal on that has come forward. Just having a tax on things is probably not the right way of doing it.

So it is not the person who supplies the coffee shop with the cups. The point of the amendment is to clarify how far down the chain this goes.

I thank Monica Lennon for taking the intervention, because I have a few questions about her amendments. On amendment 170, I am thinking about local authorities because, let us face it, they are all struggling and every pound is a prisoner for them just now. My first question is about the scheme in North Ayrshire. Is there any more data on the costs and results that could be shared with us ahead of stage 3? I presume that the Government must have information on the workings already, or will that be in the report that you mentioned from the James Hutton Institute?

You said that the scheme is cost neutral because 62,250kg of disposable nappies are no longer going to landfill, but landfill can no longer be used for most waste anyway, so I am not sure whether that is still relevant or whether the position has changed since the figures were put together.

On amendment 157, on the healthcare side, has there been any more feedback from the Government? I do not want to sound negative, but I can see potential problems. New parents might pick up reusable nappies—I am going to call them that rather than diapers—but what do they do with them if washing facilities are not in place? Do they have to take soiled nappies home? They may then reuse them, but I can see issues there. I would like more work to be done with the Scottish Government to see whether there is potential there, because the last thing that we want to do just now is to put more costs on local authorities and health boards at a time when they are struggling for cash.

There will indeed be a lot of unauthorised waste carriers that we do not know about, but I guess that there must be some that we do know about, because of prosecutions by Police Scotland. Do you have any data on that to hand, or data that could be delivered later?

Thank you, convener. I can assure you that Sue Webber’s speaking notes are a lot shorter than those of Murdo Fraser, which I used earlier.

Amendment 106 seeks to give local authorities more influence over the circular economy strategy, where they are affected. In particular, the amendment would require ministers to get approval from COSLA to change the level of fixed-penalty notices regarding households’ incorrect disposal of waste. If the Government wanted to increase the maximum fine above £500, ministers would have to get approval from COSLA. The intention of the amendment, as with every other amendment in the group, is to ensure that ministers do not pass any regulation that affects local authorities without the explicit approval of COSLA.

Amendments 107 and 108 seek to give local authorities more influence over the circular economy strategy, where they are affected. In particular, the amendments would require ministers to get approval from COSLA before making any regulation regarding civil penalty charges.

Amendments 109, 110 and 111 would all serve the same purpose, which is to ensure that, when ministers have prepared a new code of practice on household waste recycling, the code must get explicit approval from COSLA.

Amendments 112, 113 and 114 would all serve to ensure that ministers get approval from COSLA when setting targets for local authorities’ household waste recycling targets. The wording in the bill, as currently drafted, requires COSLA to be consulted, whereas the amendments would require that it “must” approve the targets.

Amendment 115 would ensure that ministers must seek approval from COSLA on any regulation relating to penalty notices that are served to individuals who litter from a vehicle.

Amendments 116 and 117 would ensure that ministers must seek approval from COSLA on regulations relating to powers to search and seize vehicles—specifically in relation to the handling of seized properties and the ability to apply enforcement.

We have the Verity house agreement, whereby local government and the Scottish Government should be working closely together, and the thrust of all the amendments is to make sure that local authorities are more than consulted and that they are actually part of the decision-making process.

I presume that these amendments are about standardisation so that we can have a national campaign and better education, which would drive up recycling rates?