Seòmar agus comataidhean

I am trying to work things out in my head as we go through the bill. Why do you believe that disposable nappies should be in the bill? We seem to be targeting just one product here. Last week, as you know, we talked about not targeting just the construction industry. Why should we target that particular product? Is there not a danger that a whole list of products might come forward?

I press amendment 87.

Amendment 90 is quite simple. A lot of work will be required from local authorities, so amendment 90 calls on the Scottish Government to fund them correctly to ensure that they can carry out any duties that the bill will impose on them.

Amendment 91 is a little different. I can give an example that I used in discussion with the former Minister for Green Skills, Circular Economy and Biodiversity when she was trying to understand the rationale behind the amendment. Local authorities may have contracts with providers—the example that sprang to my mind was of the contract that is in place to guarantee that a certain amount of waste will go to the energy-from-waste plant in Aberdeen. Some of the things that local authorities will have to do because of the bill will significantly reduce the amount of waste that goes to that plant.

My amendment 91 would ensure that local authorities were not punished for contracts that they put in place beforehand with good intentions and which may have to be revisited because of the bill. That is the simple idea behind the amendment, which would ensure that local authorities were not penalised for something that was put in place out of good will before the bill came into force.

Could I press the amendment instead, convener?

Will the minister take an intervention?

I am struggling to understand why you cannot accept the targets that the Scottish Government created many years ago—I do not remember how many years ago Maurice Golden said that it was. You seem to suggest now that the recycling targets would differ for each local authority. Why was that not the case when you set the 2025 and 2027 targets, which were blanket figures for the whole of Scotland?

I understand what the minister is saying, but if there is not some sort of value, does that mean that anything, regardless of how little value it would be, would have to be dealt with by the regulations? I was trying to put some sort of safeguard in, so that goods below a certain value would not need to go through the process that has been set out in the bill.

We have all agreed that one year is a bit too ambitious, and that two years is maybe unrealistic, as the minister has said. Will the minister accept different timescales at stage 3—perhaps three or four years? Surely we must be able to set a timescale so that it does not just drift along. As I said earlier, this cannot just be a piece of legislation that sits on the shelf.

I thank the minister for taking on board amendment 81, which will firm up what the Scottish ministers “must” do, and for providing clarification on the use of the word “appropriate”.

I press amendment 81.

Amendment 81 agreed to.

Maurice Golden said that the target is easy to meet, but it cannot be that easy to meet because the Government is not meeting its targets. What is going wrong, in your opinion, that those targets are not being met?