Seòmar agus comataidhean

On Jackie Dunbar’s amendments, I understand that having to produce a waste carrier’s licence is exactly what happens currently. In the case of special waste, there should be pre-notification of fridges, say, and other designated materials.

I accept that these are probing amendments. Perhaps some work can be done on an enhanced duty of care and awareness raising for householders. Indeed, the person in question could be a receptionist or some other person who regularly liaises with waste carriers. There is probably quite a lot of work to do on that, so it should perhaps be looked at.

As for my amendments in this group, it might be helpful if I explain where I am coming from on bin fines. My concern is that bin fines are a red herring—or even a rabbit hole—to avoid our taking meaningful action on the circular economy. Nonetheless, what I am proposing is a series of steps for how a local authority might impose a bin fine. I hope that that provides clarity around my amendments.

The first step is to have an efficient kerbside system with appropriate bin facilities, and regular and consistent communications with householders over what can go in which bin and when. There should be bespoke interventions from waste awareness officers, and consistent contamination guidance and checking from waste operatives. Where a household is identified, the local authority should work with it. Initially, that might just involve education, but there could be alternatives such as larger bins for young families, for example, or work to address specific spatial issues that are causing the householder not to do what is required.

I would be shocked if every local authority in Scotland were carrying out all those aspects, which I would describe as best practice. However, if they have all been adhered to, you might be in the space of imposing bin fines. I gently suggest to the committee, though, that if you do get to that final step, imposing a bin fine on the householder is likely to be unsuccessful.

That brings us back to nappies again, because that is generally what the reason is. I do not want to reopen that matter, convener, but it is one of the main drivers for having a larger residual bin.

For all of those reasons, we have this suite of amendments before us today.

I think that we have already covered the substantive argument behind amendment 46, which I will be happy to move.

Amendment 65 is an additional ask for Scottish ministers to provide the funding to local authorities for auditing receptacles of household waste under amendment 46. It is very important that the inspection scheme for proper disposal is funded and appropriate.

Amendment 57 is based on the reflection that, if we went back 20 years, we would know that it is really simple to get a recycling rate of 60 or 70 per cent without breaking sweat: all you need to do is to roll out consistent collections with the same-coloured bins across the vast majority of Scotland. Ultimately, you get more bang for your buck in terms of communications, because it is all very similar.

Unfortunately, however, we are not sitting here 20 years ago. We have had a real lack of motivation from the Scottish Government in relation to applying the waste hierarchy and recycling, particularly over the past decade. It started out so well, I should add. Given that we know what should have happened, I am keen to understand how we get to that point from the starting point of now. What other solutions are being put in place? It is easy for me to say that we want the same-coloured bins and that that is the right way. However, given that there have been deviations across local authorities, what are the costs around that? The Scottish Government will have them to hand—unlike me, it can work out the costs of all that. What, therefore, is the reasonable ask in that space?

What is the evidence-based approach around achieving the targets that the Scottish Government has set previously—not my targets, but its own targets? I recognise that it is very easy to achieve the 2013 target. However, as we go higher and higher, issues such as that addressed by amendment 57 become far more prevalent. The Scottish Government will have all the evidence. It could release that and say, “Well, actually, we cannot go to those colours, because it will cost certain local authorities X, Y and Z.”

We should write to the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care to highlight the petitioner’s submission and seek information on the criteria for determining clinical priorities; an explanation as to why chronic kidney disease is not already designated a clinical priority; and further detail on the Scottish Government’s decision not to increase the number of health strategies for individual conditions, including chronic kidney disease.

We should write to the Scottish Government to ask, in light of the consultation responses, whether it intends to regulate alkaline hydrolysis in its development of regulations under the Burial and Cremation (Scotland) Act 2016 and when it expects the outstanding regulations to be implemented.

I think that it would be. Actually, the predecessor committee to this one, the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee, spoke to Glasgow City Council back in 2016 about it underperforming with regard to household waste recycling. That was eight years ago and it is still languishing at the bottom of the table. To put it in context, there are issues in other councils. I do not want to focus only on Glasgow, but it is a good example because it is a large authority that is underperforming, which affects the household recycling rate for the whole of Scotland.

I am happy to press amendment 15.

Douglas Lumsden has given an excellent overview of all the amendments, including mine. I do not want to double up, given the time constraints.

It is important that circular economy targets are reviewed. If they are not met, we and the public deserve to know why and what actions will be taken.

Amendment 13 states that the circular economy act must be reviewed if net zero emissions targets are missed. We all recognise that, if our overall climate actions are not going in the right direction, we might want to take more action within the auspices of the bill.

Amendment 152 states that a public body must produce a circular economy plan for the Scottish ministers for approval. I hope that the committee and the Government agree that target setting, monitoring, reporting and enforcement are incredibly important. This group of amendments does just that.

The problem has been a series of changes to policy, policy direction and support for local authorities. Broadly, the Scottish Government has moved away from supporting local authorities in meeting the targets and is supporting businesses and other organisations. In terms of meeting the 50 per cent target, it is as simple as putting Glasgow City Council into special measures. Based on the latest statistics, its recycling rate is currently sitting at 27.6 per cent, which drags the whole of Scotland down. If you had a change in leadership in Glasgow City Council, you could very easily improve that and help the whole of Scotland.

It is quite a varied picture in terms of what councils are doing and how they are doing. A lot of it is not rocket science, so I am astounded that we are still talking, in 2024, about a 2013 target. It is almost frightening. I would go so far as to say that the Scottish Government has a far more sophisticated record on the delivery of ferries than it does on household waste recycling. To give you an idea, the recycling rate in Scottish Borders is 57 per cent and in Renfrewshire it is 53 per cent. Aberdeen City Council is at almost 42 per cent, so it can be done in a more urban environment as well.

The third amendment in the group, amendment 17, is to reach a household recycling target of 70 per cent by 2030. That one was introduced by me, and I think that it is certainly achievable. I could do it myself, so I am sure that the minister will be able to do it and will agree to that.

Amendment 18 goes back to a Scottish Government target, which I have codified as an amendment. I have not come up with that; it is what the Scottish Government has said. I am sure that members will all vote with what the Government has said. What is the point of putting any targets in, if you do not attempt to meet them?

Amendment 164 changes “may” to “must”.

Amendment 60 is about requirements for reporting on progress. I suggest, convener, that if we had that sort of reporting on progress, something would happen from the failure to meet the 2013 target. That accountability is what I would be looking for, because it is, in my opinion, completely unfair for some local authorities to be doing very well and investing in the area while others are not. That is an uneven playing field and I think that the Scottish Government should be reporting on that, and on where it is making interventions, as it has done in the past.

The amendment says “as locally as possible” and “preferably in Scotland”. That indicates, at least, that there is an international dynamic. I am just seeking clarity that the Scottish Government’s position is that waste materials should not be managed as locally as possible.