Seòmar agus comataidhean

Yes—definitely. Scotland can send a signal to the market. For example, if the Scottish Government report that is proposed in the amendment said that, due to its analysis, there should be a plastic recycling facility, that would send a signal. I would suggest that we should have such a facility, but it would be down to the experts to focus on that. The report could be on an electric arc furnace or turbine refurbishment. There are a host of opportunities in this space, and the Government guidance could ultimately influence the market. There is clearly a gap.

We know that there is enough plastic in Scotland to work with a plastic recycling facility, but we do not have one, so let us get experts to guide the market in that space.

Yes. This is not a commentary on the amendments, in particular, but it is of concern that we are discussing the issue 20 years after talking about it previously. It has gone full circle. That is a problem of Government and, potentially, of Parliament. We are discussing what is, in essence, a real nappy campaign almost 20 years after it was initially put in the landfill, so to speak.

There is an opportunity for the Scottish Government to provide Parliament and the member with information on the policy choices in that space. We have had a real nappy campaign before, which was funded by the Scottish Government. Information on that, including on behaviour change, its effectiveness and the materials that were provided could all be published. That would be really useful.

As Mark Ruskell said, we have had recycling trials for absorbent hygiene products—not just nappies but other items. Again, a report would be useful in relation to that space, so I hope that the Scottish Government will do that.

There has also been life-cycle analysis of the environmental impact of real nappies versus disposable ones, and the requirements around laundering a reusable nappy in order to make that better for the environment. That is another report that the Scottish Government could publish.

Another policy option that should be considered in the round is a ban on absorbent hygiene products going to landfill. The Scottish Government might want to pursue that, and it would not mean that we could not pursue the thrust of Ms Lennon’s amendment. Furthermore, there are increasing numbers of biodegradable nappies coming on to the market, and, of course, they would be banned from going to landfill. Again, sales analysis of how that is working out would be useful in advance of stage 3, so that members can make an evidence-based choice on the policy interventions in that area.

On the scheme for reusable diapers, which amendment 170 deals with, it is difficult to know whether to support it without knowing more about the evidence base in the round. It might be the best policy option, but it might not be.

Similarly, although the intention of the scheme for donated mattresses that is set out in amendment 216 is important, it could be incredibly burdensome on local authorities, which would have to match up information across different databases.

I have a question on reporting. Will the minister commit to publishing previous reports on nappies and absorbent hygiene products that have been produced but are not currently published, which would both benefit Parliament and help to inform the debate?

Amendment 55 means that ministers must, rather than may, issue guidance on the operation of the household duty of care. It appears that the Scottish Government is supportive of that. Amendment 56 means that fines can come into play only after the guidance is published.

I move amendment 55.

This is no reflection on the minister, who has been in post for a very short time, but trusting to deliver is a theme in this area, where there is very little trust, based on the Scottish Government consistently setting targets that it makes no attempt to meet. Next year, it will be interesting to see whether the food waste target of a one third reduction by 2025 is met. I agree with the minister that that is the first line of the waste hierarchy.

I have concerns about the date of March 2026 for the production of the code because, as members will be aware, if there is a short delay, there might be only a few of us who are here to pick up the issue in the next session of Parliament—although I wish everyone well in that election. That is a genuine concern. Again, this is no reflection on the minister, but there is a genuine concern over the multiple delays to the bill. However, we are where we are.

I am happy to.

I am happy to.

I hope that it would not, because the amendments are about standing up for trade unions and the workers whom they represent. It strikes me that, ultimately, the bill could result in changes to terms and conditions. I am quite happy to work with the committee or the Government to make any changes to the wording, because that is the ultimate intention of the amendments.

I am happy to, Monica.

I have not, but I would be happy to do that. Obviously, there will be front-line workers who are not represented by trade unions. As the grandson of a front-line waste operative—or bin man, as I called him—I understand the practical realities that the bill could change. It might sound a small thing, but if someone is looking to build a strong case of evidence, they could ask front-line operatives to check bins beyond a cursory glance, which could lead to confrontation. The provision of training might be required beyond what is normally expected of our front-line waste operatives.

There are a host of areas where a seemingly small change could lead to drastic changes in the skills that are required and in terms and conditions—maybe not in every local authority area, but in certain areas—for certain parts of the workforce. I am trying to flush out any unintended consequences of an additional policy interaction from this place. That is what we need to achieve.