Seòmar agus comataidhean

My question is on whether we have universality or targeting. The current approach is not universal, because universal credit is not universal; it is about blanket coverage for those who are in receipt of universal credit.

The Scottish child payment is straightforward to administer and impactful—I think that that is clear. Maybe my numbers are a little bit wrong but, if we increase it by another £5 a week, that would cost another £90 million a year. If we had £90 million a year, should we put it all into the Scottish child payment or increase the best start grant and best start foods, pay a clothing grant twice a year or provide a Scottish child payment summer supplement rather than spreading it across the year? There is a debate about whether to target the money more or whether to make it as universal as possible and about how Government and Parliament look at that.

That is helpful. As ever, it is never straightforward.

An unintended consequence of the success, I suppose, of the Scottish child payment is that, as universal credit tapers, the Scottish child payment does not. Everyone in this Parliament and on this committee wants to see mums, dads and families get into not just work but well-paid work with hours that allow them to sustain their quality of life without relying on benefits. However, a cliff edge is created by the fact that, when universal credit stops completely, so does the Scottish child payment.

Do the witnesses have any comments on, or solutions to, that? I will roll the two aspects into one question: first, on tapering, should that happen along with tapering of universal credit—I am wary of taking money off people when they are still on universal credit—or should the Scottish child payment be maintained and then tapered once someone stops receiving universal credit?

I have made my apologies, Mr Simpson. Perhaps you can get on with it.

I apologise, Mr Simpson.

Will the member give way?

In the interest of clarity for Mr Simpson, I used to chair the Subordinate Legislation Committee before it was called the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee and we looked at the super-affirmative procedure.

I want clarity about something very important. Draft regulations can be published for up to 90 days before final regulations are published and laid before Parliament and there was a dynamic parliamentary process in which the minister would have to demonstrate amendments made at that point. We are looking at the super-affirmative procedure, which Parliament at that time thought was a substantial level of scrutiny. I still agree with that and I think that it is reasonable for this piece of legislation. I would like clarity from Mr Simpson because I would not support having the measure on the face of the bill—I think that would be wrong—and would like to know from him what procedure would be used if it were not the super-affirmative.

I will refer to dumped mattresses and other items under the section on a code of practice on household waste recycling in relation to bulky uplift charges. However, in relation to amendment 216, one way to avoid a bulky uplift charge for a mattress is to phone the council and say, “Come and reuse, recycle and repurpose my mattress.” The mattress could be done, gone, beyond repair and just at the end of its life and people could use the scheme to circumvent local authority charges. Is that a risk? Is no mattress so far gone that it cannot be repurposed, reused and recycled and get a free uplift? Can you confirm that the intention would be that any mattress would be uplifted free of charge by any local authority if amendment 216 were to pass?

I am following the debate with great interest. On amendment 26, and on putting in the bill a list of items that would be exempt from a charge, does Graham Simpson consider that there is a possibility that, by definition, the absence of any item from the list may lead to concern that every item that is not on the face of the bill might be considered for such a charge, which would not be the case?

The power to levy a charge does not mean that, if something is not exempted in the text of the bill, it is being actively considered for a charge. Having a finite list in the bill itself might lead to greater anxiety. It could also mean that, as new products are made and become available, we would need primary legislation to add them to the list.

That is not a reason not to support amendment 26, but does the member appreciate that I have outlined two drawbacks of his amendment?

I lodged amendments 217 and 218 as probing amendments. I am sorry, minister, that I have not had time to discuss them with you in any detail, but I will say a little more about that at the end of my speech.

Section 12 of the bill, entitled “Code of practice on household waste recycling”, is aimed at producing greater consistency and co-ordination across local authorities. We have heard much debate on that already. The bill states that the code of practice “may” address receptacles used for collection, frequency of collection, items for recycling and composting, management of contamination of household waste and communication with the public on collections and recycling. What is not contained in that code of practice, from what I can see, is the relationship between any potential strategy and bulk uplift or garden waste items, which amendments 217 and 218, respectively, refer to. I believe that that is an omission. My amendments would not compel local authorities, or the strategy, to contain provisions for those items, but the amendments would allow those items to be included in the strategy. I hope that those things would be looked at during the co-production process that the minister has been speaking about.

I agree with the minister about local circumstances, and I am pleased that we can have further discussions ahead of stage 3. The minister said that the bill as drafted does not technically preclude the issue from being in the code. Is that because there is nothing in the bill that says what is not allowed to be in the code so, theoretically, anything could be in it?