Seòmar agus comataidhean

So far, the process has been quite frustrating, but I hope that it will get better as the morning goes on. I always like to think that, at stage 2, members can listen to and base their votes on actual debates, and that the minister can be flexible and does not have to adhere to what have seemed to me to be quite old speaking notes, which were probably written before she took office.

On amendment 24, it is not clear to me what section 9 would apply to, but I find some of its wording concerning. I have lodged a number of amendments that relate to charges for single-use items, but amendment 24 would remove such charges if a deposit return scheme were ever to be put in place. The minister, who was, I accept, not the architect of the DRS shambles, might well say that it is obvious that that would be the case; however, nothing is obvious unless you make it so, which is why we need something in legislation—hence amendment 24.

On amendment 25, the circular economy is, to me, about ensuring that goods and products that can be recycled or reused are, indeed, recycled and reused. We have become a throwaway society, as anyone who has been on a litter pick will know. As I have said, it is not clear to me what section 9 would cover, but in the stage 1 debate I said that, as far as charges for single-use items are concerned, you could be talking about a container for a takeaway meal. In other words, it would be a fish-and-chips tax, and the wording of the bill suggests that that is the case. It says:

“The regulations may only specify items which are—

(a) manufactured,

(b) provided—

(i) as a container or packaging for goods,

or

(ii) to be used in connection with the consumption or use of goods,

and

(c) likely to be used for that purpose only—

(i) once, or

(ii) for a short period.”

Therefore, my fear could definitely come to fruition.

All sorts of things could attract surcharges: shoeboxes, bags that clothes come in, tins and the paper bags for your prescriptions. There are all kinds of things that the provision could encompass. Of course, Scotland’s great chippies could be hit by it, too.

However, what if the committee were to accept amendment 25? At a stroke, items that are biodegradable, which is what the amendment is about, would be exempt. Surely we are not targeting such items—after all, they are going to rot away, anyway. Under the amendment, biodegradable food and drink containers would not face a charge. Indeed, why should they? The committee can do the right thing on this and spare our chippies.

On amendment 26, I firmly believe that, given the bill’s woolly wording, we should, if we go down this road, set out which single-use items would not be covered. The minister might well say, “We can’t do that, because the list would be too long”, but surely businesses need that sort of clarity. The minister could set out a list of the categories of products that would be exempt, which would be much shorter than a list of individual products. Maybe that is something that we could look at for stage 3—indeed, I know that people are already considering stage 3 amendments. Businesses need clarity, and because this is a framework bill, they do not have it—hence the concerns.

Amendment 27 is short but very important. It says that ministers must spell out who should pay a charge for single-use items. If I pop into a coffee shop and ask for an americano and maybe a sandwich, they are both likely to come—[Interruption.]

Yes, of course.

To answer Mr Ruskell’s point, there are issues—full stop—with penalising people for putting the wrong stuff in their bins. You can really only do so if you catch them at it and have evidence.

Will the minister take an intervention?

Okay—just when you are ready.

It has been an interesting discussion, and I thank the members who have contributed. Ben Macpherson, Douglas Lumsden and Monica Lennon all made good points, but the final exchange with the minister was quite revealing, in that I do not think there is enough clarity in certain sections of the bill as it is written. The minister did not clear up who would pay these charges; we have to go with what is actually written in the bill.

I am very happy to talk to the minister about amendment 25 or any other amendment. I guessed that she would not want to obliterate section 9—of course I did, but I will probably not move that amendment. I hope that the rest of the amendments are up for discussion. When the minister and I sit down to chat about amendment 25, perhaps we can widen the discussion and talk about other things on which we might be able to reach consensus.

In real time.

Perhaps the approach is too onerous, but there might be a better, different, approach offered at stage 3. However, that would require co-operation from the minister.

I am happy to take any further interventions. I see that Mr Ruskell wants in.

If only every minister was as reasonable as Ms Martin. Unfortunately, that is not always the case. We are putting something into legislation that will last far beyond Ms Martin’s tenure in her current post: it will last into the next parliamentary session and beyond, presumably. We need to get it right.

I make the point again that making regulations is not the same as putting something in the text of a bill. This applies in the UK Parliament, too: there is an increasing trend to produce framework bills, and that is not healthy for parliamentary scrutiny. That is why I have lodged my amendments: I am seeking greater detail.

However, unless there are any other interventions—which I would be delighted to take—

Mr Ruskell is making a very interesting point, and he is probably talking about a whole new process, which we do not have at the moment. I am looking at Mr Doris’s screen: he is looking up what super-affirmative SSIs are.

Sorry. I was not being—