Seòmar agus comataidhean

I will not move amendment 24, on the basis of—

Thanks, convener. I have enormous sympathy with what you are trying to achieve in amendment 121, because there needs to be a stiffer deterrent than exists at the moment. We have probably all had cases of industrial-scale dumping in our patches. I had a really disgusting case of a load of chicken carcases being dumped next to a stream. We have all seen cases of tyres being dumped.

However, I have a question on amendment 202 that I would like Mr Lumsden to clear up—maybe he cannot, as it is Murdo Fraser’s amendment and not Mr Lumsden’s, although he has spoken to it. It is a very useful amendment. It would make SEPA responsible for clearing things up, but it does not say—or I cannot see that it says—within what time frame. We all know that, when things have been dumped, sometimes they are left for years and nobody does anything about it. I think that, at some point, Mr Fraser, either on his own or working with the minister, should clear that up, because we do not want to be in a position where SEPA is responsible but could say, “We will get round to it at some point.” I am sure that that is not what Mr Fraser is trying to achieve.

I thank Monica Lennon for taking an intervention. She mentions the word “choice”. I am reflecting on amendments 170 and 157. Does she not think that it should be a matter of choice for health boards and councils whether they introduce the schemes that she is suggesting?

Clearly, North Ayrshire has made that choice and it says that the scheme is cost neutral, but I do not think that the committee has had the evidence of that. I think that we would need to see that evidence before deciding that the scheme was cost neutral. I imagine that several councils will conclude that such a scheme would not be cost neutral, and that health boards might similarly conclude that. Therefore, does Monica accept the general point that that should be a local decision, rather than something that is set down in law?

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?

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.]

I will speak only to amendment 12, and not for very long.

As the committee knows, it is all very well setting targets in legislation, but the Government can just shrug its shoulders if those targets are missed—or even just scrap them. I have always thought that there is little to no point in putting targets in law, but that is what we will end up with—targets set in regulations. [Interruption.] I am not quite sure what that noise is, convener.

That is exactly right—it is about making the process easy for people. If you spot somebody fly-tipping when you are out and about, what on earth are you meant to do? Should you take a photo? Whom should you report it to? If there was an app, that could make things easy.

As I said, I am prepared to listen to the minister on that. I am more than happy to work with her on the issue at stage 3 if she is up for it—although, given her comments on most of my amendments, she probably is not. [Laughter.] We live in hope, convener.

Mark Ruskell’s amendment 196 and Bob Doris’s amendment 197 could impose severe burdens on businesses. Mr Ruskell’s amendment is marginally better, in that the requirements that it proposes are to be placed on those in receipt of public funds, but it does not state what the funds should be for, so it could encompass anyone getting funds for anything. I doubt whether either Mr Ruskell or Mr Doris can tell us what their proposals would cost, and, on that basis alone, I think that their amendments should be rejected or withdrawn.

I say to Ms Lennon that I am generally a carrot rather than stick kind of guy—she is absolutely right. However, the problem is that there are no examples. The Government can ignore targets and there is never any comeback. I suppose that I am being quite radical in saying that there should be such a system. Otherwise, why should we have something in law? I am simply saying that fines should go to councils and environmental charities, which I would have thought would delight Mr Ruskell.