Seòmar agus comataidhean

I will be incredibly brief. Amendment 23, in my name, is technical and consequential to others that I lodged. That is it.

I am glad that Mr Ruskell has come in at this point.

Very good.

I do not think there is any point in putting targets in law—or, indeed, putting anything in law—if there is no redress if the targets are missed. [Interruption.] Would you like me to stop while the window closes, convener?

Thank you, convener. I will start by apologising to the committee because I have 40-plus amendments in this group. I promise to spend no longer than five minutes on each, and I have no doubt that the minister will do the same, which is about six hours’ worth—[Interruption.] Of course I am jesting, convener, before you jump in.

Last week, I argued that the two-year deadline for publishing the circular economy strategy was too long and pushed for it to be cut to a year. The minister was not at all keen on that and wanted it to remain at two years. At one point, Mr Ruskell even argued that there should not be a deadline, until he realised that there was one in the bill and reappraised his stance.

With that in mind, I wish to fall into line with the minister and propose only two-year deadlines in my many amendments in this group. Therefore, I will not press amendment 5 or move the other amendments that would create a one-year deadline. Those are amendments 7, 19, 21, 30, 32, 40, 42, 47, 49, 51, 53, 61, 63, 68, 70, 73 and 75.

Convener, I notice that the clerk is talking to you. Is it a procedural matter?

It might help with your decision making, convener, if I give you warning that, in the following group, I will be speaking at some length. I just wanted to let you know that.

My arguments with regard to amendment 28 are very similar to those that Mr Lumsden has just made. The amendment deals with the issue of the internal market act as it relates to section 9 of the bill, which is the power to require imposition of charges for single-use items.

I do not need to remind the committee of the importance of complying with that power; whether members think we should or not is neither here nor there, because we must deal with reality. Allow me, if you will, convener, to quote fairly extensively from the committee’s report, which I thought was excellent. It says:

“We also recognise that some key matters are reserved and that the Scottish Government must work within the requirements of the UK Internal Market Act.”

It also says, on page 4:

“The framework nature of the Bill also means the Committee cannot express an authoritative view as to whether regulations made under the Bill (if enacted) would be likely to trigger the market access principles within the UK Internal Market Act 2020, with a risk of undermining their effectiveness.”

Again, the report says, on page 25:

“The Internal Market Act creates two key market access principles which operate in the post-Brexit environment: the mutual recognition principle and the nondiscrimination principle. These—

‘... serve to disapply relevant requirements in one part of the UK when goods or services are lawfully provided in another part of the UK. The principles will permit access to the Scottish market of goods and services which originate elsewhere in the UK under different regulatory conditions. This is likely to have a substantial impact on the effectiveness of devolved regulatory regimes.’”

On page 26, it says:

“It was widely accepted during Stage 1 that the Internal Market Act has the potential to significantly affect the operation of the Bill if it were to become law: potentially a ‘massive impact’ according to some stakeholders.”

My amendment, which relates to section 9, says that the Scottish Government must consult with the secretary of state, whoever that is, and provide a statement that he or she is content that the regulations comply with the internal market act. I think that Mr Lumsden’s amendment does the same. Given the committee’s comments in its report, which I have just quoted, I would have thought that it would support this position. However, I have thought that before when I have quoted the committee’s report, so we will just have to wait and see.

Douglas Lumsden is exactly right. He has clearly heard what I said. He has understood the argument.

The argument is just as he has laid out: if any Government—it does not matter who it is—does not set a deadline, then things can just drift and never get done. Even though I might have concerns about a provision, if it is in a bill, surely the government of the day must be serious about it. If it is serious about it, it should get on and do it; if it fears a public backlash, then it might not do it—but, if that is the case, why have it in the bill?

As with my previous amendments, amendments 48 and 50 set another two-year deadline for the Scottish Government with regard to section 11, on “Household waste requirements”. Amendments 52 and 54 also relate to “Household waste requirements” under section 11. Again, I have set a deadline of two years for those regulations to be made, otherwise, the section would expire.

Amendments 62 and 64 set a deadline for the Government with regards to section 13, which is on

“Targets for local authorities relating to household waste recycling”.

The deadline would mean that regulations must be made

“within two years of this section coming into force”,

otherwise, section 13 would expire.

I come to amendments 69 and 71. Section 14 covers civil penalties for “Littering from a vehicle” and provides new enforcement penalties to tackle that problem. As with several of the other sections of the bill, the committee—with good reason—expressed concern about the practical implementation of such powers. As such, a consistent, robust and realistic approach to enforcement needs to be taken. That requires a timetable for regulations and, again, I am saying that would be with a deadline of two years, or the section should expire. You might think that that is a bit extreme, given the seriousness of the issue, but this is about asking the Government to act and avoid the legislative drift that I mentioned earlier.

My amendments 74, 76 and 77 are to section 15, which deals with

“Enforcement powers in respect of certain environmental offences”,

enabling enforcement authorities to stop a vehicle, require a vehicle owner to provide personal details, enter commercial premises and search or seize a vehicle. Those additional powers would help the Scottish Environment Protection Agency and local authorities to tackle perpetrators of waste crime. The committee highlighted the importance of Government funding to underpin that enforcement. My amendments set another deadline for the Government and would insert another sunset clause.

Amendments 78 and 79 relate to the commencement of the act. Amendment 78 calls for section 3, on the

“Publication and laying of strategy”

to come into force on the day after royal assent. It is important that the date on which the provision will come into force is stipulated in the bill and that there is a clear date by which the first strategy should be delivered. In order to expedite that process, I am calling for section 3 to come into force on the day after royal assent.

Amendment 79 calls for section 6, which relates to the development of statutory targets, to come into force on the day after royal assent. The committee argued that setting those targets should be, in its words,

“an obligation, not an option.”

My amendment seeks to make the setting of those targets more urgent by calling for section 6 to come into force on the day after royal assent.

Amendments 78 and 79 reflect two of the most urgent and crucial aspects of the bill and it is essential that both aspects are implemented as early as possible.

You will notice, convener, that I have read the committee report very carefully. I am trying to go along with what the committee said. If that has been the committee’s view, I hope that it will support my amendments. Given the minister’s comments last week with regard to the two-year deadline, I hope that she will reflect on that point and support the amendments.

That covers the group in rather less than the three hours that I had anticipated, convener.

I move amendment 5.

I will do that right at the start. I wish to withdraw amendment 5 but I will move amendment 6.

That is one of the most disappointing contributions that I have heard from a Scottish Government minister. It is absolutely clear that the minister is not serious about delivering on the bill—she does not want to be tied to any timescale. I have set a very reasonable timescale, which is not even particularly quick, of two years. Given that this has already been worked on for a number of years, as Mr Golden said, two years is not particularly ambitious.

Essentially, the minister is saying that she does not want the Government to be tied down to any timescale for any of this. That could mean that there are some sections of the bill that might never take effect. What is the point of passing legislation that might never take effect? That is why you set timetables.

We like to recycle things such as cans, but I am afraid that the minister is kicking the can down the road to an unknown point; we just do not know where that can will end up. There is no timetable and no ambition, which is very disappointing. I know that the committee will not back me, but it should be pushing back against this unambitious minister and saying, “We want to get on with this.”

Amendment 5, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendment 6 moved—[Graham Simpson].

I thank the minister for her comments, and I note that, like most members, I have also seen tyres dumped in the area that I represent. However, does she accept that people might not know which local authority area they are in when they spot an instance such as the one that she mentions? Does she, therefore, accept that there is merit in what I am suggesting, and that it would be useful if there were some kind of national reporting mechanism—overseen by something like SEPA—that would get around any confusion about where the instance has occurred?

I have just ended my contribution.

It is up to ministers when they lay regulations, so the timing of those regulations is entirely down to the Government. I am very familiar with the affirmative and the super-affirmative procedure. I was convener of the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee in the previous session, and we dealt with that sort of thing all the time.

Getting something through within two years is not onerous. Minister, do you accept that the argument that you made to the committee last week was that you needed two years, and that two years was enough? Now you are telling us that, for these amendments, two years is too tight. The two arguments do not add up, do they?