Official Report 338KB pdf
For agenda item 2, I welcome Mike Pringle MSP and David Cullum, the head of the non-Executive bills unit. Mike Pringle has lodged a draft proposal for an environmental levy on plastic bags (Scotland) bill, which would place an environmental levy on specified plastic bags that would be payable by the consumer. It would also require local authorities to collect the levy, with the net proceeds being ring fenced for use on environmental projects in local authority areas. Accompanying the proposal is a statement of reasons why Mike Pringle believes that there is no need for any consultation on his proposal.
Given that the committee has the statement of reasons, I do not propose to make a long opening statement, but I will make some brief comments.
A number of members have indicated that they would like to pose questions to you.
Mr Pringle, how will your new bill differ from your previous one? What changes do you intend to make in light of the conclusions of the previous Environment and Rural Development Committee's stage 1 report?
The bill will be exactly the same. It has not been altered at this stage, because I did not think that that was appropriate. The appropriate time to alter the bill is at stage 2, if the bill passes stage 1. I previously had an indication that the Executive intended to lodge a number of amendments. I expect that the committee would have a number of amendments. Stage 2 is the time to examine changes to the bill. David, do you wish to say anything?
In regard to the proposed Executive amendments, if the bill proceeds today we will enter discussions with Executive officials in the hope that we will be able to incorporate many if not all of the amendments in the revised bill that is introduced.
Surely the point of any further consultation would be to take into account the issues raised in the previous report and to learn from it, and to allow consultation on those issues to inform committee members. The committee would be in a difficult position to carry out its work if we were asked to sign up to the detail of the principles without further consultation, given the difficulties experienced by the previous committee.
That is a perfectly reasonable point of view, but it is not up to me to decide.
My questions relate more to procedures and might be better addressed to David Cullum than to Mike Pringle.
Please be brief, David.
I will restrict my answer to the procedure and will not comment on Mike Pringle's proposed bill—I do not need to do that to answer the question.
Thank you. I hope that you are happy with that answer, Des. I do not think that the committee should be discussing the procedure.
No, but there is an issue. As a committee, we find ourselves in a difficult position. It has occurred once before; I think that it occurred with the bill that Mr Sheridan put forward twice. The Parliament's procedures are being used to recycle bills that have already been dealt with.
But I do not think that this is the correct committee to make that point.
I suppose that I am asking whether there is an issue that we should raise with the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee.
Perhaps. We will certainly look into that.
Mr Pringle, you will be aware that a lot of representations have been made to the committee, most of which deal with the merits of the proposed bill, but we are not considering those today. One submission states that your consultation is four years old and that, since it was conducted, issues have developed and the landscape has changed. Indeed, you mention a couple of developments in your statement of reasons. You state that the market has responded to demands about plastic bags, including Marks & Spencer and IKEA, and you mention the Selkirk example. What is your response to the suggestion that, because your consultation is four years old, there should be a further consultation?
Frankly, the issues are exactly the same. The process that we went through was extensive, as Des McNulty said, or was it Karen Gillon? I got 126 responses. The committee then asked for further comments and it got 96 responses. The general principles have not changed at all, as is reflected in the representations that you have received. I refer again to what standing orders require:
It is clear to me that the only decision that the committee has to make today is whether the proposal needs to be put out for further consultation. Contrary to what has just been said, I know that the original consultation started in 2004—four years ago. In your evidence to the committee, you say that you received 117 responses, and you have indicated that there were even more. The Environment and Rural Development Committee carried out its own consultation as well—it took evidence from 30 witnesses in 11 committee sessions, and the stage 1 report was published just 18 months ago. There has been a huge public consultation over the past four years, and it ended just 18 months ago. The Scottish Executive also produced an extended impact assessment report.
If we consult again, we will just get responses from exactly the same people who responded the last time, with the same organisations in favour and against—it will just require everyone to go through the same process all over again. One of the reasons why I withdrew the bill at stage 1 was that there was a clear indication from the committee that it was not willing to support the bill at the time. The committee did not say that it was not willing to support it at all.
You twice referred to the policy objectives of your bill being clear from the previous consultation. I accept that they are reasonably clear, but do you accept that, as Jamie Hepburn said, since you originally conceived of the bill and had it drafted more than four years ago, the policy world that you are trying to shape has changed quite a lot around you? Consumers, retailers and whole communities have changed—or are beginning in significant ways to change—their behaviour in relation to plastic bags. Is it not reasonable to re-examine the bill and consult on it again, because the policy objectives have to change to address the world as it is today, not the world as it was four years ago?
I do not accept that view, Peter. I accept that the landscape may have changed a bit, but if it has changed it has changed in favour of legislation. The fact is that more and more people are moving towards that view.
Your arrogance astounds me, Mike. A unanimous committee report came up with 10 conclusions on issues that the committee had problems with, which came out of the evidence that it took during what you accept was an extensive consultation, yet nothing is going to change. You see no reason to change anything. You have learned no lessons from everything that has gone before. For that reason, convener, we need to ask the member to put his proposal out to consultation again, to find out what is going to change, what has been learned from the previous committee's report and how that will adapt and shape the bill that will come before the Parliament at stage 1.
I agree with Karen Gillon, except on one point. Mike Pringle would be well advised to rethink his proposal in the light of the evidence that was received. It must be extraordinarily irritating to people who might be affected by the proposed legislation to find the Parliament reconsulting on something that it has already made a decision about, with nothing having changed or advanced.
Can I comment on that?
Yes.
Des McNulty says that people will be irritated by the fact that they have to write in again. The committee did not ask for further evidence, but it has received evidence from lots of people. Almost 50 per cent of the people who have written in have said that it is ridiculous that the bill was not passed the first time. There are two sides to the argument. I understand that some people do not want the bill to go ahead, as they are against it. On the other hand, as we saw previously, a large number of people are in favour of a levy in Scotland. The argument is balanced on both sides.
I am concerned. Listening to fellow members of the committee, I feel that we are in danger of examining the merits or demerits of the bill. Des McNulty said that it would irritate people to have the bill put before them again, yet he then advocated further consultation. The only decision that we have to make is whether there has been enough consultation on the policy objectives of the bill. My colleagues' comments suggest that everybody considers that there has been a huge amount of consultation. Our decision must not be about the merits or demerits of the bill; it must be about whether we send the proposal out for consultation in the public domain again—at the taxpayers' expense—and start the process all over again.
The key issue for me is that the bill went through a parliamentary process, which concluded with a parliamentary report that presented a set of conclusions and issues based on the evidence. We are being asked by the member to forget that that ever took place and to consider a bill that has not changed one iota in relation to the conclusions of a previous committee. That is what is holding the Parliament in contempt. When there is a committee report on a bill, surely anyone who lodges that bill again should change it in view of the report, or at least consult on the issues that were raised in the report. Even the Executive—now the Government—has to change bills on the basis of evidence. We should expect nothing less from a member.
I do not know about the urgency of making a decision at today's meeting, but would it be useful to invite further evidence at a future meeting from a selection of the people who have written in?
I think that we want to make our position clear today.
That is not the view of the whole committee.
Do you want to press for a vote?
Yes. Consulting again on the bill would be a complete waste of effort, and I do not want to waste taxpayers' money.
With respect, the person who would be wasting taxpayers' money is the member who is not responding to the circumstances.
The question is, do we require the member to consult further on his proposed bill?
And on the conclusions of the previous report.
No, just on the bill. Does the committee agree that Mike Pringle should undertake further consultation on the bill?
For
The result of the division is: For 5, Against 1, Abstentions 1.
I suggested earlier that the procedural circumstances in which we find ourselves with recycled bills should be raised with the relevant committee.
I hand over to the convener, who arrived some time ago.
I was running late this morning. I thank John Scott for getting the meeting started in my absence.
Next
Pig Industry