Subordinate Legislation
Marketing of Vegetable Plant Material Amendment (Scotland) Regulations 2014 (SSI 2014/111)
Good morning, and welcome to the 15th meeting this year of the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee. I remind everybody to switch off electronic devices, which can interfere with the sound system. I note that some committee members may consult tablets during the meeting, as we provide meeting papers in digital format for the younger generation.
Agenda item 1 is a piece of subordinate legislation—a negative Scottish statutory instrument. Members should note that no motion to annul has been received in relation to the instrument. I refer members to the paper that has been provided. Who knows the Latin for “tomato” now?
As there are no questions or comments, are members agreed that the committee does not wish to make any recommendations in relation to the instrument?
Members indicated agreement.
We note the regulations.
Single Use Carrier Bags Charge (Scotland) Regulations 2014 [Draft]
Agenda item 2 is a further item of subordinate legislation. This item is for members to take evidence from the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and the Environment on the draft regulations. The regulations have been laid under the affirmative procedure, which means that the Parliament must approve the draft before the provisions may come into force. Following this evidence session, the committee will be invited to consider the motion to recommend approval of the instrument, under agenda item 3.
I welcome the cabinet secretary, Richard Lochhead, and Peter Stapleton, policy manager for waste prevention in the Scottish Government. I invite the cabinet secretary to speak to the draft regulations.
Good morning and thank you, convener. It is good to see that you are wearing the same Enable Scotland tie as many other committee members, to celebrate Scottish learning disability awareness week.
I am pleased to be here to discuss a very important issue for Scotland’s environment. I believe that the introduction of a charge for single-use carrier bags will be one of the Parliament’s highest-profile environmental measures since it was founded. The measure will affect everyone in Scotland, and it will show that Parliament is ready and willing to take a lead to tackle Scotland’s litter problem.
Believe it or not, Scotland uses around 750 million single-use carrier bags a year from supermarkets alone, which is more per head than anywhere else on these islands. It is the equivalent of 12 bags per person for each month of the year. To help tackle the blight of litter on our streets, in our countryside and in our waterways, we want to reduce the number of bags that are given out. Such bags can form a highly visible and damaging component of litter, and they have a particular impact on Scotland’s seas. The measure should be viewed as part of our wider work on tackling Scotland’s litter problem—particularly in 2014, the year of the Commonwealth games and the Ryder cup, when we are inviting many people to visit our shores and we wish to ensure that our country is looking beautiful.
Single-use bags are a symbol of a throwaway society. The policy is all about attaching a value to something to which many people have perhaps not attached a value in the past, because it is free. It is also about engaging the widest possible range of people in environmental behaviour and encouraging everyone who will be affected by the policy to consider their impact on Scotland’s environment, particularly with respect to Scotland’s litter problem.
By placing a value on these items, we want to encourage people to reuse their bags and to consider switching to alternatives. Beyond that, we are promoting the reuse of other items to help get the most out of our increasingly limited resources and to cut carbon emissions at the same time.
The draft regulations are designed to offer a proportionate response to the issue. We have been careful to ensure that the administration of the regulations will be as light touch as possible, particularly for smaller businesses. The measure is a requirement to charge, not a tax. Although the purpose is to influence behaviour, rather than fundraising, we are encouraging retailers to donate the net proceeds to good causes. We have every reason to believe that the majority will do the right thing.
It is clear that there is support for the measure from many retailers, from their customers, from environmental non-governmental organisations and, I hope, from Parliament. Last year’s consultation saw a strong response in favour of the charge, and we have had a constructive dialogue with stakeholders during the whole process.
There is a growing international appetite for action—it is not just here in Scotland. Many countries, regions and cities around the world have introduced measures to tackle bag use. As far as policies in these islands are concerned, similar charges are working well in Wales and Northern Ireland, with even the United Kingdom Government now set to introduce a charge in England. Indeed, it seems likely that action will be required across the whole of the European Union in the next few years.
It is clearly time for Scotland to act, and I ask the committee to support the regulations.
We now move to questions from members.
Good morning, cabinet secretary. I wish to clarify something. In section 88 of the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009, there is a reference to “the net proceeds” from the measure being used for “environmental protection or improvement” or similar.
At the weekend, Zero Waste Scotland discussed the commitment
“To donate the net proceeds from the charge to good causes”.
Indeed, the cabinet secretary has used the phrase “good causes”. Zero Waste Scotland added:
“that may include environmental causes”.
We seem to have moved away from the original idea. Have we done so and, if so, why?
As I said in my opening remarks, the measure is not intended simply to raise funds; it is to cut down the use of bags in society. The more people who reuse bags—which is already happening—the fewer charges there will be and the less funds will be raised over time. The objective is not to raise the funds per se; it is to reduce the use of bags in society to help address the litter problem.
We have been in discussion with retailers, and we expect environmental causes to benefit from the funds that are raised. The agreement that we have with the retailers is that the funds that are raised will go towards good causes, which may include environmental causes. Why are we not simply saying that they should go to environmental causes? Some retailers already charge for bags and give the money to good causes, which could be local hospices or other local good causes that are not necessarily directly related to the environment. Rather than make a firm demand for the money to go to environmental causes, which might cut across the existing benefit to charities, we are encouraging the retailers that will be introducing a charge to include environmental causes among the beneficiaries of the funds that are raised.
Given that good dialogue seems to be going on, can we be assured that the funds that are raised—accepting that raising funds is not the main purpose of the policy—will be spent and redeployed in Scotland, and that they will not go outwith the borders of this country?
I have every confidence that the funds that are raised will be spent in Scotland. That is the tone of the agreement that we have with the retailers. Scotland’s carrier bag commitment is the agreement that we will sign if the regulations are passed by the committee and Parliament. If the green light is given, we will seek signatures for the commitment. The commitment lays out various aspects of the agreement involving retailers. We expect that the majority of, if not all, retailers will sign the commitment. We will certainly urge them to do so. Within that commitment will be various criteria for how they report and publish the information on the money that they are raising and where it is going. Ultimately, that information will be put in the public domain. Given that transparency, the public, Parliament and everyone else with an interest will be able to see where the funds that are raised are going. Based on the experience elsewhere, particularly in Wales, we believe that the approach will work well and that the funds that are raised will go towards good causes.
Cabinet secretary, I hope that you will bear with me, as I have a number of questions about the measure—because, to be perfectly honest, I have a number of concerns about it. They all stem from the fact that I think that there is a public perception that the levy refers specifically to plastic bags. I would have much less difficulty with it if it did, but it does not; it includes paper bags.
My understanding is that evidence from Wales suggests that paper bag usage is now back to almost exactly the same level as before the legislation came in. Why did you choose to include paper bags, particularly in relation to food-to-go or fast food outlets, which is a particular focus of my concern? There is evidence that providing a bag along with the various containers that come with a carry-out meal enables the litter-disposal aspect to be rather better managed, because people can put all the stuff back in the bag and stick it in the bin, rather than chuck the various containers out the car window. What was the thinking behind including paper bags in the legislation?
A number of objectives lie behind the policy, and we have learned from the experience of other countries on that. The objectives include cutting down on waste in society, tackling behaviour in the throwaway society that we have at the moment and encouraging people to think more about their environmental behaviour. We are in the habit of accepting single-use bags from shops. Thankfully, more and more people are taking bags that can be reused and bags for life, but the statistics show that 750 million single-use carrier bags are still being given out by our big supermarket chains. If we can encourage people to think twice about their environmental behaviour, that would be a huge step forward. It is about cutting carbon emissions and waste but, importantly, it is also about influencing behaviour and trying to encourage people to think twice about their environmental behaviour.
Plastic bags are clearly a major nuisance in society through litter, but other bags are, too. We are trying to encourage environmental behaviour, which relates to all single-use bags. Before I travelled to Parliament this week, I was out on my bike for a cycle near my home and of course I saw paper bags from some well-known fast food chains littering the road side and the countryside, which annoyed me greatly. I expect many people throughout our communities in Scotland are familiar with that sight. The measure is about tackling that culture and behaviour. If we can at least engage with the greatest number of people in society, which this policy will certainly do, I hope that that will have a positive impact.
Thank you—I appreciate the explanation.
It is interesting that you continue to use the term “single-use carrier bags”, because I understand that, on 6 January 2009, on the basis of figures from WRAP, which indicated that approximately 74 per cent of carrier bags were reused, you agreed that the term “single-use carrier bags” was inappropriate. As I said, I understand that the evidence from Wales shows that paper bag usage is back to pre-legislation levels. Will educating the public about litter make our experience different from the Welsh experience?
10:15
The Welsh experience has been a dramatic fall in the number of single-use bags given out. I hope that the policy will have a similar impact in Scotland and that the figure of 750 million bags, to which I referred, will be dramatically reduced in the years ahead once the charge comes into force.
You mentioned food in your earlier question, and perhaps I did not address that issue adequately. We decided to include fast food outlets because other countries have done that and we have looked at their experience in that regard. There are regulations that set out the circumstances under which charges are exempt. For example, uncovered hot food can be put in a bag and that bag does not have to be charged for, but if food that is bought from a fast food outlet is covered and then put in a bag, a charge should apply. The guidance that we will issue over the next few weeks will go out to all the outlets and retailers and will set out where the exemptions apply and where they do not.
As I say, we have been looking at other countries’ experience. Indeed, when the European Parliament considered legislation, it threw out an amendment that would have widened the exemptions to include all fast food outlets. Therefore, it, too, decided to include fast food outlets and hot food in its legislation.
We must strike a balance. We want to be light touch, we want to be sensible and we want to move forward. A lot of education will be involved to make people aware of when they will have to pay a charge. The net impact of the policy will be really good for Scotland’s environment and its litter problem.
Could I have one final question, convener?
That depends on whether it is a supplementary, in which case I will allow you to do so.
It is my intended final question at this point.
The cabinet secretary mentioned in his opening statement that he has had highly constructive dialogue with all stakeholders. I suspect that he will be aware of a company called Smith Anderson in Kirkcaldy that manufactures paper bags and is a major supplier to McDonald’s and Burger King. Smith Anderson says that the measure will cost it 40 jobs. What is your reaction to that?
We have looked into the impact of the policy. Some of the companies involved produce a wide range of bags, including single-use bags, so they will have to adapt as the policy comes into force.
We have looked at the impact on employment in Scotland. As you know, it is estimated that the wider economy will see an increase of 53 jobs versus an estimated reduction of between 18 and 84 jobs in the carrier bag sector. Those are our best estimates. In recent months, we have spoken to the enterprise agencies to ensure that they are speaking to the companies involved to see whether any help can be given to them. We will ensure that that happens.
It has been very difficult to identify any job losses in other countries that have put in place similar policies. I am not saying that no jobs would be impacted on; I am just saying that, in looking at other countries’ experience, it is quite difficult to come up with exact figures on how jobs have been affected. We will pay close attention to the matter and we will work with the companies concerned to see whether we can do anything constructive to help them adapt.
Thank you for answering my questions. I absolutely share a detestation of litter, as I am sure that everyone does. Were I convinced that the legislative measures that referred to paper bags would reduce litter, I would be more in favour of the proposals. As it is, I am afraid that I will have to choose to disagree with you on this occasion, cabinet secretary, and I am likely to oppose the motion when it comes to a vote.
Good morning, cabinet secretary. It is appropriate at this time that we recognise the work of Mike Pringle, the former MSP who, two sessions ago, initiated a member’s bill on this very subject.
You mentioned encouraging retailers and your belief that the majority of retailers will go ahead and do the charging. How will you review and keep an eye on whether the majority do that? What instruments will be in place to encourage the majority—or perhaps even more than that—to take up the new measures?
We will certainly keep an eye on the situation. Zero Waste Scotland is creating a central portal. A positive dimension to our policy in Scotland as compared with what other countries are doing is that we will collate the information that we get from retailers in a central point. Zero Waste Scotland will host a website so that the public, environmental organisations and anyone else with an interest will be able to see the information. That is a helpful contribution from the retailers and will, of course, lend a lot of transparency to the process. That, in itself, will help the monitoring, because members of the public and bodies that have a specific interest in the matter will, no doubt, pay close attention to it.
If need be, we will return to the regulations at some future date. We are taking a light-touch approach just now and have no reason to believe that it will not work, because we have examined other countries’ good experience. We are confident that the approach will work. The Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009, which we are using as the vehicle for the regulations, allows us to do certain things but, should the need to put more regulation in place arise in future, we would have to consider how to do that.
Much as I hate to disagree with my colleague Alex Fergusson, I suggest that if paper bags were excluded, surely all that would happen is that everybody would stop using plastic bags and switch instead to paper bags, which would mean that we would have to cut down an awful lot more trees to supply all the extra paper bags that we would have to use.
Yes. It will also be difficult to change culture and behaviour in society if we do not take a much more holistic approach.
I gently point out that it is UK Government policy to introduce a similar charge, so there appears to be cross-party support for the approach throughout the United Kingdom. However, we await the detail from the Conservative-Lib Dem coalition Government in London.
To go back to the discussion about good causes, have you had any discussions with the retailers about a proportion of the funds that they raise going to environmental causes? If you just leave it that the proceeds will go to good causes, and that they may go to environmental causes, the retailers could give 100 per cent of the proceeds to good causes, which would be a good thing in itself, but given that addressing littering is an important part of the policy objectives, perhaps 30 per cent, 40 per cent or 50 per cent should go to environmental causes.
We have discussed with retailers the fact that we are keen for environmental causes to be supported, but as I said earlier, we are not stipulating that the money go only to environmental causes because that would cut across existing relationships between some retailers and good causes. I am sure that we are all familiar with such relationships from our constituencies and would not want to interfere with them.
We will keep a close eye on the matter. We are confident that environmental causes will benefit, but if that turns out not to be the case, we will return to the issue and keep up the dialogue with the retailers. However, having looked at the experience elsewhere, I think that there is no reason to believe that they will not benefit. The carrier bag commitment stipulates that money that is raised through the charge and which is given to good causes is additional to existing donations to good causes, so we are confident that it will not displace donations to good causes.
I will explore the interaction with the retailers a little further. From the discussions that you have had, are you confident that, when the funds are disbursed to environmental causes, they will go to some small-scale local projects and not be given just in large sums to single organisations or projects?
I do not pretend to be an expert on all the relationships that retailers have with their local causes, but it is safe to say from my experience and our investigations into the issue that many retailers have local relationships. The supermarket tends to support good causes in its locality; we anticipate that being the case with the funds that will be raised through the charge.
I note from written evidence that one supermarket chain—perhaps more—in Wales chose to give the proceeds of the levy to a specific NGO. We could be talking about considerable amounts of money being given to organisations, which would be fine, if it were to happen. When the Government is considering funding an NGO that might have received a considerable amount of money through the levy, will it take that into account when determining how much money to distribute to the organisation?
In general, when the Government supports NGO activity it does so to support a specific project. Everything depends on the nature of the project. In the past, we have worked with retailers on joint environmental projects. There are different models, and circumstances vary, so I will not say that we would definitely take account of an organisation’s having received money through the levy.
The more successful the policy is, the less money it will raise, but the key point is that in the short term we have the opportunity to raise several million pounds for good causes, which would not otherwise be raised. That is good news for local campaigns and charitable causes in all our communities.
The policy is a step forward in the context of our climate change commitments and the dreadful littering that we see in rural and urban areas.
What is the Scottish Government doing to raise public awareness of the measure? Are there concerns about local authorities’ ability to enforce it? Will you clarify local authorities’ responsibilities?
We have a communications plan, which will be important. We plan a three-week campaign in the run-up to 20 October, when the charge comes into force, with a two-week campaign thereafter. During that period we will work with retailers and the media to raise awareness of the policy, and I hope that we will generate a lot of publicity and get the message across to lots of people.
As I understand it, there is a lot of public support for the policy—I hope that members share that view. I think that people will engage.
Will you say something about local authorities and enforcement?
I am sorry—yes. We have to work with our local authorities, and we are looking for a light-touch approach. Trading standards officers in local authorities will be responsible for doing checks and following up intelligence that they receive. I do not anticipate that there will be lots of inspections. If the approach is intelligence led, and people report to their local trading standards office that someone is not adhering to the policy, officers might have grounds for looking at the situation and perhaps giving advice, in the first instance. As I said, there will be a light-touch approach.
I am slightly surprised that the regulations do not appear to make separate provision for biodegradable material. I think that an observer might say, “Well, surely we should treat a biodegradable bag differently.” I heard what you said; litter is litter, whether or not it is biodegradable, but of course biodegradable litter eventually goes away, unlike non-biodegradable plastic, which I think is what we are really worried about. Am I right in saying that the material does not matter in this context? What is your thinking on that? In time, might we want to modify the regulations, perhaps as the marketplace adapts to using different materials?
Visible litter is visible litter, whether or not it is biodegradable. It is a social nuisance and it spoils our lovely environment, countryside and communities. That is why we took the view that we will focus on single-use bags by attaching a value to their use in an attempt to influence environmental behaviour in society.
We had to consider all the issues. We looked at international experience and thought about what approach would be suitable for Scotland. To tackle our litter problem and our throwaway society, we decided to go for single-use bags, irrespective of the material. Peter Stapleton may want to elaborate on the thoughts that we had at the beginning of the process.
10:30
Peter Stapleton (Scottish Government)
A couple of key points have already been made. On Dave Thompson’s point about switching, we would, if we did not make the policy material-neutral, automatically create an incentive for retailers just to switch from one material to another. The overall aim of the policy is to reduce the number of bags.
One point that has not been mentioned is the carbon impact of bags. All bags have a litter impact, but paper and biodegradable bags actually have a significantly higher carbon impact than plastic bags. That is another reason for not wanting to do something that would simply mean that people would switch to other types of materials. When the Westminster Environmental Audit Committee considered the UK Government’s proposals, it was quite critical of that aspect in particular.
Thank you. That was a very interesting input. The fact that biodegradable materials have their own down side is a significant part of the argument. I presume, however, that we would seek in the longer term to ensure that the bags that we do need—some things need to be thrown away—should be biodegradable so that we finish up with zero non-biodegradable waste. I am not quite sure what the timetable would be—decades, probably—but I presume that that is where we would want to finish.
That is an issue for future policy debates. There are much wider debates linked to the debate specifically on bags—for example, the debates about resources and society, and biodegradable materials going to landfill. There are separate regulations that address such issues.
Good morning, cabinet secretary. I welcome the proposals—litter is a big problem in my constituency, and I hope that the measure will address the eyesores that we all see on the way to work every morning.
My question relates somewhat to what Claudia Beamish said earlier about public awareness. The submission from the Scottish Retail Consortium mentioned the possible impact on retail employees. At present, shop workers are subject to a lot of threats and abuse in doing their jobs. How will you work with retailers to ensure that the carrier bag charge does not open up another avenue for attacks on shop workers by angry customers?
I would be very concerned if that were to happen, and I hope that we can avoid that by ensuring that there is the widest possible publicity throughout Scotland prior to the policy’s implementation on 20 October.
As I said, it is safe to say that there is a lot of public support for the measure. Keep Scotland Beautiful published its own opinion poll in the past few days, which shows significant public support for the policy.
I have no reason to anticipate hostility from the public. I am not saying that everyone will support the measure, but I am hopeful that people who are going about their daily shopping will get behind the policy, especially as there will be an awareness campaign prior to its coming into force.
I would also point out that many stores already charge for bags, and I am not aware of any such incidents having happened in those stores. I am not saying that such things do not happen—Cara Hilton has just mentioned the evidence—but at present a range of outlets in Scotland charge for bags, so the measure is not wholly new. We are making it national policy, but some retailers have gone down that road voluntarily. The scheme has been tried and tested, and it works for many retailers.
I accept that. You say that there is a lot of public awareness, but most people are not aware at this point that the charges will be coming in, so I welcome the publicity campaign.
There is also a great deal of cynicism with regard to supermarkets and where they spend the money. Quite a lot of people will think that the charge is just another way of boosting supermarkets’ profits. From that point of view, I am concerned about the impact on shop workers, but I appreciate the points that you have made.
It is a very good point, and that is why the awareness campaign is so important, and why we are putting a great deal of effort into ensuring that there is transparency around the moneys that are raised and where they are going. Scotland is slightly ahead of the game because we are going down the road of having a central website portal, hosted by Zero Waste Scotland, so that people can see where the money is going. That rests on the assumption that retailers will sign up to the commitment; we will know more about that in the next few months.
I remember the Welsh minister chatting to me about the policy. I do not want to put words in his mouth, but I am sure that I remember him saying that, although there was some reluctance from some retailers prior to the introduction of the charge, they now go to great lengths to advertise in-store how much they are raising and which good causes the money is going to. Customers are able to see the information in their local stores and retailers are making a virtue of the fact that they are raising money and giving it to charities.
Mention has been made of the Environmental Levy on Plastic Bags (Scotland) Bill, which was introduced in a previous session. The cabinet secretary and I were both party to some of the discussions on that bill, as committee members. Can you remind members of this committee what has changed since those days, and tell us where we are now?
Yes, I remember that bill well, having been involved in the debate at the time. There are a couple of key differences between the situations now and then. First, we are introducing a charge as opposed to a tax. Much less administration is required for what we are doing than would have been the case for the system that was previously proposed.
I do not think anyone argues with the notion that the previous proposal was well-intentioned. It certainly helped to spark the debate in Scotland, and we had a good debate in Parliament all those years ago.
The other change is that the previous bill proposed a measure on plastic bags; our regulations—as we have just discussed—cover single-use bags, irrespective of whether they are plastic or paper.
Thank you for that. If there are no further questions, we will move to item 3, which is consideration of motion S4M-10052, which is to ask the committee to recommend approval of an affirmative instrument on the draft Single Use Carrier Bags Charge (Scotland) Regulations 2014. The motion will be moved, and there will be an opportunity for formal debate on the Scottish statutory instrument, which can last up to 90 minutes. Most issues have—I hope—already been covered, so any remarks will be brief.
I invite the cabinet secretary to speak to and move the motion.
I will make my remarks very brief, as we covered good ground in our previous discussion. As I said, I think that the regulations will be a landmark piece of legislation for the Scottish Parliament to adopt. If they are passed, they will make a strong environmental statement, to the effect that we in Scotland want to tackle the throwaway society and our litter problem.
The Government has gone to great lengths to ensure that we can work in partnership with retailers and the business community in implementing the policy, which is why we have favoured a light-touch approach. Although the policy will be law, and we expect a charge to be introduced for single-use bags that have previously been free in our country, our approach will be to keep the regulation as light-touch as possible.
The benefits will include a cleaner and more beautiful environment. We will be using our resources more wisely by creating less waste, while raising—potentially—millions of pounds for environmental and other good causes in communities.
The policy is a big step forward for Scotland’s environment, and we have gone to great lengths to learn from other countries that have made a success of such a policy. I am very confident that we will make a success of the policy here, and that the people of Scotland will get behind us, as a way of cleaning up their country.
I move,
That the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee recommends that the Single Use Carrier Bags Charge (Scotland) Regulations 2014 [draft] be approved.
I will not rehearse my earlier arguments, but I record my disappointment that the round table of retailers with which we hope to engage chose just last week not to come before the committee. Such a discussion would have given committee members—certainly me—an opportunity to tease out some of the issues that I have spoken about today. However, that decision was taken, and we are where we are. It has slightly reduced our ability to go into some of the details of the policy in depth, as I would like to have done. There is quite a lot of conflicting evidence in the written submissions.
I remain unconvinced that the legislation will achieve the aim. I hope that I am wrong—I mean that quite sincerely—but I could not help but notice that, in the Republic of Ireland, which supposedly achieved a 90 per cent reduction in plastic carrier bag use, the total use of plastic film actually increased by 33 per cent, because people found other ways of using different forms of plastic.
As I said, I hope that I am wrong, but I think that there is evidence to suggest that we have not really thought things through quite as we should have done, especially with regard to the food-to-go sector’s use of paper bags. I think that we really have a problem with that, and I hope that Dave Thompson will recognise that I was focusing not just on total use of paper bags instead of plastic, but on their use in that sector in particular.
I do not want to go over the whole argument again, but I am unconvinced that the legislation is as rigorous as it needs to be, so I will oppose it in the vote. I repeat that I hope that I am wrong.
The regulations are about helping to bring about attitudinal and behavioural change in relation to the environment, which is something that this committee has explored in detail and supported. If there was to be a charge for the wee bag into which your pie or pastry is put when you purchase it from the baker, I would perhaps have some sympathy with Alex Fergusson’s point about the food-to-go sector, but the regulations are about the carrier into which those are then put.
I also recognise the cabinet secretary’s description of what he has encountered in his constituency on the verges of rural roads. It seems that there are now people who considerately bag the receptacles for drinks and burgers and then toss those bags out of the window and litter our countryside, so I absolutely support the measures that are before us.
I endorse everything that Graeme Dey has said about verges. It is really quite appalling and anything that can improve the situation has got to be a good idea.
I would also like to comment on the fact that the cabinet secretary has made a lot of references to experiences elsewhere, and it is absolutely right that he should do that, but I cannot help but feel that, once we have introduced the regulations, as I am sure we will, there will be a few years of our own experience, and we need to be prepared to revisit the issue at some point to look at how it has worked. We must recognise the real objective, which I think we all endorse, and ask whether we need to tweak it. There is nothing wrong with it at this stage; we just need to go with what is in front of us. However, we should be alert to the fact that, in time, we may feel that the regulations need to be modified a bit. That should not worry us; that is what Parliaments do.
If those are all the comments from members, I would like to say one or two words.
I welcome the discussion, because it throws up all sorts of potential means of improving people’s behaviour. We are not perfect in how we do that, but we make steps forward and respect local decisions by supermarkets and shops about how they support good causes. The evidence from Wales points to the environmental nature of many of the good causes that are supported in that way, which I would encourage.
The regulations also put on bags a value that was not there before. In a throwaway society, people just take them and throw them away, and we have to move away from being a throwaway society to one that puts value on each of the items that we are talking about. I welcome the national standards that have been set, but the importance of local delivery is one of the major messages that I hope will come out of today’s discussion. It is often said that Governments interfere, but this is a good example of an issue on which national standards can be applied and delivered locally with responsibility being taken locally.
With regard to the remarks that were made by Nigel Don, it is clearly in the committee’s remit to suggest for future work programmes that we look at how the regulations have worked. Indeed, when we write our legacy paper at the end of this session, we can flag up the issue for future committees, if members agree to do that.
We should come to a vote now. I therefore invite the cabinet secretary to wind up, if he feels that he needs to, before we vote.
All I have to say is that I agree with Alex Fergusson, in that I, too, hope that he is wrong.
It would not be the first time.
It would certainly not be the first time.
I should clarify, minister, that it would not be the first time that you think that I might have been wrong. [Laughter.]
I accept the clarification.
I very much welcome the committee’s constructive approach. The purpose of the Parliament’s committee system is, of course, to return to issues and to scrutinise legislation after it has been enacted to see whether it is working appropriately. The Government will do that as well, but I am sure that any advice that the committee can offer in future years will be welcomed by the Government of the day.
The question is, that motion S4M-10052, in the name of Richard Lochhead, be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Don, Nigel (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Gibson, Rob (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Hilton, Cara (Dunfermline) (Lab)
Hume, Jim (South Scotland) (LD)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Thompson, Dave (Skye, Lochaber and Badenock)(SNP)
Against
Fergusson, Alex (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
The result of the division is: For 8, Against 1, Abstentions 0.
Motion agreed to,
That the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee recommends that the Single Use Carrier Bags Charge (Scotland) Regulations 2014 [draft] be approved.
I thank everyone for their involvement in the debate, and I thank the cabinet secretary.
10:46
Meeting suspended.
10:49
On resuming—