Chamber and committees

Mr Doris makes a reasonable point. I thought that I had made that point in my opening comments, because I was anticipating the argument from the minister that, if we went with this amendment, the minister—whoever it was—might have to provide a very long list of particular items that were exempt.

That is why I have offered the alternative of categories, which would be a much shorter list. That might be a better way forward for stage 3, which is why I have referred to this as a process. I did not hear the minister take me up on that offer, but it is still there. Perhaps, in reflecting on amendment 26—as members heard last week, I do reflect on things—

Yes—it is very healthy.

Yes, I will let Bob Doris in. I do not blame him for looking that up. Not everyone quite understands the different processes.

I am happy to let Mr Doris intervene before I wind up.

I want to build on Bob Doris’s point. He is not the only one who has a lot of refillable bottles in cupboards. That is just what happens when people collect them. Is there not a danger that, by issuing more of them, we will just add to the landfill problem? At some point, Mr Doris, and others like him, might just have a clear-out and the bottles will end up in the bin. Mr Doris’s points about fashion trends, and youngsters not wanting to use particular bottles even if they are given them, are strong. Do you accept that? Also, have you assessed what the cost of implementing the proposition would be?

Would Maurice Golden agree that it is not so much about the colour of the bins—it is about what is recycled and how much the local council is recycling? Would he agree that the colour of someone’s bins is neither here nor there; rather, it is a question of how much can be put in the bins to recycle?

Yes, and I bow to your expertise on that. I do not live in a rural area, but I can see that there is the same problem. If you leave a bin somewhere that is not right next to your house, people can just come along and put their rubbish in it. In fact, even in a town, where I live, it is perfectly possible for that to happen. If you put your bins out to be collected, which is usually overnight, anyone can come along and put the wrong things in your bin. That can happen in my bin, or in Monica Lennon’s bin, or in anyone else’s bin—even in Mr Ruskell’s bin. I do not know where he lives, but there is that issue.

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?