Chamber and committees

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Amendment 5, by agreement, withdrawn.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?

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.

To answer Mr Ruskell’s point, my principle would apply to any Government. It is based on the principle that if we set things in legislation and someone breaches the law, there should be a punishment. I am glad that Mr Ruskell seems to accept that point. Therefore I seem to have the support of both Mr Ruskell and Ms Dunbar—although we will wait and see. I am absolutely delighted. l will end on a high.

Very good.

My amendment does just that: it says that, if the Government misses the targets—targets that are set in law—it breaks its own law. If you break the law, something must happen, and what I am saying is that that something should be a fine and that any such fine—which, to answer Ms Dunbar’s point, would come from the Government—should go to councils, which are having to do a lot of the heavy lifting here.

My amendment does not go into that level of detail, but I would be delighted if Ms Dunbar were prepared to accept the principle that there should be a fine. Is she is prepared to accept that if a Government—or, indeed, anyone, or any public body—breaks the law, which is what I am talking about, there should be some form of punishment? Otherwise, why would we have such a law? If someone breaks the law, something needs to happen.