Skip to main content
Loading…

Chamber and committees

Official Report: search what was said in Parliament

The Official Report is a written record of public meetings of the Parliament and committees.  

Filter your results Hide all filters

Dates of parliamentary sessions
  1. Session 1: 12 May 1999 to 31 March 2003
  2. Session 2: 7 May 2003 to 2 April 2007
  3. Session 3: 9 May 2007 to 22 March 2011
  4. Session 4: 11 May 2011 to 23 March 2016
  5. Session 5: 12 May 2016 to 5 May 2021
  6. Current session: 12 May 2021 to 25 May 2025
Select which types of business to include


Select level of detail in results

Displaying 2716 contributions

|

Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee

Circular Economy (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2

Meeting date: 21 May 2024

Graham Simpson

Ben Macpherson is a very considered member and usually makes very good points, as he has done on this occasion. I did not refer to the plastic bag charge, and Mr Macpherson is absolutely right—the main point of that charge was to reduce littering. I certainly reuse plastic bags, as I am sure that Mr Macpherson does. He is right to say that different products could be treated differently.

Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee

Circular Economy (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2

Meeting date: 21 May 2024

Graham Simpson

The minister makes a reasonable point, except that those of us who know how the affirmative or super-affirmative procedure works know that such regulations are not subject to the same level of scrutiny as something that is put in a bill.

Earlier, the minister said that the Government can go out to consultation on all of this. The problem is that there is no ability for members to change what the Government puts forward. As Douglas Lumsden said, it is either a yes or a no. That is the problem with framework bills—the use of which is increasing, as the committee said in its report.

Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee

Circular Economy (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2

Meeting date: 21 May 2024

Graham Simpson

I thank Mr Ruskell for those useful comments. I go back to what I said to Mr Macpherson, when he commented on the plastic bag charge, which I think is about reducing littering. His point was that we need to look at different products differently, so it depends on what we are talking about.

That is why I was after some more clarity in the text of the bill, so that it becomes less of a framework bill. At this point, the committee—-and at stage 3, the whole Parliament—would be able to say, “Well actually, we’re not happy just to leave all this to Government and to regulations.” The problem with regulations, as Mr Ruskell is well aware, is that when a regulation comes to the committee, it will require a simple yes or no; we would not be able to tweak it.

Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee

Circular Economy (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2

Meeting date: 21 May 2024

Graham Simpson

I will not press it.

Amendment 24, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendments 25 and 26 not moved.

Amendment 27 moved—[Graham Simpson].

Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee

Circular Economy (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2

Meeting date: 21 May 2024

Graham Simpson

I would like to jump back to amendment 202. My concern is that, if we do nothing, we could end up back where we are now, with landowners—often, but not necessarily, farmers—having large-scale dumping on their land, which is not their fault. As I said earlier, I know of an example of that in my area, quite close to where I live, where dumping blocked a lane for several years—it was not the landowner’s fault; somebody else just came along and, over a sustained period, used that lane as a dump.

Unless we find a solution for stage 3—I hear what the minister says in that regard—are we not in danger of remaining in that unfortunate position?

Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee

Circular Economy (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2

Meeting date: 21 May 2024

Graham Simpson

I want to comment on Sarah Boyack’s amendment 105, which I hope is not a probing amendment, because it is very sensible. It is on rubbish from tenement buildings, and Ben Macpherson outlined the issues well. I have lived in a couple of flats in Edinburgh, and I have seen the situation that Ben Macpherson outlined. In both those cases, recycling bins were often chock-a-block and usually had contaminated waste in them. It would be really unfair to have a provision that could penalise a resident of a tenement if their bins were contaminated. I do not know who on earth you would fine, because Ben Macpherson is absolutely right about what can happen if the bins are on the street. Sometimes, even if they are not on the street but in a bin store, people can access that if it is not locked. People can just wander along and put their rubbish into bins.

Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee

Circular Economy (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2

Meeting date: 21 May 2024

Graham Simpson

Yes.

Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee

Circular Economy (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2

Meeting date: 21 May 2024

Graham Simpson

I was about to say that it is absolutely right, because we can identify a particular type of property where there is an issue. As the convener and Mr Ruskell have pointed out, other properties can also be affected, but Sarah Boyack was absolutely right to lodge amendment 105. Let us be frank that, sometimes, it is the residents who are doing the wrong thing. However, sometimes it is not.

I hope that Monica Lennon will move amendment 105. If the minister is not in agreement, she needs to explain why not, and I would be interested to hear about that, because the issue is serious.

Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee

Circular Economy (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2

Meeting date: 21 May 2024

Graham Simpson

Will the minister take an intervention?

Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee

Circular Economy (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2

Meeting date: 21 May 2024

Graham Simpson

My point is a very similar point to the one that Douglas Lumsden made. If people live in flats, how on earth will we identify a persistent culprit? What is the minister saying? If there is a persistent culprit, which there might be, how will we identify the individual? If the minister’s stance is that she is not after everyone who lives in the block, should she not spell that out in the legislation?