Chamber and committees

Thanks, convener. I have enormous sympathy with what you are trying to achieve in amendment 121, because there needs to be a stiffer deterrent than exists at the moment. We have probably all had cases of industrial-scale dumping in our patches. I had a really disgusting case of a load of chicken carcases being dumped next to a stream. We have all seen cases of tyres being dumped.

However, I have a question on amendment 202 that I would like Mr Lumsden to clear up—maybe he cannot, as it is Murdo Fraser’s amendment and not Mr Lumsden’s, although he has spoken to it. It is a very useful amendment. It would make SEPA responsible for clearing things up, but it does not say—or I cannot see that it says—within what time frame. We all know that, when things have been dumped, sometimes they are left for years and nobody does anything about it. I think that, at some point, Mr Fraser, either on his own or working with the minister, should clear that up, because we do not want to be in a position where SEPA is responsible but could say, “We will get round to it at some point.” I am sure that that is not what Mr Fraser is trying to achieve.

I thank Monica Lennon for taking an intervention. She mentions the word “choice”. I am reflecting on amendments 170 and 157. Does she not think that it should be a matter of choice for health boards and councils whether they introduce the schemes that she is suggesting?

Clearly, North Ayrshire has made that choice and it says that the scheme is cost neutral, but I do not think that the committee has had the evidence of that. I think that we would need to see that evidence before deciding that the scheme was cost neutral. I imagine that several councils will conclude that such a scheme would not be cost neutral, and that health boards might similarly conclude that. Therefore, does Monica accept the general point that that should be a local decision, rather than something that is set down in law?

Yes, of course.

To answer Mr Ruskell’s point, there are issues—full stop—with penalising people for putting the wrong stuff in their bins. You can really only do so if you catch them at it and have evidence.

Will the minister take an intervention?

So far, the process has been quite frustrating, but I hope that it will get better as the morning goes on. I always like to think that, at stage 2, members can listen to and base their votes on actual debates, and that the minister can be flexible and does not have to adhere to what have seemed to me to be quite old speaking notes, which were probably written before she took office.

On amendment 24, it is not clear to me what section 9 would apply to, but I find some of its wording concerning. I have lodged a number of amendments that relate to charges for single-use items, but amendment 24 would remove such charges if a deposit return scheme were ever to be put in place. The minister, who was, I accept, not the architect of the DRS shambles, might well say that it is obvious that that would be the case; however, nothing is obvious unless you make it so, which is why we need something in legislation—hence amendment 24.

On amendment 25, the circular economy is, to me, about ensuring that goods and products that can be recycled or reused are, indeed, recycled and reused. We have become a throwaway society, as anyone who has been on a litter pick will know. As I have said, it is not clear to me what section 9 would cover, but in the stage 1 debate I said that, as far as charges for single-use items are concerned, you could be talking about a container for a takeaway meal. In other words, it would be a fish-and-chips tax, and the wording of the bill suggests that that is the case. It says:

“The regulations may only specify items which are—

(a) manufactured,

(b) provided—

(i) as a container or packaging for goods,

or

(ii) to be used in connection with the consumption or use of goods,

and

(c) likely to be used for that purpose only—

(i) once, or

(ii) for a short period.”

Therefore, my fear could definitely come to fruition.

All sorts of things could attract surcharges: shoeboxes, bags that clothes come in, tins and the paper bags for your prescriptions. There are all kinds of things that the provision could encompass. Of course, Scotland’s great chippies could be hit by it, too.

However, what if the committee were to accept amendment 25? At a stroke, items that are biodegradable, which is what the amendment is about, would be exempt. Surely we are not targeting such items—after all, they are going to rot away, anyway. Under the amendment, biodegradable food and drink containers would not face a charge. Indeed, why should they? The committee can do the right thing on this and spare our chippies.

On amendment 26, I firmly believe that, given the bill’s woolly wording, we should, if we go down this road, set out which single-use items would not be covered. The minister might well say, “We can’t do that, because the list would be too long”, but surely businesses need that sort of clarity. The minister could set out a list of the categories of products that would be exempt, which would be much shorter than a list of individual products. Maybe that is something that we could look at for stage 3—indeed, I know that people are already considering stage 3 amendments. Businesses need clarity, and because this is a framework bill, they do not have it—hence the concerns.

Amendment 27 is short but very important. It says that ministers must spell out who should pay a charge for single-use items. If I pop into a coffee shop and ask for an americano and maybe a sandwich, they are both likely to come—[Interruption.]

I thank the minister for that very helpful answer. I wonder if, as a follow-up, he can give us some idea of the timescale for that consultation. Should the consultation agree with the minister, when would we expect to see the change in the current arrangements?

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on when a decision will be made regarding the Scottish Funding Council’s recommendation to end the regional colleges arrangement in Lanarkshire and Glasgow. (S6O-03437)

No. The minister should be handing Shirley-Anne Somerville the record back and telling her to put something else on, because it is a boring tune and it is not helping.

Last month, the minister ran the gauntlet of property professionals at an event at the University of Strathclyde. To loud applause, property developer Chris Stewart told him:

“You have a market. There is £3bn of investment sitting there. You killed the market.”

He said that there was a

“massive disconnect between what the government is saying and what has happened.”

He added:

“The market was there, the tenant demand was there, along with responsible developers and institutional investors providing a product, and it has just stopped.”

I agree with Mr Stewart, but the guy he should have been directing his fire at was not there. It is not Paul McLennan who has killed the market—it is Patrick Harvie. Now that Mr Harvie is no longer in government, it is up to Mr McLennan to fix the mess. He could start by putting the Housing (Scotland) Bill on hold and getting rid of mad proposals for rent controls.

No doubt, when he was at that conference, the minister would have heard James Blakey, planning director at Moda Living, say that his company had £450 million of investment ready to be signed off but it will not happen because of the bill.

Miles Briggs revealed this week that the Government has no idea how many homes need to be built, but we know that NPF4 is already causing issues, with sites stalling and building rates slowing. Now that the minister admits that there is a housing emergency, he needs to take responsibility, own the problem and act on it.

When we debated housing in November, the minister was in denial about the existence of a housing emergency. There was an emergency then and it has got worse since. I thank Labour for bringing the debate to the chamber, because it has finally forced the minister to admit reality. However, it would have been helpful if he had thrown away the usual SNP script of blaming someone else and accepted some of the responsibility.

The SNP amendment paints a rosy picture of what it is doing but says that the emergency is all down to the UK Government. Here is the thing: if we did not have 1.5 million people being denied a safe, stable home and living in overcrowded, dangerous, unstable or unaffordable housing; if we did not have 15,600 households in temporary accommodation; if funding for affordable housing supply had not been cut by £196 million; if we did not have a record 9,500 children trapped in temporary accommodation; if 45 children were not becoming homeless every day; if a household was not becoming homeless every 16 minutes; if 16,263 children were not assessed as homeless or threatened with homelessness in 2022-23; if Scotland did not have the highest rent increases of anywhere in the UK; and if five councils—Argyll and Bute, Edinburgh, Fife, Glasgow and West Dunbartonshire—had not declared a housing emergency, you can bet your life that that much better picture would be nothing at all to do with Westminster and everything to do with the SNP in what is, after all, a devolved area.