Chamber and committees

It is the supplier of the drink in the coffee cup. That seems quite clear to me.

Mr Lumsden will be familiar with the single-use carrier bag charge. That is what is proposed here.

I will be as clear as I possibly can. With, for example, single-use coffee cups, the proposal is that when you buy a takeaway coffee in a cup—that is, at the point of sale—a charge will be applied, as with a carrier bag. The charge will be applied at the point of sale.

On a point of clarification, does Graham Simpson agree that section 9 gives the power to put a charge on items when regulations are brought forward that specify that item, which will allow Parliament a chance to scrutinise the merits of putting a charge on the item, rather than having a list of items in the bill? There is a power to put a charge on specified items via regulations in the future.

On that point, I highlight—although I am loth to mention this, because Mr Simpson knows the parliamentary processes very well, in particular given his previous convenerships—that ministers have a legal duty to take account of any report or resolution of the Parliament. The super-affirmative process provides for an extended amount of time for scrutiny of regulations about specific items. Before we lay regulations in Parliament, it would not just be that we may consult—we would consult; we are legally bound to consult on the implications of what we are producing.

When laying regulations, we need to give a statement setting out the changes. We also need to take into account what Parliament says in response.

We Aberdonians are used to helicopters flying overhead.

On compensation for private landowners, it is fair that those persons who unlawfully deposit waste are responsible for the costs of cleaning it up. It is important to remember that there are some important mechanisms in place that do that. For example, if an individual is convicted of fly-tipping, a compensation order can be made. All that withstanding, I absolutely understand the arguments that have been put forward.

I recognise that a flat level of fixed penalty has its limitations, so I also agree with the proposal to enable ministers to set different penalty amounts in different cases. That will allow for a sliding scale of penalties, with the maximum being £1,000. There will need to be detailed consideration and consultation with local authorities and other enforcement bodies before those powers can be used. I emphasise again that it is vital that more serious instances of fly-tipping are not addressed in that way. I think that I have set out the other mechanisms that are there.

Therefore, I urge the committee to support Mr Fraser’s amendment 201.

With the greatest respect, convener, although I accept that you are not moving your amendment 121, your arguments are valid. What more can we do to deter people from fly-tipping? The Government has accepted Mr Fraser’s amendment, which means that yours would have fallen away anyway, but I appreciate that it is a conversation to be continued.

The Scottish Government cannot support Mr Fraser’s amendment 202, but I stress that I want to work with Mr Fraser and he knows that. He has been working with my predecessor, Ms Slater, and I have already spoken to him in a less formal way in the corridor to say that I am happy to have discussions with him about what more we can do.

Amendment 202 would have had the effect of replacing section 59 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 with a new provision that would give SEPA responsibility for the removal of all unlawfully deposited waste and the associated costs of that removal from any private land in Scotland. Although I absolutely recognise the frustration that private landowners feel, I do not agree that SEPA should be responsible for the removal of all waste fly-tipped on private land.

The purpose of section 59 is to give powers to authorities to address waste on land where they would otherwise be unable to do so because the land is private. Section 59 notices should only be served where SEPA or local authorities consider that the occupier fly-tipped the waste or knowingly caused or permitted the waste to be fly-tipped. Under section 59, SEPA and local authorities also have powers to remove the waste themselves when the occupier is innocent of responsibility or the waste is causing environmental harm, and those powers are at their discretion.

I do not have those figures in front of me, as I think Ms Lennon would appreciate.

There is another part to the question about the amount of fixed-penalty notices, which is that, if anyone had evidence that section 59 notices have been inappropriately or unfairly applied, that should be highlighted to me or to SEPA.

My officials have just passed me a note that says that SEPA has issued 17 section 59 notices in the past three years, so there you go—we had that information to hand; it just was not in front of me.

Under section 59, SEPA and local authorities also have powers to remove waste themselves. As I said, that power is used at their discretion, when they are convinced that the occupier is not responsible for the waste.

What I know is that repealing section 59 is not the answer. I have said on record, and to Mr Fraser privately, that I am willing to talk to him about what more we can do in this area to ensure that there is support for private landowners and occupiers in tackling fly-tipping on their land. I am open to Mr Fraser’s suggestions about what that could be.

For the reasons that I have outlined, I urge the committee not to support amendment 202.

Given the importance of developing a national understanding of the level of fly-tipping in Scotland, the Scottish Government is happy to support Murdo Fraser’s amendment 203 and is happy to engage with him on the proposals in amendment 204, although we cannot support that amendment as it is currently written.

We agree that amendment 203 could fill a gap in existing data. Work is already under way through the national litter and fly-tipping strategy to improve data collection from local authorities and park authorities, but it is reliant on voluntary reporting.

I am happy to look into that.

The improvement programme that I mentioned is a vehicle, and a confidential one, for those conversations to happen. I go back to the reusable nappies argument about the cost neutrality of existing schemes. They do not want to publish that information, for the reasons that Ms Lennon gave, but doing so would enable those conversations to happen from local authority to local authority, and for the case to be made about why it is cost neutral. Ms Lennon also makes the great point that the more local authorities get involved in the scheme, the more the costs will come down.

With regard to amendment 216, I understand the reasons why there is an interest in such an approach to mattresses. The Scottish Government is already committed to taking further steps to tackle the environmental impact of items such as mattresses. Our draft waste and circular economy route map highlighted the potential for mattresses to be included as a priority in our future stewardship plan. It is useful to have this discussion, because there are companies that sell mattresses that operate a takeback-of-all-mattresses scheme, so when a person buys a mattress, they know that the mattress that they no longer use will be taken back by the company. When I was buying a mattress recently, I looked for companies that did that, because, frankly, it took away the hassle. I also looked into what they were going to do with the old mattress. That shows that there is a commercial aspect to that approach for those companies, so it is a useful conversation to have.

As I mentioned in previous meetings, it is vital that we take the necessary time to engage effectively in co-design of the new code of practice for household waste, in order to understand what new reuse and recycling services most benefit householders, to consider what is feasible and affordable for local authorities and to allow local authorities to make those decisions.

I ask Ms Lennon not to press her amendments. She and I have had a discussion in private about what we might put in place, as part of the co-design process, to engender those types of decisions and the knowledge sharing that has been discussed today.