Chamber and committees

Industrial relations, employment law and health and safety law are reserved. That is just a fact, Mr Lumsden. I return to the point about things that are already illegal, such as assault. In the retail workers legislation, Daniel Johnson put in place particulars—I think that they were aggravating factors, but I cannot really remember as it was in the previous session of Parliament, which seems an awfully long time ago.

I am happy to reflect on what has been said but, as it stands, Mr Golden’s amendment is impossible for me to support, for the reasons that I have stated.

Yes.

Amendment 26 seeks to ensure that all regulations made under the power must include a list of exempt items. Because such regulations will have to specify the items for which a charge is to be applied, it is unnecessary to require them to specify a list of items that will be exempt. If regulations do not specify a particular item, that item will not be subject to the charge and will, in effect, be exempt. I reassure Mr Simpson that secondary legislation will be required to introduce a charge for an item so, as I have said, there will be an opportunity to consider the circumstances in which the charge will apply.

On amendment 27, I agree that it will be very important to set out clearly the scope of future charges to be made using the powers, but I do not believe that the amendment itself is necessary. The focus of the power in proposed new section 87A of the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009, as inserted by section 9 of the bill, is to allow ministers to set a charge for specified single-use items and to require suppliers to levy that charge when they supply the goods to their customers. The regulations do not need to specify who should pay the charge.

Yes, that is in my speaking notes. This particular part of the bill allows regulations to come forward, and everything in relation to where the money goes will be scrutinised. To be clear, the overall purpose of the power is to reduce our reliance on single-use items; the power with regard to the proceeds of sale is identical to that contained in the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009 for carrier bags; and regulations that would introduce any charges under that section would provide further detail. I think that that is quite clear. I had hoped that I was being helpful by correlating this with the use of carrier bags, which everyone will be familiar with.

Amendment 35 would delete section 9 of the bill, which is unfortunate. I have just extended to Mr Simpson the ability to talk about some of the issues that he has raised about the section.

Because this policy intervention is about the power to levy additional charges on single-use items, the point at which we decide on which items will be subject to the charge will be the point at which we can carry out an assessment of the nature that Mr Golden has suggested.

I will just say that, as amendment 35 would delete section 9, I cannot support it.

Will Mr Lumsden take an intervention?

This is an important debate to have. I recognise that fly-tipping is a scourge. We have heard from members about where they have experienced fly-tipping. In my constituency, it is happening near areas of natural beauty, such as the Bullers of Buchan. When I visited that area of natural beauty with the RSPB, we walked past a lot of rubbish that had been fly-tipped at the entrance to it. We have to do what we can to tackle the issue.

We will support Murdo Fraser’s amendment 201, which is consistent with our commitment to ensure that there is an effective enforcement regime to deter and tackle the scourge of fly-tipping. The amendment allows for a future increase to a maximum amount not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale, which is currently fixed at £1,000. However, fixed-penalty notices are not the only way to tackle fly-tipping and are not intended to tackle serious waste crime. SEPA has the powers to impose up to £40,000 through variable monetary penalties. Serious or organised crime needs to be referred to the police.

On amendment 159, the provision of food and drink in schools is, again, a matter for local authorities. As with the reusable nappies amendment, I regard this amendment as a detail that would restrict local decision making. Callum Isted drew much-needed attention to the issue in schools. I know that a lot of schools in my area have policies that have been co-designed with eco committees in both primary and secondary schools. We are seeing single-use drinks containers being used less and less in schools, very much as a result of the work that Callum Isted drew attention to.

Yes.

Everything that you have said is completely legitimate, and I totally understand why you have lodged the amendment. I want to work with you to get this right, because you are right: this would deter people who purport to be legitimate waste collectors but are not. It is about empowering the public to know that they can ask for proof that someone is a waste collector. Let us work together ahead of stage 3 on something that I can support that will have that effect.

I also understand the intention behind amendment 36, in the name of Maurice Golden, but it is unnecessary, as mechanisms exist to ensure that comprehensive information and practical guidance are available in relation to the duty of care obligations. That said, I go back to my earlier point: is that information good enough? Is it clear enough? Is it accessible enough? Is it buried? I think that everyone gets my point; indeed, everyone has probably looked at the issue for themselves and has seen how accessible the information is.

I want to avoid placing unnecessary burdens on local authorities. Indeed, it was a prominent concern of the committee when it took evidence at stage 1, and I am keen not to impose any additional unnecessary statutory responsibilities on them. Again, it is all about sharing best practice, with, for example, local authorities reviewing how they display information and how they communicate with people in their areas. I therefore urge the committee not to support amendment 36, but I also reassure the committee that we will continue to work with key partners to consider implementation plans, including communication and awareness-raising activities, and to ensure that the code of practice is updated as required.

Amendment 37 seeks to amend section 10 so that it would not apply to households using communal waste bins, but, again, I do not believe that it is necessary. The obligation to “take reasonable steps”, such as confirming registration details, applies only when a householder has organised an independent waste service to collect household waste. The work that we will do ahead of stage 3, particularly with Ms Dunbar, will provide a vehicle for improving householders’ knowledge of their rights in that regard. As there is no reason to exempt householders who use shared or communal bins, I cannot support the amendment.

As for amendment 38, I understand Mr Golden’s intention to ensure that provisions are fairly applied. It might be that, in certain cases, an enforcement officer would meet a householder to determine whether there had been a breach of the duty of care without reasonable excuse, but that would not be practical, appropriate or necessary in every case. Indeed, there might be occasions when householders would not participate in a meeting with an enforcement officer, and I do not think it appropriate to compel them to do so in relation to a suspected criminal offence. I therefore cannot support that amendment and urge the committee not to do so either, but, again, I take on board the wider point that has been made.

Amendment 39 would allow local authorities to seek recompense from ministers for any unpaid fixed penalties issued under section 10. I do not support the amendment, because it fails to recognise that payment of fixed-penalty notices is not mandatory. Instead, they provide a person with an opportunity to discharge any liability to criminal conviction by paying the penalty. I think that everyone understands that: you pay the FPN and the matter goes no further. It is a choice. The person is perfectly entitled to refuse the offer made by the FPN, with the result that the enforcement officer may choose to report the offence to the procurator fiscal. An unpaid fixed penalty under this provision is not a civil debt that needs to be recovered in any way; it is just a way in which the person who is liable can stop the action. In other words, they can pay the fine and just move on.

Finally, I understand the intentions behind amendment 44, but I cannot support it as it is drafted. As I have indicated, the Scottish Government’s intention is to work with local authorities and other enforcement bodies on guidance on the enforcement of the householder’s duty and the use of FPN procedure in relation to the breaches of that duty. Although it is not essential, I agree that including a requirement to that effect in section 10 could be useful. The effect of subsection (3) of the amendment would be to call into doubt whether the inserted new section 34ZC of the 1990 act had come into force, which would occur when section 10 of the bill was commenced under the power in section 19. Obviously, we are still to come to section 19, and I can give more information on that when we do so. However, I urge the committee not to support amendment 44.

I will leave it there, convener.