Chamber and committees

As Mr Lumsden has been in the Parliament for a few years now, he will know that a committee can have any deliberations that it wants on what evidence to take on an SSI and that the Government will go out to consultation. Mention of business impacts has been made a number of times now, and I point out that it is our duty to consult with businesses ahead of any changes that would be made. Any speculative throwing around of examples—say, chip papers—does the process a bit of a disservice, as there would be an opportunity for scrutiny as well as consultation. After all, we would not want to do anything disproportionate.

We will consider carefully the policy interactions and implications of any future deposit return schemes and charges for single-use items. Although we might agree in principle that any item that is subject to a deposit should not be subject to a charge, too, we do not yet know what the DRS is going to look like; we are still having discussions with the UK Government and other devolved Governments, and at this point, it is not possible to evaluate all the future policy interactions. I cannot agree to anything that will restrict something that we might need in the future.

Amendment 25 seeks to exempt “items that are biodegradable”. Without a specified environment or time frame and a proper definition, the term “biodegradable” is problematic, as it is unclear. Mr Simpson mentioned compostable and biodegradable products, but those are two very separate things. Typically, products that are referred to as biodegradable are single use, with their own set of waste management charges. The majority of materials that are found in any litter stream are, eventually, biodegradable, but we need to consider how many years those products take to degrade. Exempting biodegradable items from charges would create a significant potential loophole for suppliers to continue supplying single-use items without charging for them, which would undermine the purpose of the charge.

More important, because of that loophole, any actions that we could take to reduce the number of single-use items would not work. After all, the bill is aimed at improving recycling rates and, with regard to the waste hierarchy, at removing wasteful items from the economy, in general. Unfortunately, Mr Simpson’s amendment 25 provides a loophole, and I do not want that to happen.

Despite what Mr Simpson said in his opening comments, I am open to discussing anything that has a laudable intention. I understand why Mr Simpson has lodged his amendments, and I am happy to work with him on this matter, but I do not want to be in a situation where the use of certain language would create a loophole. Perhaps we can discuss the matter ahead of stage 3.

The initial proposed items that will be subject to regulation, should the bill be passed, will be single-use coffee cups. We know that. We would require suppliers to levy that charge—that is what the power will do—when they supply the goods to their customers. I think that it is quite clear who that would be.

On amendment 29, I note that Scottish ministers already have the power to give financial assistance to small businesses and microbusinesses—

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.