���˿���

I have been listening closely to what you have been saying about the NHS side of the issue; I did not even think of that. When you say that NHS Lanarkshire is thinking of taking on reusable nappies, is the idea that the nappies would follow the baby and would be taken home by the parents, or would they be reused in the NHS?

Thank you, convener. My speech will be like me—short and sweet—as I take on board your points about being crisp and concise. I realise that we are behind schedule.

With that in mind, I will speak only to amendments 129 and 130, in my name. Amendment 129 states:

“For the purposes of subsection (2), an occupier of domestic property may request from an authorised person a copy of any documentation or identification that authorises the authorised person to transfer household waste”,

while amendment 130 states:

“It is a reasonable excuse for a person given a notice under subsection (2) to show a constable or an authorised officer any documentation or identification obtained from an authorised person to transfer household waste.”

I will speak to the two amendments together, as amendment 130 would not work without amendment 129, and I hope that they are largely self-explanatory.

I have lodged these probing amendments in response to evidence that we took during stage 1. It became clear to me, when we were discussing the phrase “reasonable steps”, that the provisions in the bill were not as helpful to the “occupier” nor the “authorised person” in dealing with the disposal of goods as I had hoped. What is reasonable to one might not be reasonable to another, and there is a question about who defines what “reasonable” is.

My aim, with these amendments, is to strengthen the confidence of the occupier, in that the persons from whom they are seeking to obtain the service can prove that they are authorised to provide it. Should the occupier, following that, find that their goods were not disposed of in a fit and proper manner, they could provide evidence to

“a constable or an authorised officer”

that they took reasonable steps to ensure that they had done due diligence by obtaining a copy of the “documentation or identification” from the person whom they had contracted to transfer their household waste. That would, perhaps, have a knock-on effect of showing the officer who was responsible for fly-tipping, for example.

As I have said, these are probing amendments. With that in mind, I look forward to hearing the minister’s thoughts on them.

I move amendment 129.

Again, I will keep it short and sweet and, like the debate, crisp and concise.

I thank the minister for taking on board what I have said and for her commitment to working with me in advance of stage 3. I had not considered the suggestion of putting the numbers on the sides of vehicles, and I am more than happy to discuss that with the minister.

With that in mind, I seek to withdraw amendment 129.

Amendment 129, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendment 36 moved—[Maurice Golden].

Minister, I am listening very closely to what you are saying. My reason for lodging the amendments was genuinely to tighten up procedures.

To go back to the fly-tipping situation, I, like Mr Lumsden, did not know about the rules and regulations before I joined the committee. Even though I was a local councillor for 15 years, I still did not realise what they were. If someone were able to show that they had done their best to ensure that they had asked an authorised person to pick up their bulky waste—it was bulky waste that I was speaking about, mostly—they could, if someone came to them and said that their stuff had been fly-tipped, say, “Well, this is the certificate or licence number that I got from the person who said that they were authorised to do so.” That would have a knock-on effect on trying to catch the fly-tippers. That is where I was coming from, but, given what you have been saying, I now realise that there might be a lot more work to do, and I am happy to work with you at stage 3, if you think that the amendment is feasible.

I have lodged amendment 160 in response to recommendations that were made in the committee’s stage 1 report. This amendment aims to ensure that Scottish ministers are required to consult local authorities in their role as waste collection authorities during the preparation of any guidance in relation to the new fixed penalty and civil penalty regime for the enforcement of household waste requirements. Local authorities will be responsible for delivering the enforcement action that will be enabled by those new powers, and their input will be critical to ensuring that guidance is practical and effective. Guaranteeing that local government is consulted ensures that that valuable perspective is captured and reflected. I urge the committee to support amendment 160.

I declare my interest as a former local councillor on Aberdeen City Council, because I realise that local authorities are being discussed at this time.

You called it a cloth bum; I call it a hippin. Do you agree that there is absolutely nothing wrong with going back in time to ensure that the future for our young ones is preserved?

Will the minister take an intervention?

You said that the targets must be reported on and reviewed. Do you mean that the targets should be changed annually or that we should review our progress on the targets on an annual basis? Those are two separate things. I might be misunderstanding.

The question that I asked was not whether it would come from the Scottish Government, but which of its budgets it would come from. If you would be happy to answer that one, that would be quite good.