���˿���

Yes.

I was about to say that it is absolutely right, because we can identify a particular type of property where there is an issue. As the convener and Mr Ruskell have pointed out, other properties can also be affected, but Sarah Boyack was absolutely right to lodge amendment 105. Let us be frank that, sometimes, it is the residents who are doing the wrong thing. However, sometimes it is not.

I hope that Monica Lennon will move amendment 105. If the minister is not in agreement, she needs to explain why not, and I would be interested to hear about that, because the issue is serious.

Will the minister take an intervention?

My point is a very similar point to the one that Douglas Lumsden made. If people live in flats, how on earth will we identify a persistent culprit? What is the minister saying? If there is a persistent culprit, which there might be, how will we identify the individual? If the minister’s stance is that she is not after everyone who lives in the block, should she not spell that out in the legislation?

Will the minister take an intervention?

Absolutely.

If I pop into a coffee shop to ask for an americano and maybe a sandwich, both are likely to come in containers that I might just throw away. Therefore, they would be single-use items. Of course, they might be compostable—and, if the committee accepts amendment 26, such provisions would not apply to them. However, they are likely to be covered by section 9. The question, then, is this: who pays the charge? Is it the producer of the containers that have been supplied to the coffee shop? They could be anywhere in the world. Is it the coffee shop itself? Is it me—the consumer? Again, businesses need to know and consumers, in particular, need to know if they are going to be hit with a sarnie-and-coffee tax.

The minister might well say that the matter is already covered in the bill, but let us look at the wording. The bill says:

“The regulations may in particular include provision about—

(a) the circumstances in which the requirement applies,”

and

“(b) the suppliers to whom the requirement applies”.

It says that it “may ... include provision”, but that also means that it may not. My view is that the regulations should include such provision, so my amendment 27 contains the word “must”, which provides a far stronger legal position.

I turn to amendment 29—I should say that we are still on section 9. Such charges could have a major impact on small businesses and microbusinesses. They will, if anything, be an administrative burden. Businesses are already up against it and the charges could be just the thing that tips some over the edge. Therefore, the amendment would allow for payment of grants and loans to help such businesses to deal with the impact. It does not say that that “must” happen; instead, it says that it “may”, which might suggest that I have gone a bit soft. To that extent, it would allow ministers to budget.

Of course, a better solution would be to get rid of section 9 altogether. It is too onerous, and we would be better off without it.

I am not the only one who has concerns about charges for single-use items. The committee’s report highlighted concerns from business and other stakeholders about the potential impact of these charges, and it recommended that this must

“go hand-in-hand with other measures to promote reusable alternatives as a social norm and a positive choice.”

The committee also recommended

“a strategic approach to the use of the powers in Section 9”,

and suggested that initial regulations on charges for single-use items should be subject to super-affirmative procedure. That is a very good idea indeed.

The minister told the committee that regulating single-use items required

“using the right tool for the right job.”—[Official Report, Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee, 5 December 2023; c 37.]

I am not convinced that section 9 is the right tool, or that charging for the supply of single-use items is the right job. What about the unintended consequences of the charges for those who rely on single-use products? Local retailers and hospitality venues will have to pick up the additional administrative and logistical slack that that would create.

UK Hospitality Scotland told the committee—I am nearly at the end, convener—that

“Adding a cost to the price of purchasing single-use items will penalise Scottish businesses and consumers. For example”—

it said—

“it is envisaged that a charge of 20p could be applied to single-use cups. This may well result in lost business for high street premises as customers choose not to make a purchase and pay the extra. Given”—

it went on—that

“we are in a cost of living crisis anything that could dent consumer confidence and spend is unwelcome, further jeopardising business and jobs.”

Do we really want to jeopardise businesses by placing more burdens on them from additional charging? My other amendments have suggested some ways in which to make the regulations less burdensome, but it might well prove to be better just to scrap section 9 of the bill altogether, which is what amendment 35 would do.

I move amendment 24.

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.]

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?