���˿���

I wonder whether the report could set out what is being recycled now and what is not. Mr Golden and I are aware that certain products that people put in their recycling bins are not actually getting recycled. I wonder whether the report could go into that level of detail. If it did, it would be of great interest to the public and it would help us to address the gaps.

It is still morning, so good morning, cabinet secretary. Just to get it clear in my head, I go back to the very start, where we were talking about the climate change bill and the climate change plan. Currently, legally, you have to produce a climate change plan by November, but you want to delay that and introduce a climate change bill. Am I right in thinking that, in order for it to be legal for you not to have a climate change plan by November, you would need to have a climate change bill passed before that?

Perhaps you could write to the committee on the detail of the regulation. I will leave it there, convener.

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.

Thank you. Those comments were very positive. It is that kind of discussion ahead of stage 3 that I have been trying to achieve with a number of my amendments. After all, this is a process. I will comment further on this when I sum up on the group, but the minister’s remarks have been useful and I will certainly have that discussion with her ahead of stage 3.

Ben Macpherson is a very considered member and usually makes very good points, as he has done on this occasion. I did not refer to the plastic bag charge, and Mr Macpherson is absolutely right—the main point of that charge was to reduce littering. I certainly reuse plastic bags, as I am sure that Mr Macpherson does. He is right to say that different products could be treated differently.

The minister makes a reasonable point, except that those of us who know how the affirmative or super-affirmative procedure works know that such regulations are not subject to the same level of scrutiny as something that is put in a bill.

Earlier, the minister said that the Government can go out to consultation on all of this. The problem is that there is no ability for members to change what the Government puts forward. As Douglas Lumsden said, it is either a yes or a no. That is the problem with framework bills—the use of which is increasing, as the committee said in its report.

I thank Mr Ruskell for those useful comments. I go back to what I said to Mr Macpherson, when he commented on the plastic bag charge, which I think is about reducing littering. His point was that we need to look at different products differently, so it depends on what we are talking about.

That is why I was after some more clarity in the text of the bill, so that it becomes less of a framework bill. At this point, the committee—-and at stage 3, the whole Parliament—would be able to say, “Well actually, we’re not happy just to leave all this to Government and to regulations.” The problem with regulations, as Mr Ruskell is well aware, is that when a regulation comes to the committee, it will require a simple yes or no; we would not be able to tweak it.

I will not press it.

Amendment 24, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendments 25 and 26 not moved.

Amendment 27 moved—[Graham Simpson].

I would like to jump back to amendment 202. My concern is that, if we do nothing, we could end up back where we are now, with landowners—often, but not necessarily, farmers—having large-scale dumping on their land, which is not their fault. As I said earlier, I know of an example of that in my area, quite close to where I live, where dumping blocked a lane for several years—it was not the landowner’s fault; somebody else just came along and, over a sustained period, used that lane as a dump.

Unless we find a solution for stage 3—I hear what the minister says in that regard—are we not in danger of remaining in that unfortunate position?