Seòmar agus comataidhean

That is really helpful. We are short of time but I think that Professor Tominey wants to come in before I move on to my next question.

That is helpful. As ever, it is never straightforward.

An unintended consequence of the success, I suppose, of the Scottish child payment is that, as universal credit tapers, the Scottish child payment does not. Everyone in this Parliament and on this committee wants to see mums, dads and families get into not just work but well-paid work with hours that allow them to sustain their quality of life without relying on benefits. However, a cliff edge is created by the fact that, when universal credit stops completely, so does the Scottish child payment.

Do the witnesses have any comments on, or solutions to, that? I will roll the two aspects into one question: first, on tapering, should that happen along with tapering of universal credit—I am wary of taking money off people when they are still on universal credit—or should the Scottish child payment be maintained and then tapered once someone stops receiving universal credit?

Mr Lumsden is absolutely right. I will say a little bit more about that later. I also note that everything that I just listed that the Government suggests could be in the strategy would not have to be in it either; those things “may” be included. Likewise, in my amendments 217 and 218, bulk uplift and garden waste “may” be included, but there would be no compulsion. As I said, I believe that not listing those items is an omission. Ideally, they would be in a code of practice that would empower action in that area, if it is considered appropriate.

To be fair, I believe relatively strongly that, in an ideal world, they would be in any such code of practice. I am increasingly concerned about small-scale, often everyday, fly-tipping in urban areas, particularly in the area of Glasgow that I represent, Maryhill and Springburn. I have spoken to colleagues in the Parliament, and I know that there is a wider issue with that. Some of it is unintended fly-tipping, where people put out mattresses, couches, fridges and other items in a place that five or 10 years ago was the collection point for bulk uplifts, although that service no longer exists in the local authority area. Some of it, I have to acknowledge, is unintentional in that way. I also believe that charges are an issue.

Although there is no statutory duty for local authorities to offer bulk uplifts or garden waste provision, they all have strategies on it already. Thirty-one of 32 local authorities charge for bulk uplifts; Fife is the only local authority that does not. Of those 31 local authorities, two have an annual fee—you pay your fee and you get a bulk uplift over the course of the year—and the rest have a variety of methods. Some are per item and some are for bundles of items. Glasgow City Council, the City of Edinburgh Council and East Lothian Council, for example, charge a household £5 per item for bulk uplifts, but East Renfrewshire Council, among others, has bundled charges, where uplift of up to five items is £40 and six to 10 items is £50. It varies across the country; for example, Inverclyde Council and Aberdeenshire Council have similar models to East Renfrewshire’s. There is a patchwork of provision.

I should point out that seven councils have reductions or exemptions for low-income households or households that are local authority tenants, but most councils do not. I say bluntly that, if someone is in a flat, has no garden, has no car and is on a low income, and there are charges in place, when they have to get rid of a carpet, a sofa, a mattress, a fridge or whatever, which maybe that household struggled to purchase in the first place, there is always a chance—although I would hope that it would not—that occasional fly-tipping might happen as a result.

There will be a relationship between the charging regime in each local authority area and the pattern of fly-tipping that we see across the country. We have already heard about issues with data on fly-tipping. There is not enough data on it more generally, and this will be another area on which we do not have enough information.

Earlier, we also heard about a householder duty of care when they have contracted a “man with a van”—I think that that was the expression used—or a person with a van, to discard their bulk-uplift items. We are putting the duty of care on householders for what those contractors do, but they are effectively competitors with the local authority, if it offers a similar service. Again, there is a direct connection to local authority strategies.

We need greater consistency in this area. We need to look at that relationship when local authorities offer bulk uplift and garden waste removal.

I should also point out that six local authorities offer no garden waste service whatsoever. In six local authorities, there is no garden waste service, and seven offer it for free. Again, there is a patchwork of provision across the country.

I do not suggest that having a consideration of bulk uplift and garden waste in the code of practice would change all that. I merely ask that during the co-production process these issues are looked at as a matter of course, as what should be in the code of practice is decided.

I started off by saying that these are probing amendments, and they remain probing amendments. However, the more that I have heard of the debate, the more I feel compelled to say that this matter must be resolved somehow. If that is not done through these amendments, I would certainly welcome further conversation with the minister.

I have made my apologies, Mr Simpson. Perhaps you can get on with it.

I apologise, Mr Simpson.

Will the member give way?

In the interest of clarity for Mr Simpson, I used to chair the Subordinate Legislation Committee before it was called the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee and we looked at the super-affirmative procedure.

I want clarity about something very important. Draft regulations can be published for up to 90 days before final regulations are published and laid before Parliament and there was a dynamic parliamentary process in which the minister would have to demonstrate amendments made at that point. We are looking at the super-affirmative procedure, which Parliament at that time thought was a substantial level of scrutiny. I still agree with that and I think that it is reasonable for this piece of legislation. I would like clarity from Mr Simpson because I would not support having the measure on the face of the bill—I think that would be wrong—and would like to know from him what procedure would be used if it were not the super-affirmative.

I will refer to dumped mattresses and other items under the section on a code of practice on household waste recycling in relation to bulky uplift charges. However, in relation to amendment 216, one way to avoid a bulky uplift charge for a mattress is to phone the council and say, “Come and reuse, recycle and repurpose my mattress.” The mattress could be done, gone, beyond repair and just at the end of its life and people could use the scheme to circumvent local authority charges. Is that a risk? Is no mattress so far gone that it cannot be repurposed, reused and recycled and get a free uplift? Can you confirm that the intention would be that any mattress would be uplifted free of charge by any local authority if amendment 216 were to pass?

And I have apologised.

I find it quite helpful to have some of the concerns explained. During our stage 1 scrutiny in preparation for our report, we had a debate on the extent to which the bill should be a framework bill. One of the reasons for its being a framework bill is that a lot of the matters that you are raising need to be ironed out: it might be impractical to include such things in the bill or it might make the legislation too rigid. Would you accept that there is a balance to be struck, Mr Lumsden?