Seòmar agus comataidhean

I have no further questions. I might share the minister’s characterisation of the political environment, but the committee is keen to scrutinise the nuts and bolts of the bill. It is positive to hear about the on-going discussions at official level.

There are probably lots of questions, convener, but I have to say that you merely caught my eye. I do not wish to comment.

I am unclear whether the minister has inadvertently answered the question that I was going to ask. I might just ask it anyway, so that it is clear in the Official Report.

Some stakeholders have argued that targets should be clearly set out in the bill, but, during an earlier exchange, the minister mentioned that NGOs, for example, were not clear what targets they would like to be set, and she said that some of the science and methodology around how they would be established is still emerging and evolving, so secondary legislation might be a much better way of setting targets. I just want a bit of clarity on the Government’s position on that.

The second part of my question is about whether there might be a different case for consumption targets, because the Scottish Government already publishes carbon footprint information under climate legislation requirements. Might it be possible to introduce consumption targets to the bill?

Those two questions for the minister are intended to mop up any gaps in evidence, convener.

Thank you. That gives a bit of clarity to what was said earlier.

That is helpful. It partially pre-empts my final question, which is good. How could common frameworks be used to support policy coherence and the pace of progress in this area? Could they help to manage divergence? In saying “divergence”, minister, I am thinking about a twin-track approach, because I suspect that the end destination for all four UK nations will be the same. It is about having policy coherence so that, if Scotland wishes to go more quickly, we can do so in a managed way. Do you have any comments on how common frameworks can be used to support policy coherence?

I will try to be brief, convener.

Minister, I think that Mr Fraser is using parliamentary process to promote his member’s bill, which I appreciate, but I suspect that he also supports the order. I will certainly not be supporting the motion to recommend annulment.

I have three questions on the specifics of the order that is before us. It is my understanding that, if the legislation is passed by the Parliament, the powers will be in force by January next year. Is that correct?

I will roll my questions together, as I think that that would be helpful, given the time constraints. Secondly, is there any distinction between commercial and household waste in relation to these fixed-penalty notices? I sympathise with Mr Fraser’s point about a sliding scale of fixed-penalty notices, and the question whether we can evidence a repeat offender, perhaps commercial. Is there any distinction between a householder and a commercial offender?

Finally, I think that there is a feeling in the committee that there needs to be better, more robust data collection across the whole area. Data has to be collected consistently across 32 local authorities, and the courts as well, and it all has to sit in one place.

I have tried to roll up all three questions, convener, so I do not have to come back in. I hope that you got a note of those, minister.

I do not wish to comment.

Hi, minister. We are living with the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020. That is just a reality, irrespective of the different views around the committee table. How do you envisage that the new powers in the bill—in particular, on single-use charges and the disposal of unsold goods—could interact with that act?

I am sorry to be a stickler for process, but Mr Fraser has already moved the motion. He now needs to seek permission to withdraw it. That is the process.

Mr Fraser has already moved the motion—speculatively, so that he can have more airtime in the committee. I commend him for his opportunism, but the process now is that he should seek permission to withdraw the motion.