Chamber and committees

My question is not on this either.

Of course.

To be fair, I did not ask about incineration.

Clearly, we can engage in partnership with local authorities on scrutiny work in relation to that issue, but I asked that question because I wonder whether the quantum of cash that will be available for Scotland has been agreed, because we are talking about levies that will apply to businesses like Amazon, which operate across the UK and internationally. Will the remote and rural weighting kick in once the cash has been established for Scotland or will that weighting be at a pan-UK level, which would give Scotland a larger pot of cash to begin with? Those things become quite important. Also, at a later date, a local authority that felt that it was not getting a reasonable share of the pot of cash might want to come to this committee and ask what we can do about that. That is why I was asking about the scheme administrator. I am trying to future-proof parliamentary scrutiny as much as anything else.

I am content with that. It is a complex area. It is about ensuring that the Government is live to the interaction between the regulations and the wider WEEE and other fiscal measures. That has been helpful. The terminology is dreadful—when I hear “WEEE” I think of a Nintendo Wii from several years ago—but I will leave it at that.

I have a brief observation. I did not think that I was going to make this comment, but I commend the Government for taking a very proportionate approach and looking constructively at the four-nations approach to going live in April next year. The Government is not rushing towards the need for an exemption from the UK Internal Market Act 2020 but taking a four-nations approach in the first instance, as we all have a common interest in the issue. That is a good tone to set as we seek to engage with the new UK Government, with the backstop measure of that exemption as and when required. I think that that is the way to do business, so I say thank you, cabinet secretary.

I will leave it at that. The important thing is that trading standards officers, who will have to enforce the regulations, have said that they are content.

I was not suggesting that. Rather than be a pedant, I will seek an assurance, which I think that Mr McPhee gave, that trading standards officers are content that they have appropriate powers, but that the Government will keep that under review, along with trading standards officers, and would act if there was a gap in the regulations that needed to be plugged.

Officers will have to identify vapes as such. It has been put to me that they would have to take a sample and identify an item as a single-use vape before they can then move to seize and confiscate it. Under the regulations, they cannot take a batch of items that they suspect to be single-use vapes at that point, so there could be a delay in the process. Are the powers drawn too narrowly? Will enforcement officers be able to go in and, if they have a reasonable suspicion that there are boxes upon boxes of single-use vapes, seize them at that point?

I have a couple of brief questions, convener. I return to the issue of enforcement. Under regulation 9, enforcement officers will have the power to sample and take possession of single-use vapes. That is quite a precise definition. The powers are not framed more broadly, such as to seize or sample single-use vapes or items that are suspected of being single-use vapes. Is the instrument too restrictive to enable enforcement officers to take appropriate action? Will you give assurances about that?