Chamber and committees

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.

It is really helpful to hear that that is already in the Government’s thinking. It sounds as if the convener and the minister might be in agreement for once.

The line of questioning is interesting. Will the regulations give small to medium-sized businesses dispensation in relation to some requirements? Given the minister’s exchange with the convener, I am interested in how that might pan out.

On Monica Lennon’s questions about SCIAF’s call to amend the bill, I pushed SCIAF quite hard last week about what that would mean in practice. How can we do due diligence for public sector and corporate supply chains, considering the nature of full supply chain procurement, which could be global? There could be human rights implications. What would that mean in practice? SCIAF seemed to admit that it would be hugely difficult, but that is not a reason not to have it as an objective or to put it in a strategy, although we would have to be realistic about what we could do. I just wanted to put that on the record. Does that make you minded more to move in that direction, but with a great deal of realism about what we could achieve? It would be difficult, but that is not a reason not to try.

Thank you, cabinet secretary. You have made it very clear that the Government does not support the bill, but is it open to elements in it? Not supporting the bill is one thing, but being open minded about certain aspects of its contents is another. Are those issues being ruled out, or will they be considered as part of the Government’s wider consultation?

The committee has become aware of a gap that exists—and, indeed, became particularly aware of it a couple of weeks ago, when we heard from Lucy Kenyon of the Association of Occupational Health and Wellbeing Professionals and Professor Ewan Macdonald. They highlighted the need to collect better and more robust data in the workplace on emerging trends and issues regarding industrial injury and illnesses. Trade unions and occupational health are keen to be part of the partnership that plugs that gap and collects that data, and the Health and Safety Executive—which, unfortunately, is not giving oral evidence to our committee—has a role to play, too.

Cabinet secretary, will you say a bit more about which organisations and bodies have a significant role to play here? Do you accept that there could be a gap? Which bodies, individuals and groups could help to plug that gap in relation to data and emerging trends around such illnesses?