Chamber and committees

I am conscious of what you have said. I am also conscious of what the Presiding Officer said in the chamber last week about the need to continue with the work of the Parliament without politicking going on in the background. There is a fine balance there.

It appears that I, as convener, get the chance to ask the first question. We heard earlier this year that we were not going to meet our net zero targets and that there would need to be a climate change bill. We have heard various iterations of when that will be introduced and what it will consist of.

Will you enlighten us, as a committee, as to when it will be introduced and what will be in it?

I made the observation to you that the statutory deadline means that the bill would have to be introduced no later than November to allow it to be agreed to and passed through the parliamentary system by the end of March. However, given that it is going to cause—to my mind—a huge amount of interest outwith the Parliament, I would suggest that trying to rush it through without giving the committee proper time to take evidence on it would be a huge mistake. We need to be given that time. I think that the committee would rather that it was sooner rather than later so that we can trawl for input from people across Scotland. I am not entirely convinced why you are not in a position to say when it will be introduced or give us an indication of whether it will be a two-page bill to remove targets and change it from a climate change plan to carbon targets. Will you give us that indication today? It would be helpful.

Our second item of business is consideration of the Circular Economy (Scotland) Bill on day 4 of stage 2. Gosh, how time flies when you are having fun.

I welcome to the meeting Gillian Martin, the Minister for Climate Action, and her supporting officials. I also welcome Sarah Boyack, Maurice Golden and Graham Simpson. At last week’s meeting, the committee ended the day’s consideration of the bill having agreed to section 13 and disposed of amendments 66 and 67.

Section 14—Littering from a vehicle

Thank you for the intervention, and I am delighted that you are listening. I do not think that such a fine has to be mandatory; what I am saying is that, where a fine is imposed, the minimum level should be £500 to make it sensible. We also have to take into account the fact that a passenger throwing rubbish out of a window will be slightly different to the driver in a commercial vehicle doing it. Anyway, we all know that this happens, and we see it everywhere we go.

That is the premise of my two amendments, and I am delighted to throw the discussion open to other members.

I move amendment 119.

Will you take an intervention, minister?

Thank you, and I am sorry to stop you in full flow. It would be helpful for me if, before you concluded your comments, you could give me an indication of what level of fixed-penalty charge would be appropriate for the owner of a vehicle who allowed rubbish to be dumped from it.

I will.

There will be a division.

For

Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con

Against

Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)

The question is, that amendment 115 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

There will be a division.

For

Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con

Against

Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)