Chamber and committees

This is an important debate to have. I recognise that fly-tipping is a scourge. We have heard from members about where they have experienced fly-tipping. In my constituency, it is happening near areas of natural beauty, such as the Bullers of Buchan. When I visited that area of natural beauty with the RSPB, we walked past a lot of rubbish that had been fly-tipped at the entrance to it. We have to do what we can to tackle the issue.

We will support Murdo Fraser’s amendment 201, which is consistent with our commitment to ensure that there is an effective enforcement regime to deter and tackle the scourge of fly-tipping. The amendment allows for a future increase to a maximum amount not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale, which is currently fixed at £1,000. However, fixed-penalty notices are not the only way to tackle fly-tipping and are not intended to tackle serious waste crime. SEPA has the powers to impose up to £40,000 through variable monetary penalties. Serious or organised crime needs to be referred to the police.

On amendment 159, the provision of food and drink in schools is, again, a matter for local authorities. As with the reusable nappies amendment, I regard this amendment as a detail that would restrict local decision making. Callum Isted drew much-needed attention to the issue in schools. I know that a lot of schools in my area have policies that have been co-designed with eco committees in both primary and secondary schools. We are seeing single-use drinks containers being used less and less in schools, very much as a result of the work that Callum Isted drew attention to.

Yes.

Everything that you have said is completely legitimate, and I totally understand why you have lodged the amendment. I want to work with you to get this right, because you are right: this would deter people who purport to be legitimate waste collectors but are not. It is about empowering the public to know that they can ask for proof that someone is a waste collector. Let us work together ahead of stage 3 on something that I can support that will have that effect.

I also understand the intention behind amendment 36, in the name of Maurice Golden, but it is unnecessary, as mechanisms exist to ensure that comprehensive information and practical guidance are available in relation to the duty of care obligations. That said, I go back to my earlier point: is that information good enough? Is it clear enough? Is it accessible enough? Is it buried? I think that everyone gets my point; indeed, everyone has probably looked at the issue for themselves and has seen how accessible the information is.

I want to avoid placing unnecessary burdens on local authorities. Indeed, it was a prominent concern of the committee when it took evidence at stage 1, and I am keen not to impose any additional unnecessary statutory responsibilities on them. Again, it is all about sharing best practice, with, for example, local authorities reviewing how they display information and how they communicate with people in their areas. I therefore urge the committee not to support amendment 36, but I also reassure the committee that we will continue to work with key partners to consider implementation plans, including communication and awareness-raising activities, and to ensure that the code of practice is updated as required.

Amendment 37 seeks to amend section 10 so that it would not apply to households using communal waste bins, but, again, I do not believe that it is necessary. The obligation to “take reasonable steps”, such as confirming registration details, applies only when a householder has organised an independent waste service to collect household waste. The work that we will do ahead of stage 3, particularly with Ms Dunbar, will provide a vehicle for improving householders’ knowledge of their rights in that regard. As there is no reason to exempt householders who use shared or communal bins, I cannot support the amendment.

As for amendment 38, I understand Mr Golden’s intention to ensure that provisions are fairly applied. It might be that, in certain cases, an enforcement officer would meet a householder to determine whether there had been a breach of the duty of care without reasonable excuse, but that would not be practical, appropriate or necessary in every case. Indeed, there might be occasions when householders would not participate in a meeting with an enforcement officer, and I do not think it appropriate to compel them to do so in relation to a suspected criminal offence. I therefore cannot support that amendment and urge the committee not to do so either, but, again, I take on board the wider point that has been made.

Amendment 39 would allow local authorities to seek recompense from ministers for any unpaid fixed penalties issued under section 10. I do not support the amendment, because it fails to recognise that payment of fixed-penalty notices is not mandatory. Instead, they provide a person with an opportunity to discharge any liability to criminal conviction by paying the penalty. I think that everyone understands that: you pay the FPN and the matter goes no further. It is a choice. The person is perfectly entitled to refuse the offer made by the FPN, with the result that the enforcement officer may choose to report the offence to the procurator fiscal. An unpaid fixed penalty under this provision is not a civil debt that needs to be recovered in any way; it is just a way in which the person who is liable can stop the action. In other words, they can pay the fine and just move on.

Finally, I understand the intentions behind amendment 44, but I cannot support it as it is drafted. As I have indicated, the Scottish Government’s intention is to work with local authorities and other enforcement bodies on guidance on the enforcement of the householder’s duty and the use of FPN procedure in relation to the breaches of that duty. Although it is not essential, I agree that including a requirement to that effect in section 10 could be useful. The effect of subsection (3) of the amendment would be to call into doubt whether the inserted new section 34ZC of the 1990 act had come into force, which would occur when section 10 of the bill was commenced under the power in section 19. Obviously, we are still to come to section 19, and I can give more information on that when we do so. However, I urge the committee not to support amendment 44.

I will leave it there, convener.

I understand Ms Webber’s intention in lodging the amendments in the group, but I cannot support them and I will outline why. The amendments would require the Scottish Government not only to consult with COSLA, which we do regularly, but to seek its approval for any draft regulations under those powers. I want to be clear that the approval of the regulations lies with Parliament.

The Verity house agreement already underpins the approach to engagement between the Scottish Government and COSLA and the Scottish Government remains committed to that agreement. I do not see the provisions as necessary for the continued joint working that COSLA has described. It is not my understanding that COSLA had asked my predecessor for that and I certainly have not been asked for that. In fact, COSLA has said that the collaboration in the bill is

“an excellent and leading example of working in the spirit of and implementing the Verity House Agreement”.

Full kudos goes to my predecessor for her engagement with COSLA leaders.

We will continue to take that approach to the co-production and development of the regulations to support the bill. In many cases, there is already a requirement to consult local government in the bill. For example, section 12, which relates to the code of practice, and section 13, which relates to targets, already set out that Scottish ministers must consult publicly and seek the views of local authorities.

Amendment 160, in the name of Jackie Dunbar, is a requirement to consult local government on the development of guidance relating to section 11 and new enforcement powers for waste contamination. We will support that amendment. More generally, our approach would be to consult local government on any regulations and we expect that that would involve COSLA.

However, for all the amendments in the group, there is a technical concern about naming COSLA in the bill. It is not common practice. Typically, when outlining consultation duties in legislation, the phrase “local authorities” is used. Although, in practice, that often leads to COSLA being consulted, it also allows for consultation with individual local authorities or with any other organisation that is representative of local authority interests. In the past, COSLA has not been the only body that has been representative of local authorities, so it would not be correct to name it.

Before I do so, Mr Lumsden, I will continue with my point.

First, a written warning would be issued. Then, only if the failure to comply continues or there is a new but similar failure to comply, a notice of intent to require payment of a civil penalty is issued, with a period of time for representations to be made as to why the civil penalty charge should not be required. After consideration of any representations, a final notice to pay a civil penalty may be served. Again, it is about tackling persistent and deliberate contamination of waste.

A penalty would apply not to a situation where somebody has put something in the wrong bin by mistake but to a situation where there has been evidenced, deliberate contamination.

In any situation where somebody is given a penalty, there has to be evidence behind that. A penalty would be a result of evidence of an individual being identified as deliberately contaminating or failing to comply with the legislation. Mr Lumsden describes a situation where there is a big blanket penalty on the whole block, but that could not be evidenced. Therefore, after consideration of any—

I will continue my point and then I will come to Mr Simpson.

Local authorities, Mr Lumsden, would use those new powers only as a last resort, after other options to engage with and support householders have been attempted. Should the written warning be heeded, there will be no penalty to pay.

Guidance on the approach to enforcement, including the approach to communal bins, will be created in consultation with local authorities. Some local authorities are probably doing well with their levels of contaminated waste, so it is important to share good practice in how they manage that. That is the right way to go about it, rather than a top-down approach from me. It is about enabling co-production in the spirit of the Verity house agreement.

My argument, which you have articulated well, Mr Ruskell, is that we do not want to do anything in primary legislation that is inflexible, does not take into account innovation and would cause a problem if there was a change in the trends in the types of recycling that are required. I absolutely take on board that point. You just made my argument even stronger. We all agree that local authorities and those involved in the co-design process need flexibility, but they also need to bring their experience to bear in that process.

Amendment 65, from Maurice Golden, proposes that the Scottish Government provides resources for an audit of household waste receptacles. I am not sure what benefits would be derived from such an endeavour or, indeed, what the costs to the public purse would be. As part of the co-design process with COSLA and local authorities, research requirements and any gaps in our knowledge will be identified. That could include an audit of the number and types of waste receptacles, but I will leave that to them to identify those gaps. Legislating for such a project before the design process has even begun is counterproductive and potentially a waste of resources.