Seòmar agus comataidhean

I had been thinking that there might have been some confusion, but I was not quite sure myself. Last week was a long week.

I will sum up on a few points. I was trying to intervene on Bob Doris, who was actually intervening on someone else. He had made the point that public bodies are already doing quite a lot on procurement procedures. The minister also mentioned having climate change duties for many such public bodies.

I listened to what Sarah Boyack said earlier about trying to increase the issue’s profile and get it further up the agenda. If a lot of that work is being done already, it should not place too much of a burden on public bodies to create their own circular economy plans. That would be a good thing for raising the profile and getting bodies to think about the steps that they can take. Much of that work will be there already and could be fed back to ministers for approval. Such an approach would not place a great burden on public bodies at all, but it would help us get to where we are trying to go.

The aim of my amendment 82 is simply to firm things up. The minister said that a lot of progress might happen in the future, once its approach goes through co-design. However, my amendment would put urgency at the forefront by saying that it must happen and that the Government must report. If the Government has nothing to hide, I am sure that that will be accepted. It should commit to doing so.

I will also speak to amendment 12. As we have heard, and whether it likes it or not, the Scottish Government has missed out on its past 12 emissions targets, and there have been no repercussions at all. The point of amendment 12 is to say that if the Government is serious about hitting its targets, there has to be some penalty. It cannot just be the case that it misses its targets every year but nothing happens until the next year, when the targets might be missed again or they might be hit. The aim of amendment 12 is to say, “If you do not meet it, something is going to happen. There is going to be a fine.” It is to get the Government to step up. There is a good set of amendments in this group.

I will press amendment 82.

Will the minister take a further intervention?

I agree that more probably needs to be done by the designers of products to get us to a circular economy, but how does the Scottish Government fit into that process? For example, once my phone battery starts fading, I will probably get a new phone. What steps can the Government take to influence manufacturers on that?

When I was listening to you, I was thinking of fly-tipping, because I can see some real benefits to your suggestion. If someone sees something get dumped when they are out somewhere, they might not know which local authority they should report the incident to, and they might have to try to give a description of exactly where they are. With an app, they could give a location using the global positioning system and take a picture of what has been dumped. There could be real benefits to having an app. I imagine that such information would be fed back to the local authority for it to decide whether to take action. It is about making things easier.

I agree with the intent. It is just that what we have in the amendment that you have lodged is, I believe, unworkable. I do not see how it can be brought forward. Amendment 189, in the name of Mark Ruskell, also sounds good, and I think that it is workable, so I am happy to support that amendment.

Graham Simpson mentioned the timescale and whether it should be six months, one year or two years. Mr Simpson is right to point out the already arbitrary two-year target, and the aim is to reduce that time period. I have reflected on the proposal for a one-year period, but what I will say is that, if we are serious about this and if we believe that urgent action is needed, we need to look at the timescales and reduce them as much as possible while ensuring that they remain practical.

I am not going to ask where I can buy clothes for myself. I am trying to understand a little bit more about amendment 132 and trying to measure the impact. How could we measure and monitor that? I am really struggling to understand.

Thank you, minister, for taking my intervention.

I often hear about the co-design approach and had thought that it was embedded in the national care service, so I am surprised that the wording of amendment 1 cannot be accepted, although I accept what you said in your latter points on Maurice Golden’s amendment.

Thank you, convener. Amendment 80 is, I think, quite simple; it would just change the reporting period from two and a half years to one year. We often hear talk of the climate emergency and everything else, and, if we are serious about doing this, it is time to, if not turbocharge—I do not want to say that—some of our timelines, then really up the pace. That is why I propose changing the reporting period to 12 months.

I turn to the other amendments in the group. The co-design approach and working with local authorities, which Maurice Golden has mentioned, will be vital for all the work that we are doing, so that is absolutely key. Amendment 190 is about a review by SEPA, which is another key partner, so that is a fairly sensible approach.

Amendment 187, in the name of Bob Doris, sounds good, but, in practice, I think that it would be unworkable. In the lead-up to COP, it was probably a bit easier, because people were getting together anyway. It would be a bit harder to do that when looking at the circular economy strategy.

I want to understand how the consultation would take place. If the consultation were widened too far, could that delay the strategy?

Will the member take an intervention?