Seòmar agus comataidhean

I volunteered to ask about rent reviews. I thank everybody for their evidence on that. There is quite a lot to unpick in that regard. Earlier, we talked about disagreements on tenant’s right to buy and about the registration of tenants’ right to buy not being implemented. In addition, we have the provisions on rent review in the 2016 act that have never been brought into force. I want to kick off with Christopher Nicholson. Is anything missing in the bill as to how rent reviews will work in practice?

Gemma Cooper, do you want to comment on the issue?

Does anyone else want to respond on the issue of getting arbitration that works rather than people having to go to the Scottish Land Court, which is very expensive? Is support available, or is support for negotiations between tenants and landlords needed? Is there something that would make that work better, or are the measures in the bill enough?

That is a good point to finish on, because it feeds into Christopher Nicholson’s comment about not necessarily being consulted on all the detail in advance. That is what the committee’s questions are all about. We want to make sure that we get all your points on the record so that we can consider them as we draft our report.

Those are all the questions that I wanted to ask.

It is interesting that, even in this discussion, it is difficult to get 100 per cent agreement. If we are talking about arbitration, the rules and the support need to be in place, and we need to make sure that what is in the bill will help to make the situation clear in the future. I do not know whether the other witnesses want to come in on that issue. It seems that they do not.

We want to make sure that the bill provides the right framework. We have talked about rent reviews and the issues of improvements, game damage and diversification have been discussed. Is everyone happy that the bill is framed in such a way that people will be able to go through the process of dispute resolution without having to go to the Land Court? Although it does not sound as though there is 100 per cent agreement on the matter, are people broadly happy with what is proposed in the bill?

I strongly agree with that, convener. For a vast majority of us, the issue is right under the radar and it is important that somebody effectively monitors it.

Jackie McCreery is keen to come in.

It is useful to get that on the record, because the issue of detail is critical, given all the different pieces of legislation that are being referenced. In order for people to be able to negotiate in the future, it needs to be clear what parts of the bill relate to previous legislation and what is new. That has prompted a comment from Jeremy Moody.

In addition to the earlier discussion about targets, I am keen to hear the minister’s view of the role that a national target for household waste recycling might play. Amendment 205, in my name, would set a national target for household waste recycling, which would complement the target for local authorities that is set out in section 13.

The discussion that we have just heard is really important, because it is important to learn lessons from local authorities in both urban and rural areas. We might expect urban authorities to have higher recycling rates than rural ones, but that is not necessarily the case. Infrastructure, political leadership and investment all play a part in public awareness.

Amendment 205 says that,

“before laying a draft of a Scottish statutory instrument”,

the Scottish ministers would consult local authorities and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, but also such persons as the Scottish Government considered appropriate. That would ensure that there was a wide discussion—particularly one that followed on from the discussions that we have had in considering the bill.

Amendment 206 is a consequential amendment that would ensure that targets for local authorities could not jeopardise the setting and achievement of national targets.

Part of it is about awareness. You should have the choice to buy a phone that will not just stop working. At present, you cannot replace the battery and you have to get rid of the whole phone, but the cost of a mobile phone is a huge amount of money for a consumer. There is something about awareness and something about pushing on what new technology is being developed. We would now laugh at the phones that we had when this Parliament was set up, because they would look historical. Technology and businesses are shifting, but it is partly about awareness and partly about raising the bar and getting consumers to push companies harder so that they think about what they need to do.

My amendment 194 would provide for carbon-based targets, ensuring that emissions from the whole life cycles of products are reduced. Importantly, the amendment covers the whole life cycle, not just the life cycle and supply chain of a product in Scotland. There are lots of issues here where more could be done.

Amendment 195 would provide for targets to be made in relation to different materials, which takes me back to the point that Douglas Lumsden made. It would enable progress to be tracked on items that we use every day. A number of manufacturers have contacted me to say that they would like their products to last as long as possible and they are prepared to invest. The setting of targets on a product-by-product basis could send a signal to industry. That is the point that Douglas Lumsden made. It could also send a signal to local authorities about their waste recycling, a message to consumers on the Government’s commitment to products being used for longer, and a message to encourage those who are falling behind.

I realise that there are a range of other options in the current group of amendments, but I wanted to get my issues on the agenda and probe what is in the bill. Ben Macpherson’s amendment 124 is similar to what I have proposed. Monica Lennon’s amendment 145 includes food waste. Amendment 146, which we talked about last week, mentions the “do no harm” principle, and Mark Ruskell’s amendment 191 covers the most polluting materials. We have different ways of addressing the issues, but they are all about how we can strengthen the bill at stage 2 to make it as robust and effective as possible.

Maurice Golden’s amendment 4, which seeks to ensure that targets are set that will be known as the “2030 targets”, is critical. If we are going to have the reuse, recycling and reduction of waste, we need to have a better hierarchy in the bill that will inform everybody and promote the progress that we all want to see.