Seòmar agus comataidhean

I will come back on that briefly. Mr Doris is right to highlight that there are elements of the statutory instrument that enable alignment with the EU. However, there are other aspects, particularly when it comes to the phasing out of certain POPs within the regulations, where there is active divergence. I do not think that Mr Doris is right to say that this is a temporary measure and that the UK’s—and Scotland’s—approach will eventually align with that of the EU. Yes, it is about adopting regulation of the chemicals that are highlighted under the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants, and there will be continuing alignment on that matter, but on the pace of change in ruling out and removing these toxic chemicals from our waste streams and our environment, there is now active divergence. That is why I oppose this SI; it is not to do with the other elements that Mr Doris mentioned, which are welcome.

Part 4 of new schedule 5 to the 1991 act lists the improvements that facilitate sustainable and regenerative agriculture. Is the inclusion of that list helpful? Are things missing from it? There was a comment about soil carbon, which of course will be hugely important, but perhaps raises a question about landlord and tenant. Who has access to that resource? Who stewards it? Christopher, do you want to come in?

I have no more comments to add. I press amendment 46.

Amendment 46 agreed to.

Amendments 47 and 48 moved—[Mark Ruskell]—and agreed to.

Amendment 67 moved—[Maurice Golden]—and agreed to.

Amendment 77 moved—[Monica Lennon]—and agreed to.

Amendment 49 moved—[Maurice Golden].

Will the member take an intervention?

Will Graham Simpson comment on the minister’s view that, as his amendment 35 refers to “existing” networks of community reuse organisations, the provision would not apply to new networks? Did he consider that in drafting the amendment?

I thank Monica Lennon for continuing to press and campaign on this issue. It is clear that we need good reuse schemes operating for lots of types of items in our economy, and nappies are a good example. I would add bikes, too. There are great initiatives involving bike libraries being set up, through which local authorities are working with social enterprises in a similar way. There are loads of opportunities for councils to work with the third sector to drive forward on reuse. However, I think that the most appropriate way to develop reuse schemes is through the waste route map, and that we should not put individual schemes in the bill.

My amendment 44, which we discussed earlier, requires ministers to consider reuse, refill and take-back schemes as part of the strategy. Personally, I will absolutely hold the minister to account—I know that Monica Lennon will, too—to ensure that nappies are considered as part of that, because there is a strong case for that. However, there is a doubt in my mind, because we have to acknowledge that reusable nappy schemes have been on the go for more than 20 years. I was proud to use them for my children, 18 years ago, through a social enterprise in Stirling, and I know that Monica Lennon has used them for her children this year. Given that we had successful schemes almost 20 years ago, we need to understand why the public uptake has not followed on the back of that.

I think that Monica Lennon secured a win by working with the then minister, Lorna Slater, to get a Government-commissioned report by the James Hutton Institute on the public attitude towards reusable nappies. I hope that that will point to a way ahead to make reuse schemes more accessible, cheaper and more successful. However, I do not think that we can draw in all that learning and put a requirement in the bill to have such schemes.

In principle, I support Maurice Golden’s amendment 64. I recognise, as I am sure he does, that the review of Scotland’s incineration capacity, which was commissioned by my colleague Lorna Slater, has been enormously helpful. Prior to that, the Government had no understanding of what level of incineration was needed in Scotland, which effectively resulted in a free-for-all in the planning system, with lots of companies proposing speculative developments and each of them claiming that their capacity was needed to meet Scotland’s needs.

We have that information now, and Lorna Slater, the then minister, set an important precedent, which I know has inspired Maurice Golden’s amendment 64. We need that level of analysis for all waste infrastructure, in the round. What infrastructure do we need in Scotland? Where are the best locations? What capacity do we have at the moment? Where is it located, and in which regions and which sectors? Where can we foster innovation to deliver meaningful change? Those are the kinds of questions that need to be thoroughly investigated, and that is why I support the bulk of Mr Golden’s amendment.

However, I do not want some of the specifics and detail in Mr Golden’s amendment 64 being used as a basis for its being rejected. I lodged amendment 64A because I do not think that it is necessary to have detail about a broader waste strategy in the waste infrastructure plan. That can be dealt with elsewhere, in the route map and in other policy areas.

I urge members to support amendment 64A, so that Parliament can unite behind a meaningful investigation of Scotland’s waste infrastructure that builds on the good work on incineration that this Government has already started.

We will not support Maurice Golden’s amendments in this group, with the exception of amendment 62. At stage 2, we discussed at length the drawbacks of setting fixed targets in the bill. Setting a recycling target for 2026 would give very little time for co-design with local authorities to take place and for them to prepare a detailed plan to meet their targets. We recognise that some local authorities are further ahead on that than others and might be able to meet a target of 2026, but others will not be able to do that. We need to ensure that everybody gets the support that they need to move together.

I am, however, convinced about amendment 62, which will require the Scottish Government to report annually on councils’ progress on meeting their targets. It would be helpful to have that additional information. I listened to the minister’s point that there will be reporting on the strategy alongside that, but a report coming to Parliament would be very useful, as it would bring additional scrutiny. That builds on the amendment that I lodged at stage 2 that requires ministers to report to Parliament if a target is missed, which is similar to a provision in the climate change legislation.

The scenes that we saw were absolutely horrific, and I pay tribute to the emergency services. We never want to see such scenes again, but we have seen such fires repeatedly across Scotland, particularly at Friarton in Perth, where one incident led to a tragic loss of life.

Does the minister agree that those who manufacture and sell disposable electronic devices need to take more producer responsibility for their products, including through take-back schemes in which they can invest in proper health and safety requirements that will keep them safe and enable those products to be recycled?

Those are warm words. [Interruption.] I will give the minister a moment to get a lozenge. I am on the lozenges as well. When do we go beyond warm words, and the writing of letters, to actual plans from the enterprise agencies? In the debate, there has been a lot of talk about burdens but, ultimately, this is about businesses and organisations becoming much more resource efficient and much leaner. That is a good thing for productivity and business.