Seòmar agus comataidhean

I appreciate that you are here to make a pitch for your use, but it feels a bit odd. If you have a critical role in the process, it should surely be codified. You are an independent voice, and you are able to gather the evidence and present it to all Governments. Certainly with the DRS, and certainly on one side, it felt as though the political decision making was led by what the Secretary of State was reading in the Daily Express. Now, that is a very political statement, but I think that there was a role in that situation for an independent body to gather the independent views of businesses and ensure that evidence was presented to all parties so that a rational decision could be made. Instead, we had a very amplified argument and discussion in the press and in politics, which perhaps masked the genuine issues in the integration of schemes in the market that were operating in the UK.

The Scottish Government is under new leadership, and one of the first changes that was made in the Cabinet was to remove the word “wellbeing” from the economy minister’s job title. There has also been quite a shift in the language in the last week or so. There is much more strident use of the term “economic growth”, and I think that I even heard the First Minister go back to using the phrase “sustainable economic growth”, which I had not heard for some time.

I am interested in your thoughts on that, because you are painting quite a positive picture about what has been happening up to now in terms of the review of the performance framework and the inclusion of a more well-rounded picture of what sustainable development means in that context. What are your thoughts on what the Government’s direction might be, given those very public, headline indications about its priorities, which are for economic growth?

[Inaudible.]—regulations. We discussed them in this room, actually.

Do the other panel members have brief comments? I have one more question as well.

But you could have been asked for an opinion on what the view of businesses might be and what the impacts might be.

I am not trying to get you to comment on the merits or otherwise of the decision, but what I am seeing is a process that is very uncodified and I am struggling to see what the role of the OIM is within it. You are, not an arbiter, but a sort of independent body that is able to gather evidence that is useful for ministers when they make decisions within a common framework, but I do not see that your role is codified in the way that, say, the role of the Climate Change Committee is in relation to decisions on climate. I am struggling to see where you should and must fit within that process. It feels that we have had some decisions that have created a huge amount of business uncertainty and are certainly now subject to an enormous amount of criticism in this Parliament and at Westminster. However, we are still struggling to see where you might have fitted within that and where you may fit in the future.

I think that the cabinet secretary knows that the situation is utterly intolerable for people who live near the prison. The SPS has offered mitigations, but they are not working. The whole community—the community inside the prison and the community outside it—deserves a lot better.

Does the cabinet secretary agree that, as Mr Stewart has already said, the only real option that is left on the table is to move the living quarters within HMP Stirling to a different part of the site? I simply cannot see another way to solve the problem. If there is another way of solving it, we need to hear quickly from the SPS what that is, and we need action.

Last week, the Culture, Media and Sport Committee at Westminster urged the UK Government to press ahead with a UK-wide arena ticket levy preceded by an interim voluntary scheme that is led by industry. That approach is essential if we are to prevent grass-roots music venues from closing. They absolutely need that investment. I know that the cabinet secretary has been supportive of a ticket levy in the past. When might a stadium tax be introduced in Scotland?

I mentioned amendment 191 when we debated amendment 183 last week. Members might remember that they are about considering harmful and polluting materials in the determination of targets. I did not hear from the minister—unless I did not take note of it last week—a commitment to work with me on the issue between stages 2 and 3. I am not going to say whether that requires a legislative change at this point. Perhaps I misheard, but I did not hear that commitment last week.

I am also listening for commitments in relation to other amendments that we are debating this morning, because there is clearly value in many of the matters that members are raising for consideration. I do not feel that many of those amendments are supportable at this point, but I would like their spirit to be moved into stage 3 if the minister does not accept everything today.

That is a good point. I would be interested in hearing the minister’s reflection on what the resource requirements would be within Government to monitor and meaningfully engage with those statements. We already have grants going out to organisations, and there is already a process of monitoring and reporting on how grants are being delivered and whether objectives are being delivered. Within those objectives, it would be appropriate to have a circular economy focus. That would deliver benefits to the organisation and public benefits through the funds that are being distributed and are supporting the work of those organisations.

I will turn to other amendments in the group. Bob Doris’s amendment 197 requires large companies to report on their scope 3 climate emissions. I am sympathetic to that and keen to hear what the minister’s view is on the amendment.

Graham Simpson’s amendment 72 would require the Government to develop, by law, an app to provide information on the disposal of household waste. I do not know whether that would be a first—a Government having to deliver an app by law. I am curious to understand why a national app would be required at this point, when many councils already have that information available online, but we will come to Mr Simpson in due course.

Monica Lennon’s amendments 171 to 173 would insert requirements for information on food waste, recycling and textiles to be made publicly available. I am sympathetic to what the amendments are trying to achieve. Again, I will listen carefully to the minister when she comes to address amendments 171 and 173, to see what progress can be made on the intention behind those amendments.

I move amendment 196.

You are bringing back fond memories of hanging up real nappies on the washing line over the summer.

You talked about local authorities taking the lead. About 10 or 12 years ago, there were some pilots—I remember Stirling Council being involved—in which disposable nappies were collected separately and they went through a materials recovery process, particularly for the plastics. In your discussions with the Government, have you reflected on that route? Clearly, it is not at the top of the waste hierarchy, but it is certainly a way of recovering materials and reducing the impact of disposables. I am just not sure to what extent that is still a thing.