Seòmar agus comataidhean

I think that we might be nearing the end of the road on this petition as well. However, we could write to the Minister for Drugs and Alcohol Policy to highlight the written evidence that the committee has received, which you have articulated, and to seek an update on what specific action the early intervention working group is taking to address public health concerns about the use of image and performance-enhancing drugs, including how it intends to include owners of leisure centres, gyms and fitness professionals in that work.

From your assessment as the then First Minister, did the impact of Covid have a multiplier effect so that the impact was not just during the period when Covid was occurring? How quickly did Government and all the operations get back on track?

Ms Sturgeon, in answer to Fergus Ewing, you have been clear about the Greens’ influence on the dualling of the A9. Obviously, the backdrop to your tenure in government was some ambitious climate change targets, including the setting of an extremely ambitious interim target in 2019. I wonder whether looking to tackle climate change in the context of failing to meet a number of emissions targets had any influence on the prioritisation of dualling the A9.

That is helpful. I have a final question. How were you advised about the project running behind time? Was it regularly discussed at Cabinet, for example, or was it broadly left to the relevant minister and officials?

The petition refers to “the current proposals”. On the face of it, notionally, those proposals have been shelved. If, at the time, the Scottish Government was saying that it would not progress the current proposals, the petition would clearly have to be closed. However, if, at that time, the Scottish Government instructed NatureScot to progress some form of the current proposals, I think that that would fall within the scope of the petition. It might be worth clarifying that aspect with NatureScot. Clearly, if NatureScot is doing that off its own bat—if it is doing it at all—that is a different matter. However, if the Scottish Government has instructed it, we should see the details, because that might fall within the scope of the petition.

Thank you.

Amendment 207 is on waste reprocessing infrastructure. I should point out that, for the amendment to take effect, legislation is not required, but it is in the spirit of the Scottish Government’s bill, which introduces legislative requirements on, for example, the circular economy strategy, even though that does not require legislation.

The background is that the Scottish Government commissioned an excellent review of incineration by Dr Colin Church. I would like that to be mirrored across all waste reprocessing infrastructure. The review on incineration was conducted too late, but it identified overcapacity for Scotland. There is an opportunity to widen the scope and to commission an independent expert or somebody else to look at opportunities on which Scotland can capitalise, and then produce a report. For example, there could be anaerobic digestion linked to feedstock mapping. There could be a focus on our island communities such as Orkney, which would be a prime example—the report could identify an opportunity for an AD plant there.

That is an excellent point. Fife has been in the vanguard of rolling out recycling facilities, right back to the start in 2005. There are two parts to the issue. The first concerns the evidence: on the point about soft plastics, we need to know what sort of scale of material is required for such a plant. The second part to the issue is the requirement, once we have that information, for a policy decision to be made. That is where advice needs to be given to local authorities because, on a tonnage basis, local authorities might decide that they do not want to collect soft plastics because they get less per tonne for that waste. However, if there is an ability to recycle that material, the decision perhaps goes beyond the financials.

The Scottish Government or Zero Waste Scotland have a key role to play in guiding local authorities and the market in terms of the Scottish Government’s vision for Scotland in relation to what infrastructure and jobs can be provided. As the member points out, where the decisions are left to local authorities, the situation can be very difficult. I do not know the finances regarding the Fife facility, in particular, but perhaps it would have made a meaningful difference if Clackmannanshire, Stirling and Dundee had also been part of that consortium. That is an example of a situation in which it would be helpful for Government to get involved and provide a signal not just to the market but to local authorities.

I have heard the minister’s comments and I would be delighted to work with her on the issue. Therefore, I seek to withdraw amendment 207.

Amendment 207, by agreement, withdrawn.

Section 18 agreed to.

Section 19—Commencement

Amendment 175 moved—[Maurice Golden].

Yes—definitely. Scotland can send a signal to the market. For example, if the Scottish Government report that is proposed in the amendment said that, due to its analysis, there should be a plastic recycling facility, that would send a signal. I would suggest that we should have such a facility, but it would be down to the experts to focus on that. The report could be on an electric arc furnace or turbine refurbishment. There are a host of opportunities in this space, and the Government guidance could ultimately influence the market. There is clearly a gap.

We know that there is enough plastic in Scotland to work with a plastic recycling facility, but we do not have one, so let us get experts to guide the market in that space.

Definitely. A good example of that is absorbent hygiene products. Is there enough capacity in Scotland for a plant that recycles them back into food-grade plastic? I do not know the answer to that, but that is what I would like the amendment to achieve.

There are policy decisions layered on that. As we have discussed, within the scope of absorbent hygiene products, for example, the Scottish Government might look at that and say that we could have a recycling plant but, from a policy perspective, it would like to have real nappies, so it is not keen to pursue a recycling plant. Alternatively, the ideas could dovetail and work together. Until we have the information, it will be very difficult for the Government to make those policy calls, but it would be an excellent starting point to move up the waste hierarchy and allow investment—whether it be private sector or Government investment—in jobs, ultimately.

If we follow the let-the-market-rip approach, we will not have the job and climate change opportunities here in Scotland and we will end up with unintended consequences.

I move amendment 207.