Seòmar agus comataidhean

That is a fair question, and you made some helpful comments. Overall, it is about increasing the use of reusable nappies and reducing reliance on disposable nappies. Later amendments that are not in the current group cover different schemes that could be introduced, but I have modelled this on the North Ayrshire Council example. In Parliament, we are always keen to hear about good practice and the amazing things that are going on in local government, and North Ayrshire Council has been quietly working on this for five years.

The scheme was brought in by a Labour administration and it survived a change in administration—it is a Scottish National Party-led council now. I met the environment convener, and they are very proud of what the council is doing across the political divide, because it is a really practical way to help families. Some people engage with the scheme because they want to be more sustainable, and for others it is about trying to save money. We need such practical schemes that are free of any sort of judgment. People are not going to be policing this and asking others, “Did you use disposables some of the time?”

The purpose of the group of amendments is to set targets, and that is all about being able to monitor and encourage these things and see where we are making progress. I note that the Scottish Government has already agreed to carry out some research on the matter. I am probably stealing the minister’s lines here, but the James Hutton Institute is conducting some research on the barriers that exist.

Maurice Golden is right, and it is great that we have an expert with us who has been working on this for two decades—I did not think that he was quite as old as that. Support used to be in place. My daughter is now almost 18, but I used reusable nappies a long time ago and, although we did not get any support for doing so, I remember reading information about some of the potential health benefits, including not being exposed to some of the chemicals in disposable nappies.

You have said that you want the body to be independent of Government and that you think the funding flow is important. Are we being asked to support something that is fully independent in its remit and funding model, or would you be comfortable with a body that would be set up to be independent, but which would be fully or partly funded by the Scottish Government?

You already answered my question in part when you clarified that the intention is for the new body to be independent and not funded by the Scottish Government, but what do you anticipate will be the funding model? Have you discussed the idea with the UK Climate Change Committee?

I am sorry; I cannot see Graham’s face at this moment. My question was whether Mr Simpson has a preference. I know that he has two amendments and that he is offering us a choice, but does he have a strong preference?

Yes, thank you, convener. I welcome the minister and her officials. The amendments from Sarah Boyack and Maurice Golden are helpful. Having the purpose of a circular economy set out in the bill is helpful and common sense.

There is a lot of similarity in the amendments. It is helpful to see the explicit reference to the reduction of the use of virgin materials in Sarah Boyack’s amendment, but there is common ground between the amendments. I also recognise that the stakeholders have been helpful. I am minded to support amendment 131 in Sarah Boyack’s name, but I hope that further discussion can take place on getting cross-party agreement.

I am sorry but I have got my numbers mixed up—it is amendment 92 that is Sarah Boyack’s amendment. I support Sarah Boyack’s amendment 92; I think that Maurice Golden’s amendment is similar, but some of the language is a bit tighter. I hope that we can see some cross-party agreement on that area today.

Would the member agree to give way?

Thank you for the clarification. I heard what you said about “just transition” having become a bit of a buzzword, but I think that it is important that we keep reminding ourselves and everyone else that the just transition cause has come from workers and trade unionists. When we talk about just transition, it is very much rooted in the experience of workers, and we need a worker-led transition.

Again, I welcome amendment 208. Having heard Bob Doris’s explanation, I am less concerned about the definition of “regions” and “communities”. We can perhaps look at that again after stage 2. However, it strikes me that, if the intention is to advance a just transition, then it is also about that place-based approach. Grangemouth, for example, is obviously important in my parliamentary region but it is also of national importance to Scotland. I do not know whether that helps Bob Doris with his thinking. I hope that we all support what he is trying to do with the amendment.

Graham Simpson is probably right that those who have to do the reports and think about accountability might wonder what we mean by references to regions and different localities of Scotland. However, I think that Bob Doris can overcome those issues.

I am interested to hear whether the minister will put on the record that SEPA already has a lot of waste guidance on its books. My understanding of amendment 190 is that it is about the procedure for review to ensure that SEPA’s guidance remains aligned with the circular economy strategy. That is my interpretation.

Will the minister explain to committee members what she sees as being the mechanism for SEPA to ensure that its guidance, and how it is used, remains up to date, particularly where there is a lot of guidance on the books already? There is a need for a bit of reassurance around capacity and the schedule to ensure that guidance remains fit for purpose and aligned with the circular economy strategy.

I am looking to you for guidance.

Sarah Boyack’s amendments 93, 98 and 99 would align the bill with the just transition principles that I mentioned. Those of us who have studied the process closely will know that that was a key recommendation in the committee’s stage 1 report, and it is important that the just transition runs through all areas of Government policy, strategy and legislation. I recognise that amendment 137, which is supported by the minister, also seeks to achieve that, but I am a little concerned that that amendment might not be strong enough, because it requires the strategy only to

“have regard to the just transition principles”.

Sarah Boyack’s amendments would strengthen that requirement and ensure that the strategy is properly aligned with those principles.

Amendment 137A, from Maurice Golden, seeks to strengthen the minister’s amendment by including a more comprehensive list of items that the strategy must have regard to. However, it does not solve the weakness that is inherent in the choice of the word “regard”.

I support amendments 182, 183 and 186, in the name of Mark Ruskell. Amendment 182 would bring further clarity about how the strategy relates to transition minerals and about how we can improve in that important area.

Although amendments 184 and 136 have the same general aim of ensuring that the waste hierarchy is included in the strategy, amendment 184, in the name of Sarah Boyack, is stronger than amendment 136, which is supported by the minister. I would be interested to hear the minister’s comments on that.

I will get all my questions out now. I have a question about some of the language in Bob Doris’s amendment 209, which I hope that he can explain. The amendment talks about “regions of Scotland”. Although the amendment would make important provisions, I am keen to understand why it refers to regions rather than to council or local authority areas.

To go back to Maurice Golden, amendment 140 would align the strategy with the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009. I support that.

If I understand this correctly, amendment 122, in the name of Ben Macpherson, will fall if we back amendment 140. Because I welcome amendment 122, which is about construction waste, I wonder whether there is a way to bring it back later if it does not make it today. As convener of the cross-party group on construction, I know that the industry is constantly looking for ways to innovate around the circular economy and the climate crisis, so there is a lot of support for the inclusion of such an amendment, and I will be interested to see what happens with amendment 122. I will stop there.

I am grateful to Graham Simpson. I hear that he is inviting us into the fast lane with him, but is he not a little bit concerned that six months might just be a little too much of a challenge? We would want any Government to be able to do this properly. Is six months really reasonable?