Seòmar agus comataidhean

Thank you, convener. I thought that the minister might speak first, so I apologise, minister, if this covers some of the things that you might want to say.

Mr Simpson has brought some important points to the debate. Having heard the voice of small business during the stage 1 proceedings, we should consider what impact charges for single-use items would have on small businesses when they are in competition with larger companies—sometimes multinational companies. That could prove to be difficult in that single-use item charges—for example, on coffee cups—would disincentivise people to purchase on the go and would create a logistical challenge for smaller businesses.

That said, I think that the Government is right to want to take that power in a piece of primary legislation. The considerations thereafter would be on deployment and utilisation of the power. I know that the Government, and future Governments, would be careful and cautious about impacts on businesses when utilising the power. Therefore, there is a debate to be had on when and for what that power should be used. As things stand, it is important to take that power in a circular economy bill, but I urge the Government and future Governments to think carefully about putting the cost and emphasis of creating a circular economy on to the individual consumer, rather than on to businesses.

I thank Mr Simpson for lodging the amendments, but I urge him not to move them at this juncture and to have further dialogue with the Government to see whether there is a better position that can consensually be arrived at for stage 3.

Will the minister take an intervention?

Like Bob Doris, Mr Lumsden makes good points. This is exactly why I do not want to press the amendment. Further consideration needs to be given to the wider matters and the bill’s drafting, because a process needs to be undertaken, either during the bill’s passage or, thereafter, when it comes to considering the route map and the question of how funding streams are organised and allocated. In certain situations, third sector partners or other constituted organisations might be best placed to deliver and facilitate accessible infrastructure to realise the circular economy. The point is that further consideration is needed, and I am interested to hear the Government’s response.

I move amendment 128.

I am aware that COSLA and the Scottish Government are reconsidering the digital strategy. Perhaps the points raised within the committee and in what you have just relayed to the committee could be considered as part of the development of the new digital strategy where that might add value, in a co-design spirit, between local authorities and national Government. Even if an app was produced, everyone would need to know about it, and that is another question.

Mr Simpson has brought an interesting idea to the table. Perhaps it could be considered within the different forums of engagement between central Government and local government, including within the digital strategy.

Good morning, colleagues. I will not be moving amendment 124, as it relates to amendments 122 and 123, which I did not move in our previous meeting.

I believe that my amendments 125 and 126 are helpful for completeness in that, in addition to increasing reuse and recycling, they would add the obligations to increase “refurbishment” and “repair”. We heard about those two themes in our stage 1 evidence, and the amendments would help to complete section 6 in relation to what we are trying to achieve together.

I will also be moving amendment 127, because the sectors and systems that will be prioritised in the strategy need to be considered in section 6, too.

Will the minister take an intervention?

Thank you, convener. I refer back to my comments on amendment 128. I erroneously cited Circularity Scotland, but, of course, I meant Zero Waste Scotland. I would be grateful if the record could be corrected.

Amendment 128 is a probing amendment. It is based on evidence that we heard at stage 1 and on the wider considerations of local government on the implementation of legislation and the Verity house agreement.

During the committee’s stage 1 evidence taking, both around this table and on our visits, we heard from stakeholders that appropriate and, especially, accessible infrastructure will be very important to individuals in all the constituencies and regions that we represent in ensuring that they are able to take items for reuse, refurbishment and recycling. In order to raise that issue, and to bring into service what is set out in paragraphs 129, 390 and 421 of the committee’s stage 1 report, I have lodged this probing amendment.

I am interested in hearing the minister’s reflections on the infrastructure issues. As I said in my speech in the stage 1 debate—and as others have emphasised, including at this meeting with regard to other amendments—if the people whom we represent cannot easily get to certain facilities or use the infrastructure to participate in the circular economy, it will not be realised in the way that we all want, if the Parliament passes the bill at stage 3. When we put ourselves in all our constituents’ shoes, we see that local authorities or the third sector need to provide adequate infrastructure to make a circular economy a reality. That is why I have lodged this probing amendment.

I apologise, convener. I had not recalled that I would have the opportunity to wind up.

I thank the convener, my colleagues and the minister for their responses to the issues raised in amendment 128. The collaboration with local authorities, third sector partners and other constituted organisations in the delivery of a more circular economy has been widely recognised around the table.

I want to emphasise the importance of the word “accessible” in amendment 128. I mean accessibility in the widest possible way but particularly in the sense that people should be able to take items for repair, refurbishment or reuse, ideally in their communities and certainly without any requirement to use private transport. That will be a challenge arising from the implementation of the bill, if it is to become an act.

I am glad that, as we move forward, the widest consideration is being given by all of us to providing the necessary infrastructure. I look forward to further consideration of and discussion on the matter, both in the next stage of the legislative process and if and when Parliament passes the bill to become an act. We can then look together at implementing it effectively.

At this juncture, convener, I seek to withdraw amendment 128.

Bob Doris has made some important points. Further consideration will need to be given to the funding streams for infrastructure when it comes to implementing the bill, if and when it becomes an act, and the question is whether that funding will go to local authorities, which will then contract out to the third sector; whether local authorities will provide the facilities themselves; or whether some facilitation will be directly funded by the Scottish Government, as is the case at the moment through some of what Circularity Scotland does.

Because that further consideration is needed, I will not be pressing my amendment. However, if and when the bill is passed, we as a Parliament—and, of course, the Government—will need to think carefully about the concerns that local government has expressed, sometimes understandably, about primary legislation being passed without the necessary consideration of its capacity to deliver any further obligations. It is a two-way process. The Verity house agreement is important in those considerations, as I know that the minister appreciates.