Seòmar agus comataidhean

Does Edward Mountain agree that the overarching point that we heard in evidence, particularly at stage 1 of the bill, was that if we can improve the quality of the recyclate and bring in investment, that will benefit the circular economy and the reuse of materials? Rather than focusing on the colour of bins or the colour of bin lids, depending on what happens with the amendments, we need collectively to improve understanding in communities across Scotland about what is recyclable and improve the recyclate in order to bring in investment and change.

At stage 2, we agreed my amendment that prioritised adding key sectors and systems identified in the development of the circular economy strategy to a list of examples of provision that may be made in regulations for circular economy targets. My amendment 66, which we discussed earlier this afternoon in group 2—I am grateful to members for supporting it—sets out criteria for identifying those priority sectors for the strategy, as colleagues will recall. Amendment 68 is a consequential amendment that makes it clear that the same criteria apply to identifying the sectors and systems in the targets regulations as apply to identifying them for the purpose of the circular economy strategy.

For clarity and completeness, I ask members to support amendment 68.

During the stage 1 process, the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee heard significant evidence about particular sectors of our economy and waste-producing aspects of our society that will need to be considered and which need to change in order for a more circular economy to be realised, as well as individuals and communities taking action.

At stage 2, I raised the issue of including in the bill priority sectors—specifically, construction, food waste and household waste. As other members have noted, construction accounts for around half of Scotland’s waste, so it is an important sector for us to focus on. I am grateful for the collaboration with the Built Environment Forum Scotland, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors and the Chartered Institute of Building in Scotland in considering those issues.

However, having listened carefully to the feedback from the minister at stage 2, I appreciate the Scottish Government’s argument that highlighting specific sectors in the bill might limit future flexibility. I have also been assured that, in developing and delivering its strategy, the Scottish Government is committed to making sure that those key sectors are addressed. Therefore, I do not think that Maurice Golden’s amendment 98 is appropriate, in the same way that my amendment at stage 2 was not appropriate—there needs to be flexibility in the strategy to address all the main sectors.

I am also concerned that the sectors that are named in amendment 98 are not defined, as I sought to define them or to reference other legislation in my amendment at stage 2. The lack of definitions could create difficulties.

I am grateful to the minister for engaging constructively on those points and on the issue of the major sectors at stage 2 and since, and for working with me to put forward an alternative approach, in amendment 66, of setting out criteria that should be used when identifying priority sectors and systems for the circular economy strategy. Amendment 66 introduces such criteria. In particular, it links priority sectors to climate change targets, to the

“life-cycle carbon emissions of goods, products and materials,”

to maximisation of

“the value of the circular economy”

and to

“wider environmental impact”.

That also takes into account some of the issues raised by Mark Ruskell at stage 2.

Amendment 66 would strengthen and future-proof the strategy in its development and delivery, and I urge members to support it.

I fully appreciate that the Scottish Government’s capital budget has been cut by around 9 per cent, and I note that, this financial year, the Scottish Government has allocated around £600 million of its resources to increasing the provision of affordable housing, but will the minister provide an update on what specific actions the Scottish Government is engaged in to address Edinburgh’s very serious housing emergency, especially given the acute impact that significant population growth is having on the availability of social housing in my constituency and the demand that exists for what is available across the city?

I agree with everything that Mr Greer has said. Would he like me to help to organise a visit to the fairly new film studio in Leith to see more of those excellent achievements?

Pam Duncan-Glancy has articulated some of the problems that we collectively face as a society, but I just do not understand how the £18 billion-worth of public sector cuts that are being proposed by her party are going to help in any of those areas in any way.

In this 25th year of devolution, there is an opportunity to reflect together on what has been achieved and to consider what we must do to meet the challenges of the 21st century and achieve what we want to in the next 25, 50 or 75 years.

Context matters. Our collective challenges are complex and our problems are difficult. In communities such as the one that I have the privilege of representing, many of those challenges lead back to things that happened in the 1980s.

The first years of devolution, when I was a lad, were a time of plenty, and perhaps more could have been done. Let us not forget that the Labour Party of that time was also guilty of spending money on things that should not have been priorities, such as the £9 billion that was spent on an illegal war in Iraq.

In 2007, things changed in a number of ways. The SNP came to power for the first time, and the financial crisis happened. That should be remembered, because, since that crash happened, there have been self-inflicted harms caused by Westminster Governments: austerity, Brexit and the Liz Truss Government, particularly its budget. External factors, such as the Covid pandemic and the war in Ukraine, have also had an impact. Since the 2010 Government of David Cameron, significant mistakes have caused extreme difficulty and have made Britain, as the Resolution Foundation has said, a poorer country with a very few rich people in it.

[Made a request to intervene.]

To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body whether it would consider increasing the £500 annual training budget that is allocated to MSP offices for staff training. (S6O-03586)

It is right that the Scottish taxpayer benefits from the amount that is allocated for public spending in Scotland because of how much our wonderful country contributes and how strong our economy is.

What is a tragedy is that public spending in England is not what it should be because of bad choices by Conservative Governments. There is more to do, and in the months ahead I look forward to hearing what more the Scottish Government will seek to deliver for the people whom we represent. The £0.4 billion real-terms reduction in our budget this year is making that more challenging, as well as the fact that, under either Prime Minister who is on offer in the coming election, it is projected that there will be between £18 billion and £20 billion in cuts to public investment. I cannot believe that the Labour Party is proposing that it will bring about change when it is going to inflict on us billions of pounds-worth of public sector cuts. That sounds as though it is short change to me.

It is clear to me, having looked through its manifesto, that the Labour Party is not interested in offering any more powers to the Scottish Parliament. Anyone who wants the Parliament to continue to evolve and to become even more capable of delivering for the people of Scotland should know that the Labour Party is not offering any more powers.