Chamber and committees

That is really useful. I do not know whether the other witnesses would like to come in on this. The hands have shot up.

Not all, convener—the detail is important. Did you want to come in, Jeremy?

I have a couple of comments. We could have had more information on the issue, and it feels like the instrument is flying through. I want to refer to comments from two stakeholders that I think are important. The issue that Environmental Standards Scotland raises about indicative timelines for reviews or setting lower limits is really important. We need to ensure that industry and regulators have appropriate notice to plan for the adoption of those lower limits. It is important to monitor the impact of the change and whether we need a lower limit in Scotland.

I also want to put on the record the Chartered Institution of Wastes Management Scotland’s comments that we need a review of the approach to persistent organic pollutants that considers all aspects of risk to human and environmental health so that we do not have any unintended consequences that impact negatively on other important areas. The institution suggests that there is significant cost and environmental burden in the proposed approach and that we need the human health risks that are still to be investigated to be properly addressed and analysed.

I support the principle of a short-life industry working group because, whether or not the instrument goes through, the issue needs to be followed up. We need more action so that there is information and monitoring of what is happening. We should draw on expertise in Scotland but also link up with the rest of the UK so that we have a wider UK group as well.

Regardless of whether the committee supports the instrument, it is important to raise those issues and put them on the record.

I can see arguments on either side. I want to abstain, because I want to go into the issue in a bit more depth.

Jackie McCreery is keen to come in.

It is useful to get that on the record, because the issue of detail is critical, given all the different pieces of legislation that are being referenced. In order for people to be able to negotiate in the future, it needs to be clear what parts of the bill relate to previous legislation and what is new. That has prompted a comment from Jeremy Moody.

I strongly agree with that, convener. For a vast majority of us, the issue is right under the radar and it is important that somebody effectively monitors it.

Part of it is about awareness. You should have the choice to buy a phone that will not just stop working. At present, you cannot replace the battery and you have to get rid of the whole phone, but the cost of a mobile phone is a huge amount of money for a consumer. There is something about awareness and something about pushing on what new technology is being developed. We would now laugh at the phones that we had when this Parliament was set up, because they would look historical. Technology and businesses are shifting, but it is partly about awareness and partly about raising the bar and getting consumers to push companies harder so that they think about what they need to do.

My amendment 194 would provide for carbon-based targets, ensuring that emissions from the whole life cycles of products are reduced. Importantly, the amendment covers the whole life cycle, not just the life cycle and supply chain of a product in Scotland. There are lots of issues here where more could be done.

Amendment 195 would provide for targets to be made in relation to different materials, which takes me back to the point that Douglas Lumsden made. It would enable progress to be tracked on items that we use every day. A number of manufacturers have contacted me to say that they would like their products to last as long as possible and they are prepared to invest. The setting of targets on a product-by-product basis could send a signal to industry. That is the point that Douglas Lumsden made. It could also send a signal to local authorities about their waste recycling, a message to consumers on the Government’s commitment to products being used for longer, and a message to encourage those who are falling behind.

I realise that there are a range of other options in the current group of amendments, but I wanted to get my issues on the agenda and probe what is in the bill. Ben Macpherson’s amendment 124 is similar to what I have proposed. Monica Lennon’s amendment 145 includes food waste. Amendment 146, which we talked about last week, mentions the “do no harm” principle, and Mark Ruskell’s amendment 191 covers the most polluting materials. We have different ways of addressing the issues, but they are all about how we can strengthen the bill at stage 2 to make it as robust and effective as possible.

Maurice Golden’s amendment 4, which seeks to ensure that targets are set that will be known as the “2030 targets”, is critical. If we are going to have the reuse, recycling and reduction of waste, we need to have a better hierarchy in the bill that will inform everybody and promote the progress that we all want to see.

[Inaudible.]

It has been good to listen to the debate, because it has been very practical. I welcome the minister’s offer of a meeting between now and stage 3, because I am keen to get the provision in the bill and to get the wording right. There is a real issue here, and the bill is a major opportunity to make much better use of unsold food products.

Monica Lennon’s points were pragmatic. I welcome the minister’s offer to have a proper discussion, because textile waste is a growing problem. Monica Lennon’s suggestions for how we could support the third sector, particularly schools, so that waste is not created and the products are used are really important. On her points about prohibiting exports, the more that we can do on that, the better, because we are offshoring not only our waste but carbon emissions at the same time.

The points made by Douglas Lumsden in relation to his amendment 88 are important. There needs to be a proper discussion about resources for enforcement authorities. It will not happen just by somebody saying that it is a good idea; we must ensure that we are practical to allow it to happen.

There has been a constructive discussion on this group of amendments. The key point is to ensure that, when we get to the stage 3 discussion, we get cross-party support. The bill needs to be strengthened in those areas, which are really important to the implementation of the ambitions of the circular economy legislation.

I seek to withdraw amendment 104.

Amendment 104, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendments 83 to 85 not moved.

Amendment 86 moved—[Douglas Lumsden].