Chamber and committees

Obviously, it is difficult for you to manage that public discourse. If it turns into a culture war, it is very difficult for you to get through that. Nonetheless, do you see that there were perhaps key points, such as when the Times letter came out, when there was a need for clarity? Were there key points when Creative Scotland could or should have provided more information, or do you think that you did that but it was perhaps not heard because of an overwhelming culture war on social media around the topic?

Are there lessons for politicians and the media about how issues such as this award are discussed? I am thinking of the facts behind such controversies and the impact that such situations have, particularly on artists and marginalised communities, in a febrile, judgmental environment.

I underline the importance of Zero Waste Scotland. It is a trusted body that is able to look independently at some of the big issues around how we move to a circular economy. It has done some incredible work.

The move to make Zero Waste Scotland a public body and put it firmly and squarely into the public bodies legislation is good. It underlines the organisation’s status. That is hugely important because, going forward, we will need the independent and scientifically robust work that Zero Waste Scotland does. I know that it works closely with industry on that.

Zero Waste Scotland’s role is critical and it is good to see it being underlined in the bill. I put on record my thanks for the leadership of Iain Gulland, who has been phenomenal over the years.

Does the member agree that part of the issue is that some aspects of waste processing have naturally fallen more in the realm of the energy strategy and thinking about how we meet energy needs—that is particularly the case with energy from waste—and less in the circular economy space? Historically, the issue has fallen between the stools of energy and waste, but you seem to be suggesting that it should absolutely be seen as part of waste processing infrastructure.

Thanks, convener. The Bute house agreement provided the Government with a majority to drive through work in a number of areas of climate action, regardless of whether you see those as low-hanging fruit. You mentioned the reforms that are needed to empower householders to improve their homes so that they are low-carbon, cosy, cheap to heat and future proofed. What certainty can we get at this point about the introduction of the heat in buildings bill?

If there were no heat in buildings bill, would that make it incredibly difficult to meet any climate target or five-year budget—or whatever you want to put in place?

I could ask about lots of aspects of the Bute house agreement, but of particular interest to the committee is the proposed natural environment bill, which is critical to tackling the nature emergency. Related to that is the change in ministerial responsibilities. We no longer have a minister with biodiversity as a headline responsibility in their job title.

Can you speak to us about the natural environment bill and where biodiversity sits? It is clearly not one of the four key priorities for the Government, but will you articulate where it now sits within Government, who is responsible for the bill and what priority it has?

Do you think that there is potentially a pathway to meeting net zero before 2045, in terms of the action that is required?

I will comment very briefly, convener. I thank Maurice Golden for acknowledging Lorna Slater’s work in commissioning the review on incineration. That came on the back of a lot of cross-party frustration that, about five or six years ago, the Government did not have a handle on what was coming in terms of incinerators and what the demand was in Scotland, given that they have a role but it is very much at the bottom of the waste hierarchy rather than the top. More planning on infrastructure is needed.

I would be interested to hear the minister’s response to the amendment, because I am sympathetic to legislating for something in that space in the bill. I am not sure whether it should be in the exact form of words that we are considering at stage 2, so I will listen to the minister’s view on that. If it is not, something could be proposed at stage 3 that is perhaps a little bit more elegant and gives a little bit more flexibility for the Government to respond.

The basic point is that we absolutely need to be planning for the future in terms of waste and energy.

You mentioned materials recovery from disposable nappies as being something that could be done in a nationwide facility. Could you reflect on the facility in Fife that was developed to deal with soft plastics—the kind of plastic films that are extremely difficult to recycle and reuse? The facility was developed on the back of a contract with Fife Council, but it perhaps did not receive the scale of material that it would if it were working on a national basis. Perhaps that is another example of a situation in which it might be useful to have a report that looks at the national infrastructure that is required for a problem that all local authorities have, as well providing a more detailed regional consideration of AD and other facilities that councils could collaborate on.