Chamber and committees

You are bringing back fond memories of hanging up real nappies on the washing line over the summer.

You talked about local authorities taking the lead. About 10 or 12 years ago, there were some pilots—I remember Stirling Council being involved—in which disposable nappies were collected separately and they went through a materials recovery process, particularly for the plastics. In your discussions with the Government, have you reflected on that route? Clearly, it is not at the top of the waste hierarchy, but it is certainly a way of recovering materials and reducing the impact of disposables. I am just not sure to what extent that is still a thing.

Minister, you mentioned the code of practice that is being developed for local authorities. Will that specifically cover the ambition with regard to reuse, refurbishment and repair?

If agreed to, amendment 196 would insert new requirements for those in receipt of public funds to review their activity in relation to the circular economy and to report annually on their actions to move further up the waste hierarchy. The intention is not to penalise businesses, organisations or public bodies—groups receiving funding; it is about providing a real focus on the circular economy and a real attention to detail across the economy, to ensure that we end up with an economy that is much more resource efficient in how it operates.

The reporting requirement is not meant to be onerous. It requires that those in receipt of public funding must provide a statement on the extent to which their current operations impact on the waste hierarchy, and the report must also include a statement on the steps taken over the course of the funding period to improve that. It is an important mechanism for extending the awareness of the circular economy across sectors. In many ways, it is what we have done with climate reporting.

I am keen to work with the Government to get drafting that is workable in practice, so I will be interested in hearing the views of the minister when we come to her contribution.

Yes. It will give me a chance to drink some water and clear my throat.

Both amendments in this group are unnecessary. We have an internal market act in place; it puts restrictions on devolved Administrations and requires detailed conversations to be had through common frameworks. Those things exist. However, what the amendments do not do is compel the secretary of state or other UK ministers to consult Scottish ministers or compel the secretary of state to come up with a view on an internal market act exemption by a certain date. All of the power lies with the secretary of state, first, to decide whether to engage in a meaningful conversation and, secondly, to reflect on that and issue an internal market act exemption at a time of their choosing—or not, as the case might be.

The common frameworks have been working, up to a point. I am aware of early engagement between Ms Slater and the UK Government on single-use plastics; agreement was struck, and a way forward on those regulations was found on a four-nations basis. However, members will be aware that, when it came to the bottle and can deposit return scheme, no way forward was found. In fact, the Scottish Government had to wait an inordinate amount of time to finally get an exemption—an exemption that actually made the roll-out of a deposit return scheme impossible in Scotland—and that was despite the fact that there was good early four-nations engagement on the DRS and an agreement through the common framework process, allowing both Wales and Scotland to introduce their own schemes, which included glass.

However, we are where we are: the power lies with the UK Government. The internal market act is its act, post Brexit; it is not an act that this Parliament voted for. Indeed, it is not an act that the people of Scotland voted for, because we did not even vote for Brexit. However, as I have said, we are where we are with the act.

Briefly, I want to pay tribute to the convener, who on multiple occasions has tried to understand from the Secretary of State for Scotland the reasons for the internal market act exemption that was gifted to the Scottish Government but which has effectively meant that Scotland’s DRS cannot go ahead. He has tried and, unfortunately, failed to do that, and if the convener cannot secure information and understanding from the UK Government about the failure to grant a proper exemption for DRS, I struggle to understand how the Scottish Government itself can get that information. Simply wishing that that were so in this bill fails to realise the power dynamic here and the fact that the IMA places all those powers on the Secretary of State for Scotland.

It is only through better dialogue between the devolved Administrations and the secretary of state that we can get proper agreements on these things, but right now, the picture is very mixed. Indeed, it has not happened at all with the DRS. The reasons for that remain unfathomable, and the committee has been unable to scrutinise the issue in any meaningful way.

I am interested in many of the comments that have been made about climate change and the need for action, particularly with regard to regulations and on a number of issues that have been raised in both this group and the previous one. Can the minister, who will presumably be in charge of the next climate change plan, confirm that that plan will contain specific costed policies with deadlines for introduction that relate to the circular economy and which might also relate to the kind of regulations that we have been discussing in our consideration of the bill? Is this really where we are going to see the commitment to action that I think many members are trying to insert into the bill ahead of schemes being developed, worked up and agreed on with stakeholders?

I thank the minister for giving way. It was useful to hear about the European Union directives and the continued work on that agenda in Europe. Will the minister outline what the Scottish Government’s on-going commitment is to that work and whether she is aware of more work that will be happening in the European Union in the years to come that we could adopt in this country to maintain our alignment and the hugely important European Union standards and values?

I will not press amendment 196. I have listened carefully to the views of members and the minister. Particularly in these straitened times with public finance, we need to make public grant money work a lot harder. We need to see increasing conditionality put on public grants to ensure that the objectives that are set by the Government are actually being delivered. There are so many important objectives around the circular economy. I want to see public money working harder for the public and taxpayers.

I take on board the points about where to draw the line in terms of proportionality—do we apply the requirements on reporting to the smallest of small businesses? There is a question in that regard. However, those organisations and businesses that are very resource intensive will probably already have an approach to the circular economy and resource efficiency and they should be reporting and providing a statement on how they will make further progress.

I am intrigued by the minister’s comments about how we can work with existing grant programmes to take a more focused approach to delivering that objective and I look forward to discussions between stages 2 and 3 on whether that requires a note in the legislation.

On Bob Doris’s amendment, there is interesting interplay between some of the EU reporting requirements, the discussions that are happening at UK level and the need for us and the Scottish Parliament to maintain that dynamic alignment with the European Union. I am not sure what Bob is going to do at this point, but I will certainly reserve my position until I have heard how the discussions go between stages 2 and 3.

Graham Simpson has sparked quite an interesting debate about national apps, the idea that maybe one size does not fit all and live-time reflections on his amendment, and that was useful. Where I sit on that now is that I recognise that, when it comes to waste, the key relationship between households and communities is the relationship with the council, because that is where most people go to get their information and find out how they can recycle and dispose of waste responsibly. That is where they find out what time the bins need to be put out and where they go to source other information.

However, there are some grey areas, and where SEPA—rather than local authorities—steps in on pollution incidents is one of those. Having greater clarity about that would be useful. At the moment, if you go to the national website for SEPA, you will find some guidance on when to report an incident but that perhaps overlaps the responsibility of local authorities. That goes back to the need for a code of practice, which we have mentioned several times this morning. If the code of practice can incorporate some of those communication issues, I am sure that there would be welcome reflections on that from COSLA and its members.

Finally, on Monica Lennon’s amendments, again I feel that more conversation can be had between stages 2 and 3. I acknowledge the points that the minister made about section 17—perhaps the amendments are not needed. Again, I will reserve my position and I look forward to hearing how those conversations progress between stages 2 and 3 but I will not support the amendments today.

Amendment 196, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendment 197 not moved.

Section 8—Restrictions on the disposal of unsold consumer goods

Will Mr Simpson give way?

I am just wondering whether Mr Simpson feels that the principle should apply to the UK Government as well, especially given that it has the majority of powers in relation to import of materials, which could have an impact on the circularity of the UK economy. I stress that we live in a single economy within the UK.