Chamber and committees

It would be useful if the body were brand new and, therefore, independent. I appreciate Mark Ruskell’s point about considering whether this could be a UK-wide function—that might make more sense—but in that case we would also need a UK-wide circular economy strategy.

One alternative could be to make the advisory role a function of the UK CCC, which is an existing body. My reticence about Zero Waste Scotland having the role is that, in essence, the Government would be funding itself to tell itself how it is doing with delivering policy. That would indeed be circular, but it is not the sort of circularity that we want.

Will Mark Ruskell take an intervention?

We have had a really useful discussion. It must be noted that the designated body could be an existing body, as suggested in amendment 141, and I think that there is more to consider in the proposals with regard to consistency in application of funding, policy direction and sector plans. Ultimately, I think that an advisory body would be useful, but, given the comments, I will seek to withdraw amendment 141.

Amendment 141, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendments 187 and 188 not moved.

Section 2 agreed to.

Section 3—Publication and laying of strategy

Amendment 2 not moved.

Amendment 3 moved—[Graham Simpson].

Yes.

Yes, that might be a necessity, and it would be similar to how, say, independent commissioners operate. A good example would be the Scottish Veterans Commissioner; that body is funded, but it is also independent. There is a difference between an organisation such as Zero Waste Scotland, all of whose functions are funded by the Scottish Government, and a specific body or entity that is designed to scrutinise the Government. Does my formulation make sense?

I will, but I want to finish this point about consistency.

Another major change has been the diversion of millions of pounds from supporting local authorities to supporting businesses. I am not commenting on whether that is correct or incorrect, but a lot of the amendments that we are considering are about supporting local authority funding. That move was, at least in part, a result of a change in emphasis that was not scrutinised by the Parliament. The fact is that people might not even know that fairly major changes in policy application were happening, and an advisory body would scrutinise such changes and make them transparent. If a policy intention changes, as is legitimate for the Government to do, we and the people of Scotland deserve to know about it.

I will give way to Mark Ruskell and then Graham Simpson.

No. I was just highlighting an example of something that the Scottish Government funds and which I think most members would agree is independent. The two things can sit alongside each other.

Is it likely that the issue of public education about SLAPPs will be included in the consultation? Can you tell the committee about that?

I am interested in the motivation behind the consultation. Is that a result of this petition or of the Scottish Government’s policy of ensuring continuity with EU law? Can you explain that?

Is the minister concerned about the potential time lag between developments elsewhere and those in Scotland and about how that could expose Scotland to SLAPPs?