���˿���

For me, this is not about some of us perhaps not understanding the meaning of those terms or what they might be. The fact is that we are putting them into legislation, so it has to be clear what is meant by “human right defenders” or “relevant policy makers”. That is where the questions arise in my head. People might come along in 10 years’ time, pick up the bill and wonder, “Hold on—am I a human rights defender or not?” That is why what goes into the legislation has to be clear. That is the issue that is being raised, not whether people understand what those terms might be.

I agree with the intent. It is just that what we have in the amendment that you have lodged is, I believe, unworkable. I do not see how it can be brought forward. Amendment 189, in the name of Mark Ruskell, also sounds good, and I think that it is workable, so I am happy to support that amendment.

Graham Simpson mentioned the timescale and whether it should be six months, one year or two years. Mr Simpson is right to point out the already arbitrary two-year target, and the aim is to reduce that time period. I have reflected on the proposal for a one-year period, but what I will say is that, if we are serious about this and if we believe that urgent action is needed, we need to look at the timescales and reduce them as much as possible while ensuring that they remain practical.

I am not going to ask where I can buy clothes for myself. I am trying to understand a little bit more about amendment 132 and trying to measure the impact. How could we measure and monitor that? I am really struggling to understand.

Thank you, minister, for taking my intervention.

I often hear about the co-design approach and had thought that it was embedded in the national care service, so I am surprised that the wording of amendment 1 cannot be accepted, although I accept what you said in your latter points on Maurice Golden’s amendment.

Thank you, convener. Amendment 80 is, I think, quite simple; it would just change the reporting period from two and a half years to one year. We often hear talk of the climate emergency and everything else, and, if we are serious about doing this, it is time to, if not turbocharge—I do not want to say that—some of our timelines, then really up the pace. That is why I propose changing the reporting period to 12 months.

I turn to the other amendments in the group. The co-design approach and working with local authorities, which Maurice Golden has mentioned, will be vital for all the work that we are doing, so that is absolutely key. Amendment 190 is about a review by SEPA, which is another key partner, so that is a fairly sensible approach.

Amendment 187, in the name of Bob Doris, sounds good, but, in practice, I think that it would be unworkable. In the lead-up to COP, it was probably a bit easier, because people were getting together anyway. It would be a bit harder to do that when looking at the circular economy strategy.

I want to understand how the consultation would take place. If the consultation were widened too far, could that delay the strategy?

Will the member take an intervention?

Do you not feel that if we leave the report too long—for two and a half years, say—we might be seriously off track by the time that reporting is carried out, and we will have less time to adjust? If we were to report after a year, we could see how far we are from the targets, then make changes to put us back on track.

If construction waste is not going to be in the bill, I am trying to think where else it could be mentioned. Could the construction industry have its own waste strategy? If it is not in the bill, how might it be handled?

I apologise to the construction industry if I sound like I am demonising it. My question to Ben Macpherson was about where a list would be if it were not in the bill. There could be a strategy on best practice that the industry feeds into—perhaps that would be the best way forward.

I also want to speak about Clare Adamson’s amendment 211, which addresses real safety concerns. We agree that we should be reusing electrical tools and so on as much as possible, but we need to do it in a careful and considered way. Clare Adamson also mentioned lithium batteries for household goods, which are a big concern, especially when they end up in a recycling centre—Jackie Dunbar knows all too well the fire risk in that regard. The issue is wider than lithium batteries for household goods, because we are seeing more batteries for energy storage. That will be a problem, so Clare Adamson’s amendment 211 is very good.

On Bob Doris’s amendments 208 and 209, it is right that we consider the impact of the plans. We need to ensure that there are no unintended consequences on areas such as agriculture.

I completely agree with the intention of Sarah Boyack’s amendment 212, but I have concerns in relation to the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020. I am sure that we will have lots of discussions about the issue in the weeks ahead. Some suppliers are already doing great work on take-back, and I am concerned that the amendment might undermine some of that, although I could be wrong.

I agree with the minister about the issue of extraterritorial—not extraterrestrial—principles that Monica Lennon’s amendment 132 deals with. Once again, I agree with the intention of the amendment but, to make the bill meaningful, we have to ensure that its provisions can be monitored and measured correctly. That might be difficult in relation to that amendment, but I acknowledge that Monica Lennon will take the issue away and consider it further. I will support her in the future if she can put my fears to rest on that issue.