³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

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.

I mentioned amendment 191 when we debated amendment 183 last week. Members might remember that they are about considering harmful and polluting materials in the determination of targets. I did not hear from the minister—unless I did not take note of it last week—a commitment to work with me on the issue between stages 2 and 3. I am not going to say whether that requires a legislative change at this point. Perhaps I misheard, but I did not hear that commitment last week.

I am also listening for commitments in relation to other amendments that we are debating this morning, because there is clearly value in many of the matters that members are raising for consideration. I do not feel that many of those amendments are supportable at this point, but I would like their spirit to be moved into stage 3 if the minister does not accept everything today.

That is a good point. I would be interested in hearing the minister’s reflection on what the resource requirements would be within Government to monitor and meaningfully engage with those statements. We already have grants going out to organisations, and there is already a process of monitoring and reporting on how grants are being delivered and whether objectives are being delivered. Within those objectives, it would be appropriate to have a circular economy focus. That would deliver benefits to the organisation and public benefits through the funds that are being distributed and are supporting the work of those organisations.

I will turn to other amendments in the group. Bob Doris’s amendment 197 requires large companies to report on their scope 3 climate emissions. I am sympathetic to that and keen to hear what the minister’s view is on the amendment.

Graham Simpson’s amendment 72 would require the Government to develop, by law, an app to provide information on the disposal of household waste. I do not know whether that would be a first—a Government having to deliver an app by law. I am curious to understand why a national app would be required at this point, when many councils already have that information available online, but we will come to Mr Simpson in due course.

Monica Lennon’s amendments 171 to 173 would insert requirements for information on food waste, recycling and textiles to be made publicly available. I am sympathetic to what the amendments are trying to achieve. Again, I will listen carefully to the minister when she comes to address amendments 171 and 173, to see what progress can be made on the intention behind those amendments.

I move amendment 196.

That is fine.

I turn to Jan Robertson and Ewen Cameron. We are now in a phase where there are border checks for goods that are coming into the UK. We have taken evidence from a number of businesses that have supply chains that run not just within the UK but across Europe. I am interested to know how, with your European colleagues, you support the whole supply chain. Is there now a conversation about how the existing border checks have been working? What lessons can be learned on imports? What are the top tips, whether we are talking about drivers or minimising paperwork bureaucracy? How do you work together to ensure that business, wherever it is located in Europe, is able to negotiate and navigate the bureaucracy that Brexit has thrown up?

Are there any other sectors that struggle with that?

David, I will ask you about the big policy drivers towards decarbonisation—in particular, the impact of the carbon border adjustment model and the integration of emissions trading schemes in the UK, EU and Switzerland. Where are there barriers to establishing more efficient carbon markets? What is the likelihood of bigger markets and more integration across Europe? I know that that is a big question.

That is the reality of how that massive sector is developing. What does that mean for individuals such as yourself who are looking to go where the work is? Is that becoming increasingly difficult under Brexit? Is there still flexibility? Can you find a way through the visa requirements so that you could be working in Paris this year but perhaps somewhere else next year?

Which sectors would find £38,700 as a minimum salary problematic?