³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

Do the other panel members have brief comments? I have one more question as well.

But you could have been asked for an opinion on what the view of businesses might be and what the impacts might be.

I am not trying to get you to comment on the merits or otherwise of the decision, but what I am seeing is a process that is very uncodified and I am struggling to see what the role of the OIM is within it. You are, not an arbiter, but a sort of independent body that is able to gather evidence that is useful for ministers when they make decisions within a common framework, but I do not see that your role is codified in the way that, say, the role of the Climate Change Committee is in relation to decisions on climate. I am struggling to see where you should and must fit within that process. It feels that we have had some decisions that have created a huge amount of business uncertainty and are certainly now subject to an enormous amount of criticism in this Parliament and at Westminster. However, we are still struggling to see where you might have fitted within that and where you may fit in the future.

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.

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?