���˿���

I, too, want to explore short-term assistance. I listened carefully to the cabinet secretary’s exchange with Paul O’Kane. The committee would welcome a note of all the areas for which short-term assistance is a passporting benefit in relation to UK reserved benefits. In that way we might understand the extent of what we might call the exposure from the DWP taking a different view of STA as a passporting benefit, as opposed to claiming back retrospectively once a benefit has been reinstated.

One example is the suite of carers benefits that exists as a passporting benefit. My understanding is that, by autumn this year, that will be wholly delivered by Social Security Scotland. In a Scotland-specific system of passporting benefits, if someone got short-term assistance in relation to pension age disability payment, would their carers payments be passported at Scottish level, or would they have to apply to Social Security Scotland to have them backdated to the point where that would otherwise have been available? Passporting is increasingly happening not just at a UK level but at a Scotland level, too.

I was not suggesting that, if £700 million became available, that is how we would spend it. That will simply not happen. I was making the point that, if a small amount of money was to become available, there are lots of ways in which the Government could use it to support frail older people to get mobile and live an active life. There are other demands on the money that could meet the needs that the mobility component is supposed to be trying to meet. Will the cabinet secretary think in an innovative way about how we could do some of that?

That would be really helpful. The committee cannot start to call for things if we do not realise the granular detail of what it means in practice. At some point in the future, we might believe that the status of short-term assistance should change to being a stand-alone passporting benefit for a short period—I do not know. However, unless we can map out what that looks like, the committee cannot make an informed decision. I think that such a note would be welcome.

My only other question is on the lessons learned from the roll-out of other benefits, which you have touched on. Do you want to add anything on that—in particular, on the capacity to process applications or to respond to clients within a reasonable time? I know that you have mentioned that, but this is an opportunity to put more detail on the record and give the committee reassurance.

That is very helpful. The member is quite right that Glasgow has to do significantly better in relation to recycling. Would he acknowledge that in the past year or so there was significant investment from the Scottish Government to overhaul a lot of the infrastructure in Glasgow and that pilots are on-going? Time will tell whether that dramatically improves the rates, which we need to see happen. However, it is only fair, when Glasgow is rightly being criticised for not having done enough, that we acknowledge that we are going through a rapid transition at the moment and investing in infrastructure.

Will the member give way?

I have been listening intently to what Mr Lumsden said. He said that the intent of the amendment is to comply with the devolution settlement. It is worth noting that the internal market act was not part of the devolution settlement—it is reasonable to put that on the record. Given that we are talking about being in a reflective mood, and that Mr Simpson has been reflective in real time in committee today, I wonder whether Mr Lumsden might reflect that amendment 87 is not actually required.

Yes, and I will be very brief, convener.

As Mr Ruskell has said, common frameworks exist, and they work to a greater or lesser extent, depending, sometimes, on the political context. However, it is reasonable to say that, with good will on both sides—that is, the Scottish and UK Governments—and with common sense, we could get there, even though I would rather that there was no internal market act. I am not sure that either amendment lends itself to promoting the better use of the common frameworks, or, indeed, to good will or common sense, and quite frankly, they might not be required. That is my view.

I also point out that, in evidence, the third sector told us that—and I will go back and check whether the quote is accurate—the internal market act could have a chilling effect on environmental endeavours towards net zero and climate action. Indeed, some in the sector have called for a more general exemption in relation to those environmental endeavours.

My final comment is relevant to the comments that we have heard so far from members in this debate and to the amendments at hand. The committee heard that there had been no engagement in relation to the common frameworks, but we were of the view—a majority view, anyway—that, because this was a framework bill, it would be at the point of co-production and putting together the details of what would come later that the common frameworks would kick in and that such engagement was not really appropriate at the earlier stage. I think that that was lost a little bit in the earlier exchange.

I appreciate the offer to work constructively ahead of stage 3. Reading my amendment, I see that it imposes a direct requirement on Government—it says “must”, not “may”. However, the point is that perhaps there needs to be a bit of future-proofing of this legislation, because we cannot predict what the outcome of that pan-UK agreement will be. I am keen to monitor the impact on companies in Scotland that are operating at the EU level when that EU directive goes live, so I am keen to meet to talk a little more about that ahead of stage 3.

I will listen carefully to the case that colleagues make for their amendments but will restrict myself to speaking to amendment 197, which would introduce provisions for scope 3 emissions reporting for large companies. I emphasise that I see it as a probing amendment. I am cognisant of two factors in that regard. There may be more, but I am cognisant of two in particular: first, the potential burdens on business, and, secondly, the UK reporting landscape on emissions.

Company emissions can be classified into scope 1, which is direct emissions from an owned or controlled source; scope 2, which is indirect emissions from the generation of purchased energy; or scope 3, which is all indirect emissions that are not included in scope 2 that occur within the reporting company ’s value chain.

Some of the largest companies that operate in the UK are already required to report their scope 1 and scope 2 emissions under the Government’s streamlined energy and carbon reporting framework. The greenhouse gas protocol is an internationally recognised standard for reporting scope 3 emissions. I point out that the protocol gives detailed guidance on how compliance can be achieved, but it admits that it is a complex area.

From June 2024, large companies operating in the European Union will be required to obtain, monitor and report their scope 3 emissions under the EU corporate sustainability due diligence directive. That was referred to during an earlier grouping of amendments. I note that that EU directive has a proportionality clause, which stresses:

“The burden on companies stemming from compliance costs, has been adapted to the size, resources available, and the risk profile.”

It goes on to talk about commensurate measures, so the feeling is that that is a balanced directive.

Amendment 197 would create a provision in the Circular Economy (Scotland) Bill for mandatory scope 3 emissions reporting for large companies that operate in Scotland. That would be a meaningful step towards businesses beginning to take responsibility for the environmental impacts in their supply chains and would allow Scotland to keep pace with EU policy, as the minister and Mr Ruskell mentioned.

Our stage 1 report stated:

“The Committee believes there are a number of other characteristics desirable in a circular economy and recommends the Scottish Government consider the proposals made by stakeholders to include reference to international impact and environmental impact.”

Amendment 197 is an attempt to address that recommendation.

I acknowledge that, in 2023, the UK Government issued a call for evidence on the benefits, costs and practices of scope 3 emissions reporting. Those findings will be of significant value when drafting future regulations under my amendment if it is approved. The minister also referred to the Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill, which is going through the UK Parliament, and I acknowledge that there could be crossover with that.

Given all of that, I acknowledge that there could be a pan-UK approach to scope 3 reporting. However, the clear direction of travel is towards proportionate scope 3 reporting that is not unduly burdensome to business. In a few months’ time, businesses that operate in Scotland but also operate within the EU will have to comply with the EU obligations on that anyway. As we progress the matter in a Scottish context, the Circular Economy (Scotland) Bill could be a way to secure such reporting.

I will listen with interest to the minister’s views when she responds to the comments that I have made.

In this small group of amendments, the committee is working constructively with the Government on some of the concerns in our stage 1 report. Transformative state change is needed to move from a linear to a circular economy, and statutory targets will provide a strong focus for action, certainty and direction of travel across policy. The amendments would provide, as the committee recommended, that initial targets under section 6 of the bill should be subject to an enhanced form of parliamentary scrutiny.

The pre-laying or super-affirmative procedure that is outlined in amendment 150 is in line with section 9(8) of the bill on charges for single-use items, providing a consistency of approach and creating the opportunity for greater scrutiny by Parliament. It requires that the Scottish ministers must lay draft regulations before the Scottish Parliament at least 90 days ahead of going through the usual affirmative procedure. During the 90-day period, the Parliament will be able to scrutinise the regulations in the manner that it deems appropriate, and ministers must take account of any representations, resolutions or reports made by the Parliament ahead of laying the final regulations for approval.

I understand that that is consistent with how super-affirmative procedures have been used before. I encourage members to lock in that enhancement to scrutiny.

If members want to reflect on anything else ahead of stage 3, they can of course do that. I take on board the fact that Mr Lumsden is seeking clarity, but that would be best coming from the minister rather than from me. I urge the committee to support amendments 147 and 150.