���˿���

The member says that we do not need a circular economy strategy bill in order to get on with a circular economy strategy, but does he accept that the Parliament is moulding in statute what a circular economy strategy should look like—how it should be monitored and reported on—and that the bill structures such a strategy according to the will of the Parliament rather than the will of the Government? Putting it on a statutory footing empowers the Parliament. Does Mr Golden support putting the strategy on a statutory footing?

I thank the deputy convener for giving way. Ben Macpherson is right to identify the demands that there will be on construction and how it manages waste, as well as all the evidence that we took during our stage 1 evidence sessions. For balance, does Ben Macpherson agree that construction is also a key contributor to net zero? With better construction and energy standards, and better quality new-build homes in this country—not just in terms of where we stay, but in office buildings—and in retrofitting, construction is a key sector for managing us towards net zero and tackling our climate challenges. It is a key partner.

I meant to say this at the start of the session. There are huge time constraints on us and, lots of times, members will withdraw or not press amendments on the basis that we will engage with the minister ahead of stage 3. However, rather than members saying that every single time, it can be inferred that that is a set process for many amendments during the passage of the bill. I get it that amendments are in the gift of the Presiding Officer at stage 3, but I want to put that on the record.

I thank Mr Lumsden for his tone and his constructive demeanour in raising concerns. There is an underlying policy intent here, which, as Mr Ruskell has said, might not have to be captured in the bill. Do you agree, Mr Lumsden, with the underlying intent to make sure, however we define it, without going down that road, that we engage meaningfully with the global south?

I thank Mr Simpson for the intervention, which I hope is intended to be a helpful one that seeks clarity on what is in the bill rather than one that seeks to go against its policy aims.

When I say “regions”, I suppose that I mean geographical areas. I am not certain that more clarity is needed, but Mr Simpson makes the point that perhaps it might be, and that is something that I could reflect on.

We had a similar debate on communities before. Do we mean communities as in smaller geographical areas, or do we mean communities of interest? I am not convinced that there is a need for more clarity, Mr Simpson, but I can see how an argument could be made that perhaps more clarity might be desirable.

That takes us—

I can offer significant reassurances on that with an example from the Glasgow climate dialogues that were held during the 26th United Nations climate change conference of the parties—COP26. At that, the Scottish Government and Glasgow City Council deliberately platformed the global south when looking at the challenges that we had in relation to climate, as a way of embedding our work with our key partners in the global south into our everyday actions in relation to net zero and the climate challenge.

Not specifying the detail in the bill would give the Scottish Government significant flexibility to ensure that it could embed the consultation in a way that was not overly burdensome or time consuming.

I do not have much more to say about the amendment, convener.

I am hoping that at this point we can stay away from turbo-boosting and fast lanes, and even titans, as Mr Simpson said earlier. There is a policy intent in amendment 187 and I absolutely acknowledge, having used the specific words that SCIAF was keen to see in the bill in this probing amendment, that there is a need for much more clarity.

However, I think that Mr Simpson is long in the tooth enough in this place to know what the underlying policy intent is. The nations and regions in the global south—however we define it, Mr Simpson—are the true experts on much of this stuff, because they are experiencing the direct impacts of many of the climate challenges that we have today and the bill has to take that into account in order for there to be a truly circular economy strategy.

Will Mr Simpson confirm that, despite the need for clarity and a bit more carefulness in relation to definitions, the underlying policy intent is positive? I am not clear whether Mr Simpson’s issue is with the clarity or the policy intent. Perhaps it is both.

I am consistent if nothing else, minister. When I was on the committee previously, I was keen to see randomised ballot papers at council elections because of the clear alphabet bias, from A to Z, in voting and preferential voting.

Previously, the minister’s view was that it was too complex, that the risks outweighed the benefits and that it was not that clear. I understand that the committee has started to hear evidence that some of those barriers might be less of an issue now, and that the concerns of some groups are being assuaged somewhat. What is the minister’s current thinking on that?

Would it require primary legislation to run a pilot? There is a section in the bill on electoral pilots, so would the bill give the Government the power to carry out a pilot on randomised ballots at a later date?

Come and visit, minister.