���˿���

Thank you, convener. My question is on a similar topic and it has been asked a few times in different ways. It is important to emphasise that we have heard a lot of support for the Circular Economy (Scotland) Bill in principle, but we have also heard from many stakeholders, including Circular Communities Scotland, that the bill lacks focus on sharing, reuse, repair and remanufacture, and we have been given examples of other countries and regions, including Austria and Flanders, that are able to give clear targets where reuse is being mainstreamed. I understand why the minister wants to get the bill right, but there is also a lot of frustration that we cannot get clear answers on the targets that everyone should be aiming for.

The minister might not want to put a national reuse target into the bill, but you must have some idea of what ideal targets would look like. Have you given a lot of thought to reuse targets? What discussions have taken place? If the targets are not in the bill, how could they be manifested? How can the Parliament scrutinise that?

As the Verity house agreement was mentioned, I will make a brief point in relation to that. Many of us are nervous about saying, “Let’s put a duty on councils,” because councils feel under so much pressure. However, where there is co-production and good discussion, councils are often the right place to take things forward.

Just this morning, we saw in the media—I think that she has written directly to the committee as well—that Councillor Gail Macgregor, who is the COSLA economy and environment spokesperson, has raised serious concerns. She says that the approach is

“not in tune with co-production, or the Verity House Agreement”

and that the Scottish Government has been asked to remove from the bill reference to penalties that councils would incur. At this stage in the bill process, that is quite worrying. What is the Government going to do to put that right?

Okay. On reuse, I am thinking about the baseline as it is now. We know that there is too much consumption and waste, and that we are very much a throwaway society. We do not reuse materials and goods that we have. What does good look like in terms of reuse?

I think that the committee and the public want to get an idea soon of what we are aiming towards, so that we know that the legislation will be fit for purpose and will meet its aims. However, I will leave the issue of targets for now.

It would be good to get a bit more of the flavour of some of the carrots and sticks that will be used to encourage people and organisations to reuse.

You and I met in June to discuss the particular challenge of nappy waste and single-use nappies. We know that hundreds of thousands of single-use nappies end up in landfill every day. Some local councils have really good schemes. North Ayrshire Council is the example that I left the minister with. The real nappy initiative is free for citizens to use and I believe that there is now a waiting list. It is good to hear that there is demand for that. What investigation has taken place? I know that you were going to discuss the issue with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities.

Can we expect such schemes to be supported and mainstreamed? People want to do the right thing, but they need a little support and guidance. There is good practice in small pockets of the country but it is not being mainstreamed. What can the bill, your strategy or your route map do about that?

I am conscious of the time, convener, and I know that you want me to wrap up.

I heard what the minister said about other examples. I am sure that COSLA colleagues will be listening. Does the Government believe that it is important to have the power to fine councils in the bill? I think that Janet McVea wants to come in, but I will go back to the minister first.

Sorry to interrupt, but did you say that the bill says that the Government must “have regard to” that?

That is helpful.

From your explanation, minister, I understand why you are being cautious. However, given what we have heard in the evidence that we have taken, are you considering any amendments to address any of the points that have been made?

The 2020 Scottish environment strategy vision included a commitment to

“gather evidence on the nature of Scotland’s international environmental impact.”

We had an evidence session last week that covered some of that. We have heard from stakeholders who have highlighted the global impact of Scottish consumption on the environment and human rights. There have been suggestions that the bill could be used to increase our understanding of our impacts beyond consumption emissions.

What is your response to that, minister?

I assume that you have already looked at international good practice.

Thank you for that—that is helpful.

Our session last week, which included our hearing the perspective from Wales, was interesting. We also heard from the Scottish Catholic International Aid Fund. I want to raise with you some of SCIAF’s suggestions for amending the bill: they might not be things that you want to put in the bill, but I am keen to get your views on three recommendations that it makes.

The first suggestion is that we amend the consultation on strategy to include a mandatory requirement to include international stakeholders. The second is that we amend the circular economy strategy to gather evidence of the environmental and human rights implications of our consumption—the data point that Janet McVea touched on. The third is that we amend the strategy to add an objective for ensuring, in the Scottish context, the highest-possible standards for human rights, due diligence, environmental protection, supply chains and public procurement. I might come back to procurement. Would those amendments be helpful? Are you open minded on consideration not just of SCIAF’s suggestions, but of other suggestions of that nature?