The next item of business is a debate on motion 1-5-5-2, in the name of Lorna Slater, on circular economy Scotland Bill at stage 1. I would invite those members who would wish to speak in the debate to please press the request-to-speak buttons and I call on Lorna Slater to speak to and to move the motion up to nine minutes, please minister. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I am delighted to open the debate on the circular economy Scotland Bill. I thank the Net Zero Energy and Transport Committee for its stage 1 report and the Finance and Public Administration and Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committees for their consideration of the bill. I was encouraged to hear so many stakeholders speak to the benefits of a circular economy when they gave evidence. Some rightly pointed out the challenges and areas where more can still be done and this bill, together with the range of other activity under way, will give us the tools that we need to do just that. I am grateful to the NSET committee's support for the general principles of the bill. It made a number of detailed recommendations to which I have responded at length. I will touch on some of those in my speech today, along with the bill's principles and the positive changes that it will bring if it is passed by this Parliament. How we view and treat our resources in Scotland is fundamental to tackling climate change and biodiversity loss. We must deliver a fundamental shift across society to reduce the demand for raw materials, encourage reuse, repairs and recycling, maximise the value of any unavoidable waste that is generated. This will require action here and throughout the UK to achieve. The circular economy bill will help this happen here in Scotland. The new powers in the bill will give ministers and local authorities the tools they need to help drive this transition. It will be underpinned by support and investment, such as the £70 million recycling improvement fund that builds on more than a billion pounds of funding provided through the former strategic waste fund between 2008 and 2022. At the heart of the bill is the recognition that co-design, based on the principles of the Verity House agreement and the new deal for business, will be central in delivering this transformation. Regulations that are made under the enabling powers in the bill will be subject to further consultation, parliamentary scrutiny and impact assessments. I note that the Delegated Powers Committee has reported that it is content in principle with the powers and the proposed procedures. I am happy to accept its recommendation regarding consultation on local authority guidance. As a result of the measures, when will the 2013 household waste recycling target be met? The member rightly brings attention to some of the challenges that we face with meeting historical targets in this area, which is exactly why this bill needs to be brought forward so that we can set a new course. That means setting targets, as empowered by this bill, as well as taking the constructive actions that we need to meet those targets. Legislation is, of course, only part of the solution, and a wide range of other measures is in train. Alongside the bill, we have published our draft circular economy and waste route map, which will provide strategic direction to deliver our system-wide vision for Scotland's circular economy to 2030. The consultation has recently closed, and the final route map will be published later this year. We are also introducing extended producer responsibility for packaging alongside other United Kingdom Governments, which will require producers to pay local authorities the full net cost of operating an efficient and effective household packaging collection service. That will provide substantial funding of an estimated £1.2 billion per annum to local authorities across the UK. The main provisions of the bill include publishing a circular economy strategy, developing circular economy targets, measures to tackle flytipping and littering, ensuring individual householders and businesses get rid of waste in the right way, improving consistency of household recycling, and improving waste monitoring. We must make a circular option the easy option for households, businesses and the public sector, so everyone in the country experiences a modern, easy-to-use waste service that helps people to do the right thing for the planet. Measures in the bill will support the design and delivery of more consistent local services that maximise recycling performance, supporting and incentivising positive behaviours. I am grateful to the minister for giving me. Does the minister accept the concerns of the finance committee in terms of looking at where the funding is going to come from? Does she accept that local authorities are already under immense financial pressure? If that just adds to that, then without the funding we are not going to go far. I am grateful to the member for raising this point, because it is a very good one. I have committed to co-design with local authorities on how we move forward with implementing a more standardised service. That, of course, will require some investment funding. There will be the funding coming from the extended producer responsibility for packaging that I have just mentioned, under which local authorities will be funded to deliver and operate effective and efficient recycling of packaging. Of course, there will be some capital funding required as well, which follows on from the strategic waste fund and the recycling improvement fund that we already have. One of the elements of the co-design that I have committed to with COSLA is looking at other revenue-raising opportunities. For example, by helping local authorities to collect better quality recyclet that they can use to generate increased revenue. Turning to issues that were raised in the stage 1 report, I am pleased that the NZ Committee supported a broad range of provisions in the bill, and I note their concerns about its framework nature. I hope, however, that they can accept the need to react quickly to emerging issues. Using delegated powers to make regulations allows this, as we are seeing currently with single-use vapes. We will publish the consultation on charging for single-use disposable cups in the coming weeks, which will, I hope, assure the Parliament of the approach we will take when using the powers in the bill. I also acknowledge the concerns of the Finance Committee in relation to the financial memorandum and recognise its need to scrutinise the costs and benefits of the bill. I am committed to updating both committees as we work with stakeholders to design the detail of the secondary regulations. This process is already underway. Since the launch of the bill, I have met with COSLA spokesperson Councillor McGregor on several occasions. I am pleased with this strong collaboration and COSLA's support for the aims of the bill. Councillor McGregor's most recent letter, she stated that she is delighted that we are finding such a constructive way of addressing our prime concerns and sees this as an excellent and leading example of working in the spirit of and implementing the Verity House agreement. I am listening to—I will take one more. Douglas Lumson. I thank the minister for taking intervention. Has COSLA also raised concerns about the funding that they will require to implement some pieces of the legislation? They have indeed. As I have just responded to the other member, I am absolutely aware that there will need to be investment in order to do that. There are also looking at other sources of funding, indeed supporting local authorities to get best profit from their recyclet, as well as using that extended producer responsibility funding to implement efficient and effective services. I am listening to COSLA's concerns and the specific concerns I was discussing before the intervention was around the financial penalties for missing recycling targets, which was proposed based on the Welsh approach. We have explored whether the same aims of the bill would be better achieved through a collaborative programme of work with local government to develop plans to meet targets, establish funding requirements and share evidence and best practice. If we can continue to jointly progress development and agree a robust and effective collaborative programme, this has the potential to deliver the aims of the bill to improve recycling and assure accountability. I would be willing to amend the bill at stage 2 to remove provisions relating to financial penalties. I am grateful for the constructive engagement demonstrated by COSLA throughout these discussions, and I too see this as a positive example of the Verity House agreement partnership in action. I have also had constructive discussions with businesses about how we progress measures in ways that build on existing mechanisms to ensure implementation is simple and effective. In a similar vein, I have had useful discussions with many colleagues across the chamber, and I welcome the consensus that developing a circular economy is vital. I look forward to further positive engagement as we move through the bill process. This has included several discussions about fly tipping, and I can confirm that before stage 2 we will publish the review of litter and fly tipping enforcement and that this will help our consideration of whether to bring forward amendments to further address the challenges in dealing with fly tipping. I will finish by underlining the fact that building a more circular economy is an environmental imperative, but it is also an economic opportunity for Scotland. It will open up new markets, improve productivity, increase self-sufficiency and provide local employment. I am confident that this bill is a major step towards achieving that. I look forward to the rest of the debate and to hearing the views of members across the chamber. I move that the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the circular economy Scotland bill. I now call on Edward Mountain to speak on behalf of the Net Zero Energy and Transport Committee up to eight minutes. I am pleased to be able to speak today on behalf of the Net Zero Energy and Transport Committee. I would like to start off by thanking two particular groups of people. One is the committee colleagues for all their diligent work in considering the bill. I am sure that they would want me to extend our thanks to the clerking team for drawing together what I believe is a very comprehensive report. I would also like to acknowledge the careful and considered reports on the bill from the Finance and Public Administration Committee and the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee. The committee began our work on the bill back in June, when we issued a call for evidence and hosted an online discussion on the bill. We took oral evidence in the autumn, holding 10 evidence sessions in nearly as many weeks. Amongst all of that, we squeezed in three visits and an online engagement event with SMEs aiming to run their businesses in line with the circular economy principles. Our thanks to everyone who contributed to our work on the bill, which has been invaluable in informing the stage 1 report. We consistently heard about the need to make progress towards a more circular economy in Scotland to tackle the climate and nature emergencies at home and abroad. At the moment, Scotland is estimated to be only 1.3 per cent circular. A zero-way Scotland report suggests that Scotland's per capita material footprint is nearly double the global average. That is simply unsustainable. Those statistics show why a circular economy bill is needed. However, the committee is unconvinced that a bill on its own will create the system-wide changes that we need in Scotland. The Scottish Government must look at additional opportunities to act. The fact that this bill was a framework bill presented us with some challenges. It also was difficult for us to express an informed view on the bill's interplay with the UK Internal Markets Act. We have had a range of views for the use of framework legislation, but we all agree that the Scottish Parliament must have adequate opportunity to scrutinise future regulations that the Scottish Government brings forward through the bill. I welcome the minister agreeing with that point in her response. The Finance and Public Administration Committee has taken the view that the financial memorandum for this bill is not adequate in terms of providing the best estimate of financial cost. We think that this could be mitigated by the Scottish Government committing to providing the Parliament with robust costings when regulations are brought forward under key order-making powers, and again ensuring that the Parliament has enough time to consider and take evidence on those. Let me turn to some of the committee's recommendations on the specific provisions within the bill. Firstly, we support the provisions to create a circular economy strategy and we support the setting of legally binding targets to drive the transformative changes that we need in society. We think that the bill needs to set out how the strategy and targets will react. We also want to make sure that the Scottish Parliament has a greater role in scrutinising proposed targets, given its national significance to the Scottish economy and our response to the climate emergency. We think that the setting of targets should be a Scottish Government obligation and not an option. We also believe that the circular economy strategy must include more support for charities and social enterprise that promote reuse and repair. They do a huge amount in fostering a sharing economy. We think that regulation-making powers to restrict the disposal of unsolved goods should be developed in consultation with those that will be affected. We will not have a more circular economy unless the Scottish Government takes businesses on this journey with them. In her response to our report, the minister said that restrictions would only apply to durable goods and not to food waste. I would welcome clarification for the minister on why this distinction was not in fact mentioned in the bill. On single-use items, we agree the principles of seeking to cut down on these where possible. We think that additional charging could help. We also think that care is needed to ensure that well-meaning actions do not impact disproportionately on the consumer and in particular vulnerable groups. The bill creates new enforcement powers around household waste. We recognise that those measures may help to stop recycled goods from being contaminated and help local authorities to tackle fly tipping. However, those powers must be used carefully by local authorities and only after careful engagement with householders. Turning to the code of practice and local recycling targets, we welcome the proposals to create a more consistent and high-performing recycling system across Scotland. However, the Scottish Government must ensure that local authorities have sufficient resources to make the necessary improvements to their services to achieve those new standards. In particular, and a particular point of mind, the committee was convinced by the arguments for a standardised approach to bin collections across Scotland's local authorities and called on the Scottish Government to explore that in detail with COSLA. It should not be too much to ask to have the same system of coloured bins across Scotland. It could certainly help to reduce confusion and also increase compliance. We also welcome the strengthening of enforcement to tackle littering and more serious forms of waste crime. However, the Scottish Government must ensure that those powers are fully funded, otherwise they will fall short of expectations. I know that time is short, so I will conclude by saying that the Nazarene Committee supports the general principles of the bill. We give it a qualified welcome. However, we want to see the Scottish Government engage constructively with our recommendations on how the bill can be improved. The minister has indicated in her response that she is still considering a number of the committee's suggestions, so I remain hopeful that those improvements will be seen as the bill progresses. I now call John Mason to speak on behalf of the Finance and Public Administration Committee. I am pleased to make a short contribution to this debate on behalf of the Finance and Public Administration Committee. As members may know, my colleagues in the committee are currently in London for a meeting of the Interparliamentary Finance Committee forum, and therefore you are stuck with me. I think that I am the oldest member of the committee. The committee has scrutinised the financial memorandum for the bill, and I would like to use my time to highlight some of the key issues that we identified in our report, which was published on 30 November last year. Our report raised concerns in relation to the lack of certainty and potential underestimates in the FFM. We noted that a number of provisions in the bill remain subject to co-design, and therefore do not have clearly associated costs at this stage. Even so, the evidence that we received suggested that the FFM underestimates costs in relation to enforcement, education and communication campaigns, and the infrastructure that is required to ensure that local authorities are able to adhere to the mandatory code of practice. The assumption in the FFM of a 100 per cent payment rate for fixed penalty notices is incredibly unlikely. Our report raised further concerns regarding the interaction of the bill with related schemes, including the deposit return scheme and the UK-wide extended producer responsibility. We received evidence that those have created an uncertain environment, which has led to local authorities entering into short-term contracts that can provide little value for money. In relation to local councils, there is also the issue of their coming into alignment with the existing code of practice, and that is estimated by Zero Way Scotland to be costing about £88 million. The Scottish Government's response to the report, which we received last week, provides some additional clarity in relation to areas such as enforcement costs and the publication of a national litter and fly tipping strategy, year 1 action plan, in May this year. We also note the minister's commitment to provide regular updates on costings as regulations are developed. However, as has been the case with other bills recently, the Finance Committee remains concerned about the approach taken by the Scottish Government to introduce a framework bill and use co-design to develop the detail of the policy as the bill progresses through Parliament. While we do not disagree with the principles of co-design or engaging with stakeholders on policy proposals, both of which support better outcomes and improve decision making, we are unconvinced by the argument that co-design and engagement must follow on from the legislative process instead of being used to inform and refine policy proposals in advance of legislation being introduced. The increasing use of framework bills that seek to provide future Governments with enabling powers and which do not, as a result, enable the best estimates of all the costs, savings and changes in revenue to be identified risks the Parliament passing legislation, which may in the end, once outcomes are fully understood, be unaffordable. Ultimately, we believe that it poses long-term risks to the Scottish budget, both now and for future Governments. The Finance Committee still has reservations around the sequencing that the Scottish Government has opted for in introducing the bill, and, as stated in our report, we are not convinced that the FM, in its present form, meets the requirements that are set out in the Parliament's standing orders to provide, quote, best estimates of the costs, savings and changes to revenues to which the provisions of the bill would give rise, unquote. We will scrutinise closely the updates on the expenditure incurred, as committed to by the minister, alongside any savings arising from the bill. However, we request that those updates are provided on a six-monthly basis, as we recommended, rather than as the regulations are being developed as proposed by the minister. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I want to begin today by saying clearly at the outset that the Scottish Conservatives support the general principles of the bill. A circular economy is an economic system whereby materials are circulated in a high-value state as possible in order to extract the maximum economic, social and environmental value from them. The circularity gap report estimates circular economy policies, could see our emissions drop by 43 per cent and our resource consumption reduced by almost a half. However, progress has been painfully slow, with Scotland's economy just 1.3 per cent circular, as my colleague Edward Mountain has highlighted. Unfortunately, the circular economy bill, as drafted, will not deliver the change that we need. In fact, it feels like a reaction to missing the 2013 household recycling target than a serious attempt to deliver a circular economy. Factor in the proposals on littering and flytipping and what the Scottish Government has presented is not so much a circular economy bill as a waste and litter bill. Even at a basic level, the bill does not explicitly set itself the mission of driving the system needed to encourage prevention and reuse. Members are well aware of my personal commitment to building a circular economy. In fact, when it looked like the Scottish Government had all but abandoned a circular economy bill, I offered to introduce one myself. The minister knows that I am being sincere when I say that I stand ready to work constructively to strengthen the bill, and it does need strengthening, not least because it has been introduced as a framework bill. That means that there is precious little detail, a concern highlighted by both the finance and net zero committees. It also means that there is no guarantee of when, or even if, ministers will take action. The provision to publish a circular economy strategy is a good place to address such concerns, not that legislation is required to construct said strategy. A robust process here would signal a determination to act, so I hope that the Scottish Government pays heed to the concerns raised about the current proposals, from an inadequate consultation process to a lack of clarity of how Parliament will scrutinise draft strategies. We need to see similar robustness when it comes to setting statutory targets for developing a circular economy, but the Scottish Government wants to make setting targets optional. It cannot possibly expect households and businesses to take the circular economy seriously if they themselves say that it is only optional. I appreciate that the Scottish Government has a poor track record on statutory targets, having missed eight of the past 12 emissions targets, not to mention today's bombshell from the UK climate change committee, that the SNP-Green coalition is set to miss the 2030 net zero target, saying that it is beyond what is credible—a complete and utter dereliction of duty. Going forward, there is clearly a need for ministers to be more accountable for missed targets, and they could make things easier for themselves by ensuring that the underlying policies are firmly rooted in evidence. That is not always the case, though. Just look at the proposal to restrict the disposal of unsold goods, which France cited as a model. You would think that the Scottish Government would have spoken with the French counterparts about it, but the minister has confirmed that it has not. Similarly, it is not immediately apparent what assessment has been done on the priority materials identified in the circular economy route map. Let me turn back to household waste. Proposals to develop a new code of practice for local authorities on waste and recycling, along with local recycling targets, could help to drive up recycling rates. Local authorities also need to be committed to the same. For example, Glasgow City Council has proven that, year on year, they are not. However, neither is going to matter unless local authorities are giving the resources to do the job. There is also clearly a role— To remind the member, although I am sure that he knows that Glasgow City Council has recently been in the recipient of the largest tranche of recycling improvement fund money that has been given out to date. Maurice Golden? My point was that they have proven year after year to not care about driving up household recycling rates. That is the track record. That is very much evident. It is nearly impossible to have such low recycling rates. I am trying to work out in my head how they keep it so low in Glasgow. However, clearly, there is a role for COSLA as well and also ensuring that waste experts in helping such proposals fit the circumstances or different local authorities, particularly those island and rural authorities. Similarly, penalising households who have failed to live up to their responsibilities should be a last resort. Everyone in society has a responsibility for their own waste, but the default approach should be education and positive engagement. Again, local authorities need the resources. Let me say that concerns that we see are not insurmountable, but solutions will require all stakeholders to work constructively. There is so much that should be contained in this bill from public procurement to system design, from take-back provisions to sustainable consumption, from re-use targets to scope 3 emissions reporting. That is what I want to see, and I hope that that is what the minister wants, so let us get on and do it. I welcome today's debate because Scottish Labour strongly supports the principle of legislation on the circular economy. However, I want to echo the comments that have already been made, that there is a lot of work that still needs to be done to ensure that this bill is a circular economy bill and not just a recycling bill. First of all, I want to thank the net zero committee, its clerks and all those who have given evidence in advance of today's debate. I also want to thank those who have sent us briefings in advance of today's debate. I note the change of timing means that we might not have actually considered them all in detail, but they will be very useful in their up-to-stage 2s amendment process. I want to be upfront that the stage 2 discussions on this bill will be crucial, because there is so much in this bill that needs to be amended and clarified. It is a framework bill. There are key areas where we need more detail, where we need to see the development of the respectful partnership with local authorities and investment to make sure that the aspirations of this bill will actually be met. We have heard some nice words from the minister today about the relationship with local authorities, but we need to see the detail. We need to see the progress, the key milestones, the dates that are going to be there and the code of practice and how it will be produced and then how the Parliament will be consulted. That has been mentioned already. I know from talking to my colleagues in Wales that it shows what can be done when the Government and local authorities work together with the billion pounds from the Welsh Labour Government invested just over a decade to enable local authorities to gear up and deliver the infrastructure needed in communities across Wales. It works. Crucially, their investment has led to recycling levels of 64 per cent, with a statutory target rising to 70 per cent next year. Yes, of course. The success in Wales, which the member was alluding to, does the Welsh approach of the Welsh Government being applied to Scotland? The key thing is co-operation, partnership and funding. That is the critical issue that I want to come on to. I have welcomed the work of the next zero committee, but the Finance and Public Administration Committee was pretty blunt in its comments. We heard that today. We need to make sure that the addition of new responsibilities is funded, otherwise that will be incredibly damaging to our councils and it will be ineffective in terms of output. In the report, the Finance Committee said that the committee is concerned that the lack of clarity concerning the funding that is required for local authorities to align with a new upgraded mandate to recoil practice could render the approach unaffordable and unsustainable. Worryingly, as we have heard already, the committee commented that the financial memorandum is not adequate. Although we had some nice warm words from the minister earlier, we need more detail. We do not just need to hear about what might happen, we need to see a much more co-ordinated approach. Because the bill is a framework bill, it also creates major concerns about the lack of effective parliamentary scrutiny, especially if the minister is going to react quickly. We need proper consultation for parliamentarians, stakeholders and businesses. We need targets that are going to be deliverable, because that is critical to the creation of a circular economy, because, at the moment, the focus is recycling. We need to have more about redesigning opportunities so that we can see reuse, repair opportunities in our communities, and we need the investment from that. That means clarity in relation to recycling. We need to have an approach that reflects the different challenges across the country. For example, making sure that there is accountability for separating waste and effective recycling is important, but we need communications from the Scottish Government and local authorities. I welcome the fact that we have heard today from the minister that she is intending to remove the penalties in the bill for individual constituents. For example, in my area, city centre residents who live in flats and tenements and are doing the right thing by separating their waste and trying to reuse products, they could still be fined if it is deemed that somebody has put the wrong waste in the wrong box and it is their fault. I am glad that that approach has been taken today, but it is very brief. I want to clarify the point to make sure that the member has not misunderstood me. I am looking at the provision for finding local authorities, which is the Welsh approach. That is the provision that I have been discussing with COSLA, not the provision that you have just referenced, which at the current is a criminal approach if people do not desist in contaminating recycling once they have received a notification. The approach to apply a more proportionate measure for local authorities on that is still part of the bill. When the minister goes into detail, that is when we get worried, isn't it? In the way that you presented what you were changing at stage 2, I clearly saw it as addressing the concerns that have been made by many MSPs. The challenges that people who live in flats and tenements and city centres could be incorrectly blamed for somebody else's failure to address the bill properly. We need more consultation on that and more discussion at stage 2. I need to come towards the end. We cannot ignore the issue of how much waste we export from Scotland and we know that our consumption emissions have increased. I hope that the minister will commit to supporting amendments to address that issue at stage 2 and to commit to effective monitoring. The principle of consumption targets and the analysis of our international carbon footprint is key if we are going to deliver a just transition that is not currently in the bill. It needs to change. I would also like to hear from the minister about work for the office of internal market to ensure that the regulations will be deliverable. That is critical, particularly given the DRS fiasco. We also need to see support and encouragement for businesses because if we are going to have a circular economy, we need more than what is in this bill. The Scottish Government could take a lead by making sure that its own purchasing procurement works to incentivise products that are designed with the circular economy principles baked in from the start. The principle of building a circular economy has got to be what we deliver in this bill. With sectoral approaches, action from day one, whether it is reducing our reliance on single use products and ending food waste, the waste hierarchy is key. Redesign products to prevent waste in the first place, recycling and let's get the amendments to deliver a circular economy, not just a recycling bill. The debate suddenly feels all the more timely. Having been brought forward by 24 hours, it now helpfully coincides with the sobering confirmation from the UK Committee on Climate Change that the prospect of Scotland meeting its 2030 climate target is now quote, beyond credible. UKCCC chief executive Chris Stark has been characteristically blunt, criticising the Government for having no plan in place to get anywhere close to hitting the target. Chris Stark was clear and stating that it is a quote, failure of the Scottish Government to bring forward to the Scottish people in the Scottish Parliament a climate change plan that is fit for purpose. For an SNP Green Government fund of trumpeting first, Mr Stark added quote, this is the first time anywhere in the UK that the UKCCC has said there's a target that can't be met. So the context for today's debate and the legislation we're considering is both clear and it is challenging. And at this point in customary fashion, let me also add my thanks to the net zero committee and the finance committees for their stage one scrutiny work on the circular economy bill. And can I also add my thanks to the minister? My remarks this afternoon will focus primarily on concerns that have been raised, but I've been very grateful to Lorna Slater for her willingness to engage constructively with me over recent months in relation to this bill. Fundamentally though, engaging on this bill has been far from straightforward as both the net zero and the finance committees have found to their obvious frustration. A lack of any real detail in this framework bill makes it incredibly difficult to scrutinise or even understand in the broadest possible sense what impact it will have in reducing our alliance on carbon intensive extraction and use of materials. The bill commits ministers to publishing a circular economy strategy, which is of course very welcome, and provides them with a wide range of powers to be used in enacting the strategy. Yet we remain in the dark about how these powers might be used. Even the current consultation on a circular economy route map simply focuses on policies within the scope of existing powers. The commitment to co-decision policies with local councils and wider stakeholders again is all very well, but the decision to press ahead with introducing this bill before that process has been completed or in some cases even being commenced is worrying. It certainly leaves Parliament in an invidious position. As the Finance Committee pointed out, it makes financial scrutiny quote, incredibly challenging if not impossible. It is also of course part of a pattern as we are seeing with this Government's hapless attempts to centralise care services. There are obvious risks, not just the difficulties for Parliament in carrying out its responsibilities for scrutiny. It vests significant future powers in ministers, as Sarah Boyack pointed out, reducing their accountability to Parliament, stakeholders and the wider public. In turn, that heightens the risk of any legislation falling apart on impact with reality—again, not an unknown phenomenon for this Government. Likewise, the risks of future powers coming into conflict with the Internal Market Act can only be increased by the approach being taken here. However, we have two Governments at present who seem to love nothing more than a constitutional spat, what our climate, and indeed our economy, can ill afford, are more DRS disasters littering the legislative landscape. Either ministers must give more detail about their intentions, or the bill should be given teeth with more specific requirements and ministerial obligations placed on the face of the bill. One example that I know that the Net Zero Committee has identified is setting targets for producer responsibility, extending from packaging to products themselves. That could include take-back, requiring producers to accept return of a set proportion of their products after consumption, and to refurbish and reuse a percentage of those. That could ease the burden of circularity on cash-strapped councils or individuals, and provide a welcome incentive to manufacturers to produce, according to circular economy standards, something that I know that the COSLA has been keen to press during stage 1. Overall, as the Net Zero Committee rightly says, there needs to be a balance between consumer and producer liability. In saying this, can I make my usual plea for any provisions to be properly and robustly island proofed? It is a point that I have made to the Minister during our various discussions over recent months, and I have no hesitation in doing so again today. Take-back schemes perhaps offer a perfect illustration of something that may work very well across most of the country. In island communities, although I suspect that the logistics and the infrastructure required will inevitably present very different challenges. I urge the Minister and, indeed, the committees to have this very much in mind as they consider amendments to this bill during stage 2. For now, I am notwithstanding the misgivings that I have outlined and the work that is quite obviously needed to get this bill into shape, the Scottish level of Emma Cuts will be supporting the bill at decision time this evening. I believe in the circular economy as a good in itself, as somebody who does not like nonsensical waste and believes in the efficient use of resources as reasonably as possible. The circular economy is not a new concept, but it is a re-emerging trend. Our consideration of the bill is part of that shift in social consciousness. Borrowing a book from a library, shopping in a charity shop, buying anything second hand—that is the circular economy—and there are many, many other examples. The concept is long-standing, but due to a number of factors, building a more circular economy is trending. The ambition of the bill is to progress development of a more circular economy with more and better reuse, refurbishment and recycling. Part of the trend is a response to an increased use of single-use items in recent decades. Personally, I do not think that that should be the focus. I think that we would be better to focus on the benefits of re-using and refurbishment rather than on the detriments of single-use. The encouraging position is that trends towards a more circular economy are already happening, as we consider the legislation. For example, in Edinburgh Northern and Leith, in my constituency, we have the remakery, the tool library and the way to go that we visited as a committee. Nationally, there are so many examples from the way that the hydro in Glasgow uses its reusable cup facility to reblaid, which is a remarkable company that works in terms of renewable approaches in terms of the circular economy when it comes to using the blades of wind farms. Internationally, there are facilities such as Vinted, Gumtree, and the list goes on. The challenge is how do we legislate in a way that usefully develops this? How does the Government inform, support and encourage rather than punish the public, who, in my experience, and businesses too, want to do the right thing? However, we need the Government to lead on system change, communications, coherence and infrastructure. Measures to tackling unsustainable consumption and supply chains are part of it, but we need to be mindful of the restraints on the Government's ability in this area in just a Scottish context. However, perhaps there is more that we can do in terms of producer responsibilities, particularly on items such as sofas and mattresses that end up being fly-tipped in constituencies such as mine. If we focus on business practices and supporting re-use in a deliverable and meaningful way, I think that we can make this bill something that makes an impactful difference. This is really complicated, but one area that I think the bill should focus on, that it doesn't at the moment, is construction. Fifty per cent of the waste in the Scottish economy relates to construction that we heard as a committee. I think that we must consider the role of the built environment, not just in terms of waste but also the opportunities, the jobs that could be created. That was relayed to us by the built environment forum Scotland, resource management association of Scotland and also the architectural firm, Page & Park. I would like to work with the Government on an amendment that relates to construction, whether that is a specific identification in the strategy or something that we can do on the face of the bill. We need facilities to enable people working in the construction trade to be able to see the reuse of materials. Does the member support mandatory scope 3 reporting for the construction sector? Something that I would need to look at in more detail, but I would be delighted to receive more information on that. Given that the construction industry accounts for 50 per cent of the waste in the Scottish economy, we must include it. Otherwise, it seems naturally unjust to me to put obligations and sanctions potentially on households and consumers and not to look at the area of the economy that produces the most waste. In terms of household waste, we need better reuse facilities. I have an iron, for example, that is broken. I have nowhere in our capital city where I can go and get it fixed. That is where we are. We need to see the investment. In the third sector, from the public sector, we mean local authority hubs. We need that infrastructure. That will also help in reducing fly tipping, because we need to make it easier for people. People want to do the right thing. I agree with what the convener said and what was emphasised in the report. We need a standardised recycling process that is island-proofed, but it will not only make it easier for people to recycle, but it will reduce costs and bring more investment and make communications easier, which is a problem at the moment. On single-use items, I think that there are good arguments for charging on single-use items. The plastic bag charge has made a difference. Personally, I am not convinced yet on a charge for disposable beverage cups. I worry what it will do in the cost of living crisis, with the impact on small businesses and the inconvenience that it will create. It is different from a plastic bag charge. I refer the minister to the feedback from Scottish hospitality. Perhaps we should take an approach that really focuses on health and fire risk, and environmental damage rather than on single-use items. If we are going to have a charge, I think that it should be local businesses collecting the charge and can spend it on charities if they are choosing. Lastly, littering from vehicles. Is there anything more anti-social? I fully support the charge on that. This is a good start. It has the potential to be a great bill that makes a long lasting impact, but let's work together to make it better. I have found myself with a sense of deja vu. I recently spoke in the stage 1 debate on the cladding bill and the issues around cladding and fire safety. I said in that debate that I could very reluctantly support the general principles of what I see as a deficient bill, but that support would expire if improvements are not made. That is my view of the bill, hence the sense of deja vu. It is yet another framework bill that leaves so many questions unanswered and would give the Government sweeping powers to potentially do some pretty shocking things, all with little parliamentary oversight. The net zero committee makes this point very strongly and it is right to do so. It is hard to argue with the general principles of the bill, but you do not need legislation to have a strategy or to set targets. You just get on and do that. Let me start by mentioning the report from the finance committee. We have already heard some of that. It said that, based on the evidence that we received, the committee believes that enforcement costs are likely to have been underestimated. While we note the minister's argument that those powers would be used at local authorities discretion, they should nevertheless be accurately reflected in the financial memorandum, ensuring that all local authorities are financially able to utilise the enforcement powers will be important if the bill's ambitions are to be delivered. The committee notes the cost estimates from Zero Waste Scotland of bringing all local authorities into alignment with the existing code of practice would be £88.4 million, where, therefore, unclear how much more funding will be required to support local authorities to meet any quotes, further requirements in the proposed mandatory code which the Scottish Government considers necessary to meet its waste targets. It's a pretty damning report, and not for the first time the finance committee has slated a bill for not having a realistic bill. I have very real concerns about the sweeping powers that the Government wants to award itself on charges for single-use items. This could be a container that you might get a takeaway meal in, a fish and chip tax. What about the proposed bin fines already mentioned? Should you have the wrong items in there? I can see responsible people putting out their bins only for someone else to come along and put something else in them being hit with a fine. What do we do about people who live in flats with communal bins if they have the wrong items in them? Do they all get fined? I don't know. It doesn't say in this bill. We have a suite of responsibilities for councils but with no financial recompense. The net zero committee referred to this in its report when it said, we are aware of the pressures local authorities are facing, which makes increasing recycling performance challenging. The prospect of penalising councils for failing to meet targets seems counterproductive and only serves to exacerbate existing constraints on local authority budgets. I will, but I heard the minister earlier, so I take the point on board. She is giving me the thumbs up to that. Indeed, Consumer Scotland said that additional support may be needed for local authorities with higher levels of geographic isolation, another point that has been made or deprivation. Perhaps the most damaging aspect of the bill is the section around restrictions on the disposal of unsold goods. I don't know of any business which would want to deliberately have unsold goods lying around. It doesn't make economic sense. This whole section is incredibly vague but we could have a situation where small and large businesses are being fined simply for having excess stock. That is highly likely to lead to a cross-border trade in stock just to avoid Lorna Slater's unsold goods tax. However, Ms Slater has not spoken to the UK Government about the potential internal market act implications of the bill or at least she hadn't when she gave a comment to the Scotsman on March 9. Maybe she has since. You would think that she might have learned her lesson on that from the deposit return debacle, apparently not. There is a large section on littering from a vehicle. Most of us would call that fly tipping. That does need to be tackled because it is a blight on our communities. Murdo Fraser, the Scottish Conservatives' very own uncle Bulgaria, will have more to say on this. The bill needs to be improved but we also need more on the face of it and less in regulation. The Government needs to be put on notice that it needs to spell out its thinking in more detail. A circular economy is one where we reuse more, throw less away, cut down on waste and we all agree with that. The circular economy bill before us presents a real opportunity to tackle various environmental blights that we all wish to see action on. Action on charges for single-use items such as coffee cups, as we have heard mentioned. Action on fly tipping, also from cars. Greater penalties for those who commercially fly-tip and on households who take those too good to be true deals for the removal of goods. We all know the ones. Man with a van takes your old bathroom and old kitchen for a few pounds. Do households really believe that such operators are actually disposed waste ethically or appropriately? I doubt it. Households must take reasonable steps to ensure that waste is uplifted by a reputable operator or households could face fines. I am quite rightly so. Or our committee's suggestion and action to streamline and standardise domestic waste collection across our local authorities, as we heard from the convener. There are much more significant matters contained within the circular economy bill, but I deliberately highlighted those as matters such as charges for single-use items, fly-tipping and domestic waste.  On that front, I welcome the Scottish Government seeking to work with local authorities to move to a free curbside collection service more generally. We are committed to across Scotland because I think that charges for curbside collection and household collections have a detrimental impact on our local environments. However, if I can get the time back... Let's try to accommodate it with the time. Does Bob Doris agree with me that, because of facilities being far away or people not being formed, some people inadvertently fly-tip, so free collections would make a difference in that regard? I thank Ben Macpherson for that intervention. Is there an inadvertent fly-tipping or unwitting fly-tipping? I think that people will always understand that free collections have been removed and that they have put their refuse where they have always put it, despite the fact that charges apply. It will vary across local authorities, Mr Macpherson, but it needs to be tackled. However, the circular economy bill is much more. It needs to place responsibility at a sectoral level, a producer level and a procurement level, not just with consumers. Seeking to tackle overproduction, seeking to reduce waste and to bed a reuse in recycled culture into how we all do our everyday business, sits at the heart or should sit at the heart of the circular economy bill. We need to work with Scotland's public and private sectors to take meaningful action to tackle overconsumption and to reduce waste. There is no doubting the scale of the challenge and the committee has recognised that. The circular economy bill is only one part of a much larger picture, and the Government also acknowledges that. At the core of the circular economy bill sits the development of a new circular economy strategy, placed on a statutory footing. That will be key. What sits in that strategy will set the tone and the direction for years to come. I would like to consider that as yet to be developed strategy from an international perspective. Indeed, that is highlighted in our stage 1 report at section 180. The committee notes that was suggested in evidence that at section 13 of the bill could include global considerations and the aim to do no harm. In particular, a joint submission from international charities, the Scottish Catholic International Aid Fund, SCAF, and CEMBRA Colombia also suggested that this provision could also be strengthened by placing a requirement on Scottish ministers to ensure the strategy and a quote, must have regard for the goal of promoting international realisation of human rights in supply chains. Strengthening the bill in such a way could help Scotland's public sector to make the most effective use of our purchasing and procurement powers and to sharpen our understanding of our often global supply chains. It can help to drive change in the private sector to do better in this area also and to stress in partnership with industry to drive that change, not against them in partnership with them. Indeed, perhaps there is a mechanism by which the global south could have a meaningful input into how Scotland develops its strategy in the first place. However, I want to return to where I started. That is an acknowledgement that for many who understandably won't follow the finer details of legislation in this Parliament. The visible aspects of this legislation will be what they can see in their own neighbourhoods. That means that success for some will not be judged on the circular economy ambitions as vital and as important as they are.  We cannot always legislate for that. Some of it is behavioural change and MSPs across all parties will know that littering can be endemic within communities and no sooner has an area cleaned up that the next day it is as bad as it ever was again. All councils of all political persuasions get it in the neck. Why do not you clear up litter in our communities, even though the day before that is precisely what happened? Behavioral change globally, behavioural change nationally and in local authorities in terms of a circular economy. However, we also need a real behavioural change locally. That is all our attitudes on how we respect our local environment. As a member of the net zero energy transport committee, I am pleased to be speaking in the debate and associate myself with the remarks of the convener Edward Mountain. Other committees were involved but I want to put on record my thanks to our clerks, to the SPICE team and to the many many witnesses who informed our evidence. We had 10 sessions and there are 80 recommendations. Although today there is a lot of robust debate about this bill, I think that there is a lot of passion across the chamber and a lot of agreement. We need to become a more circular Scotland, no-one disputes that, so we need to harness that passion. What we are hearing from our communities and the local authorities in our areas is about how we can make this better, because Sarah Boyack, my Labour colleague, is absolutely correct. Stage 2 is absolutely crucial. I believe that the minister does have an open door to work with colleagues and people across the country, and I think that we all have to cooperate that. I also hope that Ben Macpherson finds someone to repair his iron by the end of the debate. I have had a wee Google search and I am at a link to a business in Edinburgh that might be able to help, but is knowing where to go to get... Of course. Ben Macpherson? I think that the point that Monica Lennon was about to make is about knowing where to go and we need greater awareness of that knowledge and also greater numbers of facilities. Monica Lennon? Absolutely. We have probably made that demonstration on the record now in the Parliament. I think that we all agree that the bill is necessary. We need legislation and, in 2022, Keep Scotland Beautiful declared a litter emergency in Scotland, and that is undeniable.  We know that we have still got a massive problem with litter, and that is a symptom of a much wider issue or reliance on a linear economic model, in which we continually extract new resources to make new things and new products, and then we throw them away before starting all over again. We have got to break that cycle. It is having a serious impact here in Scotland, but also around the world, as others have said. SEPA has data to show that between 2018 and 2022, around 100 tonnes of plastic packaging waste were shipped from Scotland overseas every single month. That is a real scandal. The question is, what can this bill do to tackle some of that? Others have said that there is a concern that there is too much focus on the recycling part of the waste hierarchy. I believe that the minister will take that in the spirit as intended. We need to look at other aspects of the waste hierarchy, and we have heard that there is a lot of passion for reuse and repair. One example that I want to touch on today, and people who know me know that I talk about this a lot, is reusable nappies. We need to make it easier for people who want to try to do the right thing environmentally, but I am worried about the cost and other barriers. In the spirit of that collaborative approach, the minister and I are doing a fact-finding visit next week to North Ayrshire Council, because since 2019, it has been leading the way, not just in Scotland but in the UK. The third sector is involved with local authority. It was brought in by my Labour colleague councillor, Joel Cullinane, but it has been continued by an SNP administration. It is the kind of thing that can help all of our constituents. It is cost-neutral to the local authority. I am looking at amendments for stage 2 to see how we can do that, but doing that with our local authorities is not telling them what to do, but enabling them and giving them the confidence to work on that. Another big issue for me in this bill is that we need to do much, much more to reduce food waste. We have the scandal of ever-increasing food poverty and food insecurity, but we are also seeing food waste increasing as well. Thank you very much to the member for taking an intervention. I am just flagging up to the member and indeed to the chamber that I have recently received a copy of a letter from the British Retail Consortium to my colleague, Steve Barclay, down in London asking for mandatory food waste reporting to help measure and judge food waste and understanding that food waste is contributing to 10 per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions. I assume that the member welcomes the fact that industry itself is also looking at food waste and is asking us to put in place exactly the sort of provisions that are in this bill. We need industry to absolutely play its part, but we know that this does not happen on a voluntary basis. We need legislation. I think that colleagues mentioned France. We know that California is a really good example where, through legislation, there are now requirements on household and business to separate green waste and food waste and donate edible waste to food recovery groups and to recycle the rest. I think that there is more that can be done at stage 2 to look at that. Time is short. Others, including Bob Doris, have talked about the international impact of what we are doing here. We did get really good evidence from SCIAF, so I will not repeat some of the points. There is a good briefing, but we know in terms of clothing, in terms of textiles and food waste being exported. There is a big issue there. It is also about, as Ben MacPherson talked about, the economic benefits, but it is the social imperative as well. We know where the environment is exploited, people are often exploited too. The example that really influenced me heavily was through Fashion Revolution Scotland, who came together because of the disaster in Rana Plazar that killed thousands of Government workers. People working in the most awful, exploitative conditions are losing their lives, losing their health, so that people in the global north, such as us, can buy cheap clothes that we might wear once and throw away. There is a lot that we can do through the bill, in terms of amendments, but also through the strategy. As others have said, we need that co-operation, we need the collaboration and we need certainty around funding. That means costed plans. If we put all those things together, we can work towards a more circular Scotland. As a member of the net zero energy and transport committee, looking at the basic principles of the bill has been of great interest to me, and I am pleased to be able to take part in today's debate. I take the opportunity to place on record my thanks to the clerks, spies and all who took the time to give evidence and engage in this process. In the spirit of reduced reuse and recycle, I might just repeat most of this speech again in the stage 3 debate. I think that it is important to recognise, as the report does early on, that there are two major aspects to closing the loop as we seek to move from a linear economy where resources are extracted to make products, are then bought, used and thrown away to a circular economy. Closing the loop to create that circular economy requires action at both ends of what is currently our linear economy, at the start in terms of reducing the amount of resources that are being extracted and temper consumption, and at the end in terms of how waste is reduced and managed. The report outlines that more focus is currently on the end stages of this process, and less so on tackling consumption and concrete measures to encourage repair and reuse. To me that is at least in part due to what powers this Parliament currently has and what powers we know we can use without undue influence from the Tories through the UK Internal Markets Act. I think that so much more could be done to reduce demand for virgin materials, to incentivise reusing and recycling materials, to incentivise making and selling products with longer lifespans, and to influence the behaviour of consumers and businesses alike if the Scottish Parliament had more control over affairs in Scotland. Nonetheless, in the powers that we have here in Scotland, I think that this is an ambitious bill that lays the foundations for a better, cleaner and greener tomorrow. It once again shows that Scotland is committed to tackling climate change. The proposals in the bill are in line with the just transition principles, something that is particularly important to so many of my constituents, and you will not be surprised to hear me say that it is another step in the journey that will see Aberdein becoming the net zero capital of the world. There are a number of recommendations within the bill that the committee has made, and I want to use my remaining time to focus on just a few. Firstly, this bill is on the most part a framework bill, and I am pleased that this is recognised within the committee report, along with the viewpoint of myself and others that this is a pragmatic approach. That allows us to keep up the momentum towards a circular economy by creating the broad legal powers that the Scottish Government will need, and that set-up allows for policy to be further refined following consultation before detailed regulations are made. When it comes to the strategy to achieve a circular economy, the committee report rightfully makes the case that the bill must not disproportionately put the burden for achieving a circular economy on to consumers. There must be accountability for producers for the environmental impacts of the products that they make. Products should be designed to be longer lasting, including Ben Macpherson's iron, and to be reusable and repairable. For me, that has long been a mark of quality in the report, and it should be the norm, rather than the exception. Ideally, when the product finally reaches the end of its economical lifespan, it should also be easily recycled. The report also goes into great detail about whether targets should be set, what those targets should be, and how those targets will be measured. The report recommendation is that setting targets should be an obligation, not an option. We talk a lot about how Scotland is leading the world on climate change, and those targets, if set proportionally, with the urgency of what we are facing, will provide a means to ensure that Scotland continues to lead on climate action. When it comes to the disposal of unsold consumer goods, that was supported by the committee to quote the report. Clearly, it is nobody's best interests for perfectly reusable materials and products to be disposed of rather than redistributed or repurposed. Restrictions could be an effective way of reinforcing measures that many businesses are already putting in place to prevent wastage while also delivering economic and social benefits. Quite bluntly, in the midst of a cost-of-living crisis, it infuriates me that some companies would rather destroy their stock rather than making it available to others at low or no cost. I will take an intervention from Mr Golden. Does the member accept that missing eight out of 12 legal emissions targets does not chime with being world-leading on climate change? Jackie Dunbar. I said that it is our ambition to be. I never said that we actually were at this moment in time. It is welcome that the general principles of the bills are supported, and the bill is not perfect at this stage. No bill ever is. There is work to be done, there are discussions to be had and there are amendments to be made, and that will be done as this bill progresses. The principles that will see Scotland move away from a linear economy and towards having a circular economy are there. I look forward to seeing the bill move forward to the next stage. Clearly, the bill is not the final destination, but it is a critical step on that journey towards a truly circular economy in Scotland, one where Mr McPherson can easily get his iron repaired anywhere in any community. The committee has unanimously backed the general principles of the bill, so there is little division between us on what the bill is seeking to achieve. The bill will drive improvements in household recycling, which Sally has been plateauing for years, and it will tackle littering and fly tipping, and it will deliver greater producer responsibility and reuse further up the waste hierarchy. I want to address a concern that a number of members have around the nature of the framework bill. I acknowledge that we are seeing a trend across the UK to rely more heavily on secondary legislation that grants ministers new powers. However, the bill recognises that, first and foremost, new schemes that could come forward on food packaging will have to be developed working with businesses, councils and other stakeholders. That means that it will take time to develop regulations that will actually work in the real world. Putting all those details up front now on the face of primary legislation would not be in the spirit of co-production that the bill is seeking to develop. Briefly, there is time in hand. What, Doris? Will the member also acknowledge the concerns that have been raised about the impact of the internal markets act and that everything on the face of the bill may lead to ultimately not complying with the flexibility of the framework that allows us to modify it as we go along? That is a key concern. I will turn to that now. Even if there were perfectly formed schemes that could be put into legislation at this point, there would still be the matter of that UK internal market act, an act that allowed Scotland's deposit return scheme to effectively become a plaything of the Secretary of State for Scotland, where permission was withheld until the last minute, only to then be granted but with a set of conditions that were impossible to meet. The central condition that the UK Government made on that scheme was a requirement that our DRS must align to an English scheme that did not exist. That was a wrecking ball, because the Westminster Government has recently announced that it has scrapped plans for DRS for England. There is a better way forward on this. There is a more sensible way forward on schemes and regulations that need to mesh together across the UK, and that is through negotiation and agreement between Governments on the common frameworks. There are examples of where that has worked well, particularly with the agreements on single-use plastic bans and most recently on disposable vapes. It shows that green and Tory ministers working together can deliver progress. I am sure that that is Mr Simpson's dream, but it would be premature to put new schemes on the face of primary legislation. Where framework legislation is being used is important that Parliament is able to scrutinise properly the Secretary of Legislation that will come forward on the back of it. With the original DRS scheme, the superaffirmative procedure allowed Parliament more time to discuss the earlier regulations with stakeholders. It also gave the Government opportunity to amend the legislation before finally laying it in front of Parliament. I think that there is a case for more detailed scrutiny of some of the powers in this bill. I agree with the committee that the minister should probably reexamine where it may be appropriate to use a form of superaffirmative procedure in some cases. It is also important to recognise that the bill does not sit in isolation, so extended producer responsibility across the UK will also be driving progress. New Scottish legislation is not required in every single area to bring in new schemes and approaches. There should be cross-UK collaboration on the UPR schemes for items such as vapes and other products that have been designed with little thought to their environmental impact and life cycle. The circular economy strategy will set out the actions that we have taken in the coming years with the flexibility that is needed to be informed by emerging data and developments in our understanding of Scotland's use and disposal of goods and materials. I welcome the provisions in the bill to place restrictions on the disposal of on-soul consumer goods. Keeping goods in use for as long as possible before they are then passed on reused is fundamental to a circular economy. Scrapping items before they have even been used is in no-one's interests, except perhaps for the shareholders of Amazon. The provisions on on-soul goods mean that businesses must start taking different approaches to managing their stock and prioritising good product design at the outset. I am also pleased that the bill will introduce powers to set new mandatory reporting requirements on businesses and waste surplus. That will improve data that can be used to inform future strategies. A number of members have mentioned reducing food waste. Not only reduces our environmental impact but can, with creative redistribution, address food poverty and inequality. One area in which I think improvement could be made in the bill is on making reporting on circularity a part of the process for applying for public sector grants and loans. Currently, around £420 million a year in the Scottish budget is allocated—I think that I am out of time, unfortunately—£420 million allocating the budget supporting businesses, enterprises and trades. By bringing in requirements into that process, it would be a flexible tool to embed circularity more widely without requiring additional costs to public purse. It is not about setting targets for companies to receive public money but asking them to account for any circularity practices and to outline where they intend to improve. I think that we have heard a number of examples of where that could be brought in. In conclusion, I look forward to the discussion with the minister, as I am sure many other members do, on this and other matters ahead of stage 2, but today I am very pleased, as a Green MSP, to support the principles of the bill at stage 1. Earlier in the debate, making his contribution, Maurice Golden, said that this was more of a littering and fly-tipping bill than a circular economy bill. He said that like it was a bad thing. I am very happy to talk about littering and fly-tipping. I would say gently to my friend Graham Simpson that I have always considered myself more of a tobermory than a great-uncle in Bulgaria. There will be members in this chamber of a certain vintage who will recognise that allusion to others younger who have no idea what we are referring to. We have a serious, significant and growing problem in blighting communities across Scotland with both fly-tipping and littering. We saw some evidence during Covid of an increase in fly-tipping, particularly in rural areas, perhaps linked to the fact that many legal routes to dispose of waste were closed due to restrictions on the opening of local authority recycling centres. That is just not just a rural problem. It is also an issue that affects many parts of urban Scotland, as we have already heard in this debate. It is also a problem where we see and we believe that there is an increasing role for organised crime. Seeing this as an easy way to generate a revenue stream where the risks are low, the risk of being detected is low, and if caught, the penalties are low. Therefore, it is a way of generating revenue by taking away waste, often from legitimate sources, and dumping it and making cash at a relatively low risk. We need to be aware of that. We are very much aware of challenges with detection of crime, enforcement and the level of penalties on whether those act as a suitable incentive. Although people can be prosecuted for severe cases of fly-tipping, the number of prosecutions every year is just a handful. Indeed, a large percentage of the reports that go to the Procurator Fiscal Service do not end up in the courts. Again, that is a factor in making this a risk-free way of making money from any criminal gangs. I am genuinely interested in what we are discussing in the committee as part of the evidence regarding the disposal of fly-tipping. The question was raised a couple of times about who should be responsible or should it be the person who has bought the services of the white van man, or should it be the householder themselves? I am very interested to hear what your views on that would be. If you will bear with me, I am about to come on to that point in a moment. Before I move on to the detail, one other general point that I want to make was the question of availability and accessibility of legal routes for disposal is important, because the more we make it expensive and difficult to dispose legally of goods, the more incentive we create to fly to it. We have seen that with local authorities, for example, restricting opening hours, recycling centres, in some cases bringing in queuing systems and pre-booking systems that make it more difficult to dispose of goods legally and that creates incentive to fly to it. Colleagues will be aware that I rather member's bill consultation on prospective changes in the law. Looking at four aspects, one was improving data collection, an issue that I identified in the Scottish Government strategy, as an issue where we have a variety of bodies involved, the local authority, SEPA, Zero Waste Scotland, and its dumpers hotline, which has now been dumped, of course, and whether we should have a single central point for collecting data, and enhanced duty of care on the waste generator, as per the household waste duty of care that existed in England and Wales. That would avoid the issues that Bob Doris highlighted, whereby the householder pays someone to take away the waste, who is not licensed and then flytips that, and that puts responsibility back on the householder to make them liable. There are issues around liability on the part of the innocent landowner. The person who has flytipping put upon their land has nothing to do with them, but at present, as the law stands, they can be held responsible for the cost of dealing with that and removing it, which has always struck me as fundamentally unjust, because what you are doing in that circumstance is holding the victim responsible for the crime of making the crime pay. I know that the National Farmers Union of Scotland, in particular, has been very exercised about those issues over a long period of time. The fourth issue has been around penalties, where previously the fixed penalty notice was just £200, which was not at a level that was acting as a deterrent. I was very pleased to see the publication of the bill, which goes some way to addressing those concerns. Section 10 of the bill brings in the enhanced duty of care that Jackie Dunbar referred to, and I very much welcome that. I also welcome the changes, not in this bill, but separately increasing the fixed penalty from £200 to £500. That is a very welcome step. I wonder whether £500 is sufficient, and I have proposed to the minister looking at a sliding scale of penalties that would go from £500 to £2,000, depending on circumstances. I would look to bring forward a stage 2 amendment to the bill that would support that, and that might be a way of funneling money back in to enforcement and cleanup by local authorities. That leaves two matters outstanding—data collection and, crucially, the issue of liability on innocent landowners, where we have this continued injustice. I welcome the engagement that I have had with the minister. It has been very constructive. I was very interested to hear what she said earlier about the review of fly tipping enforcement, and we await hearing more from her. I thank her for that engagement. I thank the engagement that I have had with Keep Scotland Beautiful, the National Farmers Union of Scotland, the Scottish Land and the States. I hope that we can find a positive way forward here. There is no issue of political difference across the chamber in addressing the issue of littering and fly tipping, which are scourges upon our environment, on our economy, on our national beauty, which are costing public resources and also costing private owners of land. Let us hope that we can all work together to find the solution. Scotland figures suggest that we use more than double the sustainable limit of materials. To tackle the climate crisis, we must tackle over consumption and create a circular economy, where materials are valued and can be cycled around our economy for as long as possible. However, the current circular economy Scotland bill does not go far enough to do this, and seems more like a recycling bill than a full circular economy bill. It does not provide a thorough enough framework for action for the bills aimed to be successfully implemented, monitored and evaluated across all areas of our circular economy, to ensure Scotland meets important climate targets. More emphasis is needed on opportunities for carbon-based consumption reduction targets and ambitious interim targets to be implemented and measured, so that we can ensure that circular economy bill is meeting its purpose in tackling climate change. More attention must also be given to how implementation of legislation will work with third parties, including local businesses and local authorities. If we have learned anything from the deficit return scheme to vehicle, it is that the Scottish Government must create through actionable policies which have been taught out in partnership with businesses and local authorities, and do not place significant bureaucratic burden on small and medium enterprises. Some sectors have already been able to take steps to reuse materials, and the Scottish Government should build on that by helping local businesses to improve their reuse and recycle processes. The Scottish Government will also need to work alongside and properly to resource local authorities. Instead, there has so far been a significant underestimation of funding needed to enable our local authorities to deliver on a circular economy, leaving our local authorities with yet another funding crisis that they will have to precariously juggle. Presiding Officer, it is important that the circular economy bill recognises and prioritises a climate justice approach. Research by the IPCC predicts a worrying future in rising number of climate migrants who will be displaced because of climate effects. The circular economy bill could provide a stable circular economy which will support climate refugees, not contribute to their problems which cause displacement from their home countries. We must build a strong, skilled and engaged workforce. The interaction of a circular economy's skilled passport could upskill people to work in the used repair sector, supporting access to sustainable economic opportunity. To achieve climate justice in this bill, we will also need monitoring on and accountability for exported materials to ensure that Scotland doesn't simply move its waste to other countries, shifting the climate burden and its mission to meet its own waste targets. Presiding Officer, this bill will not change public behaviour overnight. We need more investment in behavioural charity projects to facilitate the culture of the future. I recently co-sponsored with Maggie Chapman MSP a circular economy showcase outside the Scottish Parliament. This event was a collaborative initiative between friends of the people who have been involved in the project. I have been involved in the project. I have been involved in the project. I'm involved in the project. I'm involved in the project. gyda'r cymhwysau sydd wedi'u cyfrannu'r ddwyliadau. Mae'n ymdegwyd yw'r cyfnod o'r cyfrannu'r ddwyliadau am y cyfrannu'r ddwyliadau i Gwyddoedd yw cyrniadau yn Gwyddoedd, gwylio'r bobl yn ei ddefnyddio'r cilio, a oedd y byd yn ei ddefnyddio'r cyfrannu'r byd o'r cynhyrch, yn cyfrannu'r cyfrannu'r cyfrannu. Mae'r cyfrannu'r cyfrannu'r cyfrannu'r cilio'r ddwyliadau But we cannot see half-hearted attempt with ill-thought-out implementation mechanism, weekly curved-out targets, poor monitoring of effectiveness and lack of support for industry and local authorities. Scottish Labour is committed to ensuring that the bill is properly scrutinised and made as robust as possible as it progresses through the Parliament to ensure that Scotland's commitment to climate action is progressed and more sustainable planet can be built for all. I call Fulton MacGregor, the final speaker in the open debate. Thank you, Presiding Officer. The Scottish Government have made it clear that the climate emergency is one of the most important issues we will ever face, and it requires a multi-disciplinary approach to tackle. Transforming our economy into a more circular one is one of the key areas that we can invest in in order to respond to this crisis. I'm not a member of the committee that's been looking at this bill, but it is, Presiding Officer, a great honour to speak, and I'll take the opportunity today to mention some local initiatives. But as we debate the general principles of the bill, the key message is that this bill will enable Scotland to increase reuse and recycle rates by introducing a range of measures to discourage throw-away culture. We have heard the term reduce, reuse, recycle since the 70s, and this, in essence, is what a circular economy is. Resource extraction is reduced by promoting the re-using of materials and products. In turn, anything that must be discarded should be recycled, so the most value can be taken from many waste products. We must move away, Presiding Officer, from the current model of a linear economy, where it is where we take resources from the ground, air and water, make them into products and structures, and then dispose of them. By transitioning away from that type of economy into a circular model, we will remain on track to meet the commitments of our climate change plan, which is envisioned that, by 2045, Scotland would have a focus on responsible production, responsible consumption and ability, and an ability to maximise the value from waste and energy. In looking at our own track record, we have done well. More than half of Scotland's waste was recycled in 2021. The amount of waste that is being sent to landfills has dropped by a third over a decade. We also have reduced all waste by 15 per cent, and our emissions from the waste management sector have dropped by over 75 per cent since 1990. While those figures are encouraging, we must continue those trends and, most importantly, legislate in a manner that makes sustainable choices easier and more routine for businesses and households alike. With that in mind, it is vital to remember that those measures that we are looking to introduce are being done in an intricate and elaborate Scottish, UK, European and global landscape. Things that the chamber cannot legislate for are reserved issues such as VAT, product standards, product labouring and consumer protection. We must encourage the UK Government to also work towards a circular economy, and we must also look at that in the international context of, for example, the Covid pandemic, Brexit, the war in Ukraine and the crisis in Gaza. I have also mentioned that the fact that encouraging a circular economy would open new markets and stimulate economic opportunities in Scotland. The legislation would support the establishment and growth in green businesses and initiatives. Examples of that would include VegWare, who are the only company in the UK to develop, manufacture and distribute a full range of completely compostable food packaging and creating disposables. And also, Retronics, who are an organisation in my constituency in the I know well and I visited previously, they recover, repair and reuse electrical components. Their work restores the functionality of electronic parts that might otherwise be considered obsolete and inefficient and would have ended up in a landfill in the past. And I want to pay tribute to the work that Retronics do in Coatbridge and further afield. Those are just examples of initiatives that would not have existed a few decades ago but are currently growing and promoting more transparent ethical industry standards. And although I have spoken about global issues in the climate emergency, which will affect the whole planet, a huge benefit of this bill is its ability to work on a local level by giving local councils increased powers and promoting the circular economy. Funding to increase these powers is based off the £70 million recycling improvement fund. Some of those powers include giving local authorities more enforcement powers to tackle things such as littering from cars and fly tipping and increasing collaboration between the Scottish Government and local authorities to design national codes of practice for household waste recycling. And we would agree with what other speakers have said, the issues of fly tipping and general littering are a real play in my constituency area as well as others. As I have said, the strength of the bill is the influence it will have on a local level. I want to take some time to also talk about Viridor, the recycling renewable energy and waste management company who have a regional office in Burgundy within my constituency. And if the minister has not already visited them, I would put an invite to her. They are a very good organisation. Viridor have exemplified a circular economy in action through the use of combustion chambers to convert waste into usable energy. This energy is then exported to the national grid, powering and heating tens of thousands of homes while saving thousands of tonnes of CO2 emissions annually. Organisations like Viridor actively support the national energy grid by diversifying energy sources and critically reducing dependence on fossil fuels. I have visited Viridor several times since becoming an MSP and I can test that they also see the importance of community engagement and have often given back to the community through initiatives such as educational awareness programmes and schools and clubs across the country. These initiatives have underlined the importance of promoting a circular economy and instilling a sense of collective responsibility for our future. Viridor's mission statement with regard to a circular economy is to lead the way with building a world where nothing goes to waste. I also have to say that I am a major employer in my local area and again I thank them for that and for basing themselves there. In conclusion, we all know the importance of a circular economy. This bill is a way that we can encourage a circular economy through legislative means. I acknowledge that this is a multidisciplinary issue too and non-legislative means of transitioning to a circular economy can be encouraged, such as fostering a sense of collective responsibility for waste management and awareness campaigns to ensure that all parts of Scottish society play their part in this transition. I support the general principles of the bill. I thank the committee for their work so far and I encourage the chamber to do likewise. I am grateful for the opportunity to close this debate on behalf of the Scottish Labour Party. Ultimately, if we are truly to realise the potential that this bill sets out and its ambitious title to deliver a circular economy for Scotland, it is essential that the next stages of this process strengthen this legacy. I am grateful for the legislation so that it is capable of delivering on its aims. If we look at the Government's failure to deliver on the deposit return scheme, businesses were let down at a cost of over £86 million. Not to mention the fact that businesses felt like no one was prepared to listen to them, so hopefully this time we will be listening. If we look at the Government's failure to deliver on the rhetoric on just transition for workers, workers are being let down, such as in the case of Grainsmouth, where again they feel like they are not being listened to. It is clear to me, as I believe to many in this chamber, that it is one thing for this Government to talk a good game on their green credentials, but quite another when it comes to actually delivering. My view is that the real failure of the deposit return scheme legislation was an argumentative approach that the Government took to any criticism or concerns that were raised. This Government seems to believe that, by simply forcing legislation through, any unanswered questions will just disappear. I thank the member for giving way. I want to acknowledge the views of the Welsh Labour First Minister, who acknowledged the fact that the UK Government had stepped in to block Scotland's deposit return scheme. In fact, now the Welsh Government has exactly the same problems as we have in Scotland and a difficulty in trying to align their own deposit return scheme with an English scheme, which simply does not exist because the UK Government has scrapped it. I hope that, once we have a change in the UK Government at some point this year, we will have certainly a Government in Westminster that wants to work with a Government in Scotland. Once we have a change in two years' time in a Labour Government here, we will certainly have two Governments that will work together. However, whether it is going to war with the UK Government, refusing to respond to the concerns of small businesses or pulling the plug on the scheme altogether, despite its own scheme administrator saying that alternative permitted scheme would be absolutely viable, the Government often seemed to opt for the path of most resistance. I urge the Government to not make the same mistakes again with this legislation. Recognise that delivering a truly circular economy for Scotland is not only in all our best interests, it is likely to be supported by the majority of MSPs in this chamber if the legislation proposed achieves what it sets out to achieve. If we all work together on this bill, we could deliver a truly transformative piece of legislation, not simply another bill dealing with recycling. Organisations supportive of the general principles of this bill, such as Consumer Scotland, Action to Protect Rural Scotland, Friends of the Earth Scotland and many others, have all been clear that the legislation needs to be stronger. If it is going to have the desired impact. Consumer Scotland says that it is important that work does not focus disproportionately on waste management and disposal. In order to achieve the transformational change required, action must be prioritised higher up the waste, higher argy and address the problem of overconsumption and unsustainable resource use. APRS agrees on this point, calling on the waste hierarchy to be made explicit within the bill, while also suggesting further necessary amendments on take-back targets, refillable and reasonable packaging, conditionality on public spending and introducing enhanced reporting for companies in receipt of public funding. Friends of the Earth Scotland support the creation of the bill, but it is clear that it needs improvement to ensure that it is as robust as it can be as they call for the inclusion of mandatory carbon-based consumption reduction targets among other additions to the bill. In summary, the organisations that are supporters of the bill point to the great work carried out by the net zero energy and transport committee and urge the Government to consider their recommendations carefully to strengthen the bill. The finance and public administration committee also raised concerns about the financial implications of the bill and I have raised that with the minister in terms of local government and the fact that local government is struggling right now. The Government cannot ignore those concerns. Local authority budgets are already overstretched and if the legislation is not resourced properly then it simply will not work. In conclusion, while we are broadly supportive of the principles of the bill, it is clear that there is much work to be done to ensure that the legislation lives up to the ambitious aims that sets out in its name. I also want to thank the committees who have considered the bill in great detail and for the witnesses who have given their time to submit evidence on those measures and of course the clerks of the net zero committee who somehow managed to capture our views and get into our report that we could all agree on. We have heard many interesting contributions today, focusing on the intentions of the bill and how it will work in practice. As the committee report points out, there is a lot that is unsaid, unknown and unexplained within the proposed bill and I share the concerns of the committee in this area. We all agree on the principle that legislation to assist the development of our circular economy in Scotland is required. However, the bill needs a lot of work before it is fit for purpose and I look forward to being involved in the process to improve it. Many of my colleagues have outlined some of the concerns that the committee had when considering this legislation and I note the minister's response to the committee, the outline and acceptance of many of the recommendations that were made. This is helpful and I hope that we can work together to improve the bill moving forward. As other colleagues have noted, the committee found it challenging to scrutinise the bill given that it is a framework legislation with much of the details being added later. This makes us all nervous as we should not be agreeing to legislation that is unclear. We are not a fill in the blanks later Parliament or at least we shouldn't be. As a former councillor and council leader, I have specific concerns around the additional burdens that this legislation will place on local authorities, particularly around increased centralised control in targets. I support action on increasing household recycling practices and I welcome the minister's comments about removing the potential penalties to local authorities. However, it needs to work with them more and look at ways to reward local authorities that do meet their targets. It is vitally important that the Scottish Government continues to meet with COSLA to discuss the measures and how they are to be implemented fully in agreement in line with the Verity House agreement. I have real concerns on the financial burden that this will place on our local authorities. I ask the minister what additional funding will be made available to local authorities to assist with implementation and additional reporting and recording that will be required as a result of this legislation. An increase to the value of recycling will not cover it. I just want to turn to some of the other contributions that we have heard today. We have heard from the finance committee and that was quite a contribution. We have heard of the concern of the lack of certainty, the lack of costs, underestimated costs, costs from zero waste Scotland to local authorities, hearing that the co-design could and should be used up front and risks that the bill is unaffordable. The FFM is not being adequate. A framework bill is always going to be the case. We have heard from my colleague Maurice Golden that the bill is drafted and will not deliver a circular economy. It is a waste and litter bill. Little detail. No guarantee of when or even if things will change. Liam Kerr. I am just listening carefully to what the member is saying. If this is a framework bill such that the Government can later bring back extra bits and tack extra things on to it, how can this Parliament adequately scrutinise the finances that are being proposed? Douglas Lomston. I think that Liam Kerr has hit the nail on the head and I think that we have heard that from the finance committee. They cannot. They cannot see what is going to be coming forward in terms of the regulations and what the costs are going to be to our local authorities. Maurice Golden also raised that ministers need to be more accountable for missed targets. He raised the point that targets have been missed for eight out of the last 12. No minister has been resigned over this. It is simply missed and things carry on as they were before. Bob Doris talks about behavioural change. I completely agree with Bob Doris on this. Maybe the focus should be on that rather than on legislation. Murdo Fraser, or Uncle Bulgaria, as he will now be referred to, spoke. I will give way to Bob Doris. I will sit on the same committee as Mr Lomston, but just for clarity, the committee had come together and we agreed that there was legislative change required, not just behavioural change. They went and listened to think that Mr Lomston did not support legislation because he clearly did as part of the committee unanimously. Maybe Mr Doris was not listening to when I spoke earlier that legislation was welcome, but I think that the focus should maybe be on the behavioural change that even he discussed, because I think that is where we can have greater impact than the legislation that is before us. Murdo Fraser spoke of the blight of fly tipping. I think that all of us have probably received emails about that. It is a rural and urban problem. It is not just one or the other. He spoke about the criminals that are making money from this and the need to make it easier for people to dispose legally of the goods that they no longer require. Sarah Boyack and Graham Simpson raised the point again about households being criminalised for someone else putting something else in the wrong item in their bins. I will indeed. Minister, it is already a crime, not to desist from contaminating recycling if you have been issued a notice, that is already a crime. The bill does not create a new criminal offence. What it does is give a more proportionate and milder enforcement option for councils should they wish to use it. I thank the minister for that, but I think that what she has not recognised is that people could put out their bin and they have got the right things in it and then somebody else comes along afterwards and then contaminates their bin and that person may be penalised. Liam McArthur spoke about the lack of detail and difficult to understand the impact that this bill will make. Ben Macpherson spoke about the re-use and refurbishment and the remakery. We both visited the remakery as part of the committee work. Maybe he should have looked for an iron when we were at the remakery. Maybe he got one foot at a good price. He also spoke about construction and there is nothing about construction in this bill. Maybe that would be welcome because, as Ben Macpherson pointed out, it is a large amount of waste that is produced from that industry. In conclusion, this legislation could have been a step in the right direction but there are so many questions around it that a lot of work needs to be done to get it right. As I said at the start of my remarks, there is still too much that is unclear, unknown and unsaid. We fully support the need to move towards our circular economy, but for that we need certainty and a clear strategy of how we are going to get there. Businesses involved in this sector are leading the way. We must listen to them and ensure that we are taking them with us on this journey. Local authorities will be at the forefront of delivering this strategy. Again, we must ensure that we are working hand in hand to achieve the goals. I remain concerned, Presiding Officer, that the record of this Government is not a good one when it comes to those measures. We have seen in the past businesses have been let down and feel abandoned by this Government. Councils are dismayed that the decisions being taken by the Government and the break-in of the Verity House agreement. We have seen previous schemes in the sector such as the DRS failed because of lack of competence. That lack of competence is therefore all to see today the day that the Climate Change Committee published a damning report on Scotland's progress on reducing its emissions. It could conclude, Mr Lumsden. Thank you, Mr Lumsden. I must ask you to conclude. Thank you, Mr Lumsden. Mr Lumsden, I suggest in future that, when you were asked to conclude, you do so. I call on Lorna Slater to wind up up to eight minutes, minister. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I want to thank all the contributions today, except possibly the last few lines of Mr Lumsden for their constructive, if robust, nature today. I am very pleased that there is consensus across the Parliament on the principles of the bill and that such measures are necessary for moving us towards a circular economy bill. I am particularly pleased to hear that there is support across the chamber for things like standardising recycling across Scotland, notwithstanding the special needs of islands and other rural communities. I want to remind members, of course, that the bill sits in the context of our waste route map, which contains our strategy and wider ambitions in this area. I am just wondering what assessment has been done on the financial cost of consistent collections to local authorities. What I want the member to understand is that I am committed to working with COSLA to understand what a standardised code of practice will look like. I must go through that process with COSLA to understand what that will look like, and part of that process will be understanding what funding is required for that process. That is something that we will be working on together with COSLA. Mr Mountain, Sarah Boyack and others reiterated arguments during this debate about the framework and nature of the bill with the concern that it brings a reduced opportunity for scrutiny, including financial scrutiny. As I said in my response to the committee's report, for each regulation making power, the Parliament should have suitable opportunity to ensure that the regulations are robust and fit for purpose, and this will be ensured through the procedures set out in the bill for scrutiny of secondary legislation. Where Scottish ministers are intending to co-design any provisions, the bill ensures that consultation is embedded in the process. That bill achieves the appropriate balance between the importance of developing a more circular economy and the need to provide flexibility to allow ministers—certainly one more. Sarah Boyack. A key set of recommendations is about superaffirmative approach rather than just putting together secondary legislation to get nodded through. We need to have that constructive dialogue and accountability not just with our committees but with key stakeholders. I indeed look forward to a constructive dialogue with the member and other members in this chamber on what we may achieve in that direction. This bill does need to provide and does provide that appropriate balance for ministers to allow ministers to respond to changing and unforeseen circumstances quickly without the need for further primary legislation every time a change is needed. It also helps to ensure that proper use of parliamentary time is made, and I note that stakeholders, including ENGOs, COSLA and business bodies, have welcomed the framework of nature of this bill. There have been a number of comments in relation to how the bill would be funded. The RootMap sets out that there will be a review of funding mechanisms for services to ensure modern, efficient and affordable outputs. That review will build on key findings from long-term investment, including the over £1 billion made through the former Strategic Waste Fund between 2008 and 2022, the Recycling Improvement Fund and the new provisions set out in the Circular Economy Scotland Bill. John Mason and others have referenced the financial memorandum, and since that financial memorandum was published, further awards have been made under the Recycling Improvement Fund, which has now allocated £60.6 million to 25 local authorities. Those are already starting the process to help more local authorities to align with the existing code of practice. The financial memorandum represents a snapshot in time, and more detailed costs will be the result of ongoing refinement as we work with local authorities and householders to develop the detail. Regulations made under enabling powers will be subject to further consultation, parliamentary scrutiny and impact assessments, including business regulatory impact assessments and island impact assessments. By necessity, the financial memorandum provides strategic-level cost and benefit data, and I am committed to updating the finance and NZET committees as regulations are developed. Maurice Golden, Sarah Boyack and others have argued that the bill focuses on the lower end of the waste hierarchy, particularly on recycling and household waste. It doesn't. Reducing consumption of materials is a fundamental driver for the circular economy strategy, for example. I suggest that members look at sections 1 and 6 of the bill. Section 1 of the bill is about setting that strategy, and it mentions reduction consumption of materials three times. In section 6 of the bill, which talks about setting targets, it is mentioned four times. Reducing consumption of materials through that effective waste hierarchy is absolutely at the heart of the bill, and the provisions of the bill help to bring this about. Charges for single-use items are included to incentivise the use of reusable items, which we have all seen with the charge on bags, which has driven all of us to bring and keep reusable bags for the purpose of shopping. Restrictions on the destruction of unsold goods is also a key means to ensuring that goods are used by those who need them. Reuse is a key theme of the route map, including exploring reuse hubs for construction materials. Of course, some areas are relevant to tackling overconsumption and taking on a system-wide approach, such as VAT, product standards, product labelling and consumer protection are reserved, but the strategy will focus on devolved matters. I need to get through time now. Mr Mountain, Sarah Boyack and several other members have raised the issue of the Internal Market Act. Please be reassured, members, that the circular economy bill does not contain any provisions on the face of the bill, which would trigger the application of the Internal Market Act. It contains no provisions, which in themselves would prohibit the sale of goods or, in the case of an obligation or condition, result in their sale being prohibited, if it is not complied with. Further consideration will, of course, need to be given to the IMA when and where the powers under the bill are exercised. This is in line with the Scottish Government's overall approach to manage the risk that the IMA poses to laws passed by the Scottish Parliament. The Scottish Government engages regularly with the Office of the Internal Market and will continue to do so. Of course, the Scottish Government, like the UK Government, is under no obligation to seek policy advice from the OIM on draft legislation. We have already highlighted the circular economy bill to the UK and other UK Administrations. Ben Macpherson asked about construction in relation to the bill. Following the first use of the reporting provisions to cover food waste and surplus, construction is another potential candidate for the use of those powers. Construction is also a priority within the route map, and more widely the built environment is also regularly identified as an important system in research in this area. For example, the circularity gap report. I therefore expect construction to be reflected as a key sector within the circular economy strategy, too. I have a soldering iron, Ben. If your problem is electrical, I may be able to help you out. Monica Lennon raised the issue of reusable nappies. I look forward to visiting North Ayrshire Council with her on Monday 25th to learn more about that council's real nappy incentive scheme. We will be publishing research that we have commissioned on barriers to use of reusable nappies shortly. I note Murdo Fraser's comments around flytipping and share his concern and need for urgency in tackling flytipping and waste crime. I look forward to meeting with the member again to see if we can support the intentions and aims of his member's bill, potentially through amendments to the circular economy bill. I would like to thank members for their detailed scrutiny of this bill, which has yielded many suggestions upon which I will reflect. I am pleased to say that I will do so and continue to do so with an open mind. I am grateful to the members who have recognised that I am open minded and have welcomed their contributions to the process. I have greatly enjoyed the debate today. I look forward to stage 2 when we will look at the amendments and to working with members from across the chamber to make this bill a success. That concludes the debate on circular economy Scotland Bill at stage 1. I will point to fordra Douglas Lumsden. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Just to put on record that I was a councillor at Aberdeen City Council at the start of this session. I made reference to that in my contribution. Thank you, Mr Lumsden. Your comments are recorded. We will momentarily move on to the next item of business.