Chamber and committees

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, so I am pleased to take part in today’s debate.

I take this opportunity to record my thanks to the clerks, SPICe, and all the people who took the time to give evidence and engage in the process. In the spirit of reduce, reuse and recycle, I might just repeat most of this speech in the stage 3 debate.

It is important to recognise, as the committee’s report does early on, that there are two major aspects to closing the loop, as we seek to move from a linear economy—in which resources are extracted to make products that are then bought, used and thrown away—to a circular economy. Closing the loop to create a circular economy requires action at both ends of our current linear economy: it requires action at the start to reduce the amount of resources that are being extracted and to temper consumption, and at the end in relation to how waste is reduced and managed.

The committee’s report outlines that there is currently more focus on the end stages of that process than on tackling consumption and on concrete measures to encourage repair and reuse. To me, that is at least partly due to the powers that the Parliament currently has and what powers we know we can use without undue influence from the Tories through the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020. If the Scottish Parliament had more control over affairs in Scotland, 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.

Nonetheless, the bill is, within the powers that we have, an ambitious bill that will lay the foundations for a better, cleaner and greener tomorrow. It shows once again that Scotland is committed to tackling climate change.

The proposals in the bill are in line with the just transition principles. Just transition is particularly important to many of my constituents and is—members will not be surprised to hear me say this—another step on a journey that will see Aberdeen becoming the net zero capital of the world.

The committee made a number of recommendations in the report; I will use my remaining time to focus on just a few. First, the bill is, for the most part, a framework bill. I am pleased that that is recognised in the committee report, along with the view that is shared by me and others that its being so is a pragmatic approach that will allow us to keep up the momentum towards a circular economy by creating the broad legal powers that the Scottish Government will need. That set-up will allow 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 rightly makes the case that the bill must not disproportionately put on consumers the burden of achieving a circular economy. There must be accountability of producers for the environmental impacts of the products that they make. Products—including Ben Macpherson’s iron—should be designed to be longer lasting, reusable and repairable. For me, those characteristics have long been the marks of quality in a product, and should be the norm rather than the exception. Ideally, when a product finally reaches the end of its economic lifespan, it should also be easily recyclable.

The report also goes into great detail about whether targets should be set, what those targets should be and how the targets would be measured. The report’s recommendation is that setting targets should be an obligation, not an option. In the chamber, we talk a lot about how Scotland is leading the world on climate change, and those targets—if they are proportionate to the urgency of what we face—will provide a means to ensure that Scotland continues to lead on climate action.

Restriction of disposal of unsold consumer goods is supported by the committee. The report says:

“Clearly, it is in 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 than make it available to others at low or no cost.

I am genuinely interested in the evidence that we discussed in the committee regarding fly-tipping. Questions were asked a couple of times about who should be held responsible and fined for it. Should it be the person who has bought the services of the white van man, or the householder? I am very interested to hear the member’s views on that.

The Climate Change Committee previously estimated that, to achieve our climate change targets, Scotland will need an additional £5 billion to £6 billion of investment in low-carbon infrastructure each and every year from 2030. At the same time, Scotland is facing an almost 10 per cent real-terms cut to our UK capital funding between 2023-24 and 2027-28.

Will the cabinet secretary affirm that the Scottish Government will continue to call on the UK Government to change course and provide adequate funding to match our climate ambitions in Scotland?

Good morning, panel. On Liz McLeod’s comment about weather disruption and the increase in extreme weather, how satisfied are you that Network Rail and the train operators have the required skills and resources to cope with that increasing disruption?

You are confident with what is being put in place.

At this point, the only thing to note from my entry in the register of members’ interests is that I was formerly a councillor at Aberdeen City Council, until May 2022. I believe that we will be discussing local elections in the future.

I realise that those are historical numbers, and I am pleased to hear that you are still not satisfied with a wait of four months. On the whole, do you feel that the delay is better than it was but you are still striving to investigate complaints as quickly as possible? What waiting times would you be content with, if that is not an awkward question to ask?

I totally agree, and I think that there is a duty of care to both sides. Until you have reached the end of your investigation, you do not know what the outcome will be.

What correspondence is undertaken with both sides of the complaint during the process? There is nothing worse than being left and not responded to. Indeed, it can be bad for both sides.

You have said that the waiting times are published on the website. I am going to be a bit rude—forgive me—but those are just figures. How does someone know whether that is a reasonable amount of time to wait? Would waiting for four months for your case to be dealt with be seen as reasonable? Are people told that that is reasonable?

You say that it is only the cases that you have to investigate that are taking a long time, but you still have to investigate those cases that you do not think will take a long time in order to realise that. Do you have a timescale for dealing with them? You have said that you deal with them “pretty quickly”, but that could mean anything.