Chamber and committees

I would like a bit of clarity on amendment 501. Am I right in thinking that it would mean that a near relative could make a complaint, even if the tenant themselves did not want to make a complaint?

Amendment 379 is simple—I think that it is—in that it gives more power to the person who is leasing land and makes sure that they have a say on power lines crossing the land that they lease. How they use the land might have to change once power lines are installed, so they are definitely an interested party and I feel that they should be involved in giving consent for those lines.

I move amendment 379.

I will first address the comments that you made, convener. Payment might be made to the owners of the land, but if lines go above a tenant’s land, the tenant gets no payment at all, and the lines impact how they use that land. If the energy operator wants to access the land, for example, there is an impact.

There is also an impact on what farmers might want to do underneath the lines. Farmers who I have spoken to have raised concerns about whether they are allowed to operate high machinery underneath the lines. I realise that there is guidance from the Health and Safety Executive, but that is quite old now and there are concerns.

Mark Ruskell asked whether amendment 379 is just about electricity lines. Yes, it is, but what he said suggests that I might consider further amendments at stage 3.

I understand what Mark Ruskell says about the environment, but what cost to the environment? A lot of people are very unhappy with the amount of power lines that they see crisscrossing our country. They think that that is a huge cost to the environment that nobody is questioning. It is right that we do that. It is also right that we argue for proper compensation for people who are affected.

I will not push the amendment today.

Amendment 379, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendment 380 not moved.

Before section 8

—and we have got such big exposure from Biffa.

One must ask oneself: why is the devolved Government happy to have a DRS that excludes glass now, but to have ditched its own scheme—at huge cost to the Scottish taxpayer—back in 2023? The only logical presumption is that not to go ahead in 2023, at huge cost to taxpayers, was to generate grievance. To create grievance, at huge cost to the taxpayer, just shows what a disgusting organisation the Scottish National Party is.

When it comes to net zero, this devolved Government is all talk. It is happy for diesel-fuelled lorries to take our waste to England at huge cost to our taxpayers. Eighteen months ago, the SNP boasted that world leaders would be calling it, asking for advice on net zero. The only people who are phoning it now are waste companies in England asking for contracts. What an incompetent Government it is. [Interruption.]

Will the member take an intervention?

Will the minister give way?

I thank the minister for taking the intervention. When you are looking for savings, will you also look for savings from ministers taking limos to pubs? [Interruption.] Those are savings that could easily be had.

I thank Lorna Slater for that intervention—the system’s administrator Circularity Scotland was clear that it was happy enough for the scheme to take place.

If that had gone ahead, we would not have been in the situation in which we have lost so much money—[Interruption.]

Although we will support the SSI, we have serious concerns about what has been put in front of us and the lack of detail that we are being asked to approve. I raised those concerns at committee, and I will go through some of them again today.

There is no detail on the level of deposit or who can alter it; on the different deposit rates for different sized containers; or on the level of producer registration fees. There is a lack of detail on closed-loop premises and no mention of the costs for or impact on the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, or of the rural exemptions and coverage.

Today, we are being asked to approve a deposit return scheme that excludes glass. I do not have a problem with that, but I have a problem with the amount of taxpayer money that has been wasted to get us to this point. We could have launched a deposit return scheme that did not include glass two years ago, because an exemption from the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 was granted. If we had done that, the system administrator would not have collapsed with debts of £86 million, a big chunk of which was made up of Scottish taxpayers’ cash that had been lent through the Scottish National Investment Bank. All of that has been lost. We would not be in a position in which Biffa is taking legal action against the Scottish Government for £166 million. If it is successful, that will mean that less money will be available for our national health service, for policing and for our schools.

A number of constituents have contacted me regarding their inability to get GP appointments within a reasonable timescale. Last week, NHS Grampian announced £23 million-worth of spending cuts, which will mean stopping certain face-to-face appointments and giving routine test results only over the phone or by letter. What steps are being taken to improve long-term workforce planning for medical services in places such as Inverurie, to ensure sustainable staffing levels and continuity of care for local patients?