That is a good point to finish on, because it feeds into Christopher Nicholson’s comment about not necessarily being consulted on all the detail in advance. That is what the committee’s questions are all about. We want to make sure that we get all your points on the record so that we can consider them as we draft our report.

Those are all the questions that I wanted to ask.

I absolutely press amendment 101.

I will certainly press amendment 81, especially given that it has good support. One thing that we should take away from this bill is that our exchange about how we support our local communities and the third sector, which are already doing a fantastic job, and enable them to scale up, is unfinished business. Getting the detail right is always important when it comes to legislation, so I note that Graham Simpson will not press his amendment 35, but I hope that all the other amendments in the group will be agreed to because, if we really push for this to happen, it will make a big difference to our constituents. It will mean that products that would otherwise have been wasted will be put back into use. We have to support that. Maximising the use of all those goods is good for not just the environment and the planet but our constituents. That has to be at the heart of our agenda.

Amendment 81 agreed to.

Amendment 82 moved—[Gillian Martin]—and agreed to.

Amendment 34 moved—[Graham Simpson]—and agreed to.

Amendment 35 not moved.

Amendment 83 moved—[Sarah Boyack]—and agreed to.

Amendment 5 not moved.

Amendment 84 moved—[Sarah Boyack]—and agreed to.

Amendment 6 not moved.

Section 9—Power to require imposition of charges for single-use items

Amendment 7 not moved.

I thank the minister and her team for helping me to craft amendments 81, 83 and 84.

As I said at stage 2, retailers in particular are concerned about provisions in section 8 and feel that measures regarding unsold food, along with the number of regulations that would be placed on them in a short period of time, would prove challenging. I hope that amendment 81 will provide reassurance to those who had concerns about food waste. My amendment 83 would ensure that the Scottish Government publishes guidance on the implementation of this section. Amendment 84 is a consequential and technical amendment.

The amendments are clearly in line with the recommendations in the committee’s stage 1 report. The guidance would clarify for businesses the scope of the unsold goods that would be affected. We know that a number of businesses are already trying to repurpose unsold goods and/or divert them from landfill, but there are circumstances in which goods are damaged or contaminated and it would be unsafe to put them to another use. Guidance is therefore needed to ensure that businesses and producers can do the right thing within the letter of the law and that public health and safety is protected.

I hope that members will feel able to support my amendments.

I support the minister’s amendment 82, which adds clarity and is therefore helpful.

I will comment on Graham Simpson’s amendments 34 and 35. Amendment 34 includes a provision to prioritise reuse rather than recycling, which I think is really good because it will push reuse up the hierarchy. Amendment 35 could have a really positive impact on our communities, because the social benefit that could be delivered by unsold goods could not be more important during this cost of living crisis.

It feels unusual to support all the amendments in the group, but that is certainly what I will do today.

I move amendment 81.

Using compostable products, and disposing of them effectively, is critical to the waste hierarchy and to dealing with our waste. When I go into a shop, now, I am interested in whether its bags are compostable. Some mainstream shops are now using such bags. There is a need to make sure that things are reusable or compostable, and that they are not just thrown out and wasted. That is what is behind the ambition in my amendment 101. I do not think that it is about creating loopholes; it is about reusing and making the best of products.

The last point that I will make is on amendment 71, in the name of Gillian Mackay. Vapes are increasingly becoming complex products and it is more difficult to ensure that all of the component parts are recycled and reused. Amendment 71 is very helpful, and we should support it.

I move amendment 101.

I very much welcome amendment 38, in the name of Maurice Golden, which is similar to one that I lodged at stage 2 that did not receive enough support at that point.

I also welcome the amendment’s language about “goods, products and materials” because I pushed that issue at stage 2. Having a section on purpose in the bill would help to provide clarity about what we want a circular economy in Scotland to look like. That would help to ensure that the strategy and targets that will be created as a result of the bill are coherent. It would also send out a signal to industry and consumers, so that everyone can consider their actions and behaviour and what they can change to ensure that “goods, products and materials” are kept in use for longer. It will mean not just talking about the waste hierarchy but getting on with managing our waste in line with that.

A section on purpose would also send a signal to the wider public sector. Local authorities take decisions every day about managing their waste services, so setting out the purpose of a circular economy here in Scotland will help them to make the right, focused decisions and will ensure that we progress towards a circular economy for the long term.

The bill is called the Circular Economy (Scotland) Bill, so we must ensure that it is not just a recycling bill. This purpose amendment would be incredibly helpful in delivering on the title of the bill and I therefore encourage members across the chamber to support amendment 38.

Procurement is a key issue here. I am keen to support amendment 53 because it will raise awareness of the circular economy across the public sector. It will be critical for the implementation of the bill that that happens. Amendment 53 also links well with Monica Lennon’s amendment 72, which she moved earlier and which requires a strategy to exercise

“due diligence in relation to environmental protection and human rights ... in supply chains”.

It will be important to take a joined-up approach and to use the Scottish Government’s ability to produce regulations to make this happen.

The other issue is that giving a duty, as is set out in amendment 99, to every public sector body would make this a day-to-day issue. It would mean that public bodies would think strategically about their impact, their supply chains, their procurement and what difference they will make. That is critical given the huge impact that it could have in the public sector in making the circular economy principles part of everyday public spending.

My amendment 100 would ensure that targets that are introduced via regulations include targets for cutting “carbon emissions associated with” consumption. That is absolutely critical if we in Scotland are to bring down our CO₂ emissions and to meet our global aspirations and our commitments.

There was a lot of debate at stage 2 on what the targets will look like. Although the minister has given us some understanding of that, I am concerned that we still do not have a full grasp of what the targets will look like and what level they will be set at. We need to move to a circular economy to ensure that Scotland is responsible and that we cut our carbon emissions to net zero. Amendment 100 is essential to ensure that circular economy targets that include cutting carbon emissions are at the heart of the targets that are produced and set as a result of the bill.

One thing that is striking about the amendments in this group is the extent to which members have reflected on the discussion at stage 2. The amendments show that members listened to what colleagues said in those discussions.

Mark Ruskell’s amendments are important. They are about linking the consumption of goods, products and materials to carbon emissions.

Maurice Golden’s amendment about the overall target is key, as is making sure that

“waste is managed in Scotland if it is appropriate to do so.”

We should try to encourage that. It is not an absolute must, but it is critical that we get people to think about that and that we push it up the agenda.

Monica Lennon’s comments about human rights and supply chains fit in with that, and the comments that Ben Macpherson made on his amendment are also important. We need to think about how to develop a circular economy in which all the different sectors play a key role.

All the amendments in this group are really important. We support the minister’s amendments in the group, and we think that approving all the amendments in the group would really strengthen the bill.

At stage 2, I supported amendments to exempt biodegradable coffee cups from future regulations. I made the point that a small number of coffee shops in my region, Lothian, have switched to using biodegradable coffee cups, using the innovation of producers that are based in Edinburgh.

I accept the Government’s concerns about the use in legislation of the word “biodegradable”. However, to look further at the production methods of biodegradable cups, two acids—polylactic and crystallised polylactic—are sometimes their core components. Polylactic acid is a biodegradable thermoplastic that is obtained from renewable and organic sources. I do not believe that we should hinder small coffee shops, in particular, which are already making sustainable choices and helping to create the circular economy that we want as a result of the bill.

If the Government cannot accept amendment 101—I make that presumption—I would be very keen to get confirmation from the minister on whether, prior to regulations that would place a charge on single-use coffee cups, she will look fully at exempting biodegradable cups within the regulations.

I strongly support amendment 71, in the name of Gillian Mackay, on vapes—

The discussion on this group has been good. I am disappointed that the Government will not accept my amendment, but I am glad that the minister will at least look at the regulations issue. I just want to support local businesses that are trying to do the right thing by producing innovative and beneficial products. Monica Lennon and Gillian Martin’s points about making it easier for people to do the right thing are critical.

I come back to the minister’s final point about communications. The Government will need to think about communications in relation to what the bill will look like at the end of the process. How do we communicate with people in such a way that they understand what the legislation does, what it could do and how it will impact businesses and communities? There has not been enough focus on communication.