Chamber and committees

To ask the Scottish Government how it prevents a loss of talent when considering any reduction in funding to the arts sector. (S6O-03625)

I thank the cabinet secretary for that answer, but I wonder what he would say to the director of Culture Counts, Lori Anderson, who wrote to the First Minister:

“Large-scale contraction will have a systemic effect that can’t be predicted or easily undone. Our artists, performers and freelancers are vulnerable, and some are choosing to leave the sector seeking more stability. Our reputation and ambitions as an international cultural leader are now at serious risk.”

What is his response to that?

Mandating consistent household collections through an updated national code of practice is a critical step in creating a consistent approach to recycling collections across Scotland. Any approach should include as wide a range of materials as possible, including drink cartons, to drive progress towards a truly circular economy. It is vital that drink cartons remain in the metal, plastic and beverage carton collection stream, as set out in the existing code of practice, to ensure that they can be easily sorted for recycling.

When people put things in their recycling bins and send them to be recycled, it is essential that they can trust that those materials will actually be recycled, but that is sometimes not the case, particularly with cartons. That came as a surprise to me. I am sure that all members dutifully put drink cartons in the right bin, but they will be as surprised as I was to discover that quite often they do not get recycled. Without the mandating of sorting, consumers cannot be confident that that will be the case.

It is only through proper sorting that materials can be sent to the most appropriate destination for processing, so without mandatory sorting, there is a risk that, for commercial reasons, a waste management company will choose to treat less valuable materials as contaminant and put them in a different material stream, rather than sorting them so that they can be sent to the most appropriate processing facilities. Amendment 21 fixes that problem.

Although amendment 37 is less prescriptive in that it does not mention cartons, we need to create the conditions where there is a market to recycle materials, and I have discussed that with the minister. Too much is slipping through the net. I said to the minister that the bill ultimately needs to achieve things, one of which is recycling and the other of which is reuse. My amendments achieve the recycling bit, so they are very important. I think that the minister understands the importance of the issue, so I look forward to hearing her views.

Certainly.

What led to the breakdown in trust between the board and the programme director?

I do not wish to move the amendments en bloc; I will not be moving them. [Applause.]

I have a couple of amendments in the group: amendments 10 and 36. The bill will increase recycling rates in Scotland only if it introduces dedicated recycling targets for household waste and core materials, which I will discuss later. Those targets should be aligned with those that are set under the UK-wide extended producer responsibility scheme. Without targets, waste management companies here have no incentive to properly sort and recycle all materials. Introducing targets means that they would need to demonstrate proper treatment of all materials in order to receive EPR fees. That would drive improved recycling in Scotland.

Amendment 10 says that there should be targets for each core material, including drinks cartons, while amendment 36 is slightly less prescriptive. I am grateful to Monica Lennon for supporting amendment 36.

I have 27 amendments in this group, all of which relate to deadlines for expiry of regulation-making powers under the law. I do not intend to give chapter and verse on them individually. Given the minister’s current state of health, I invite her to follow the same approach.

At stage 2, I lodged similar amendments that offered the committee an opportunity to reduce timescales to either six months, one year or two years. I thought that those were reasonable amendments. None of them required a particularly quick turnaround, because if we are serious about delivering a circular economy, we need an ambitious pace of working. Like my previous attempts at stage 2, my current amendments would set a timetable for the making of various regulations under the bill and would give the Government of the day a deadline. At stage 2, I invited the committee to

“turbo-boost the bill under the dynamism of Gillian Martin”—[Official Report, Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee, 7 May 2024; c 47.]

but the committee and the minister rejected my invitation. In fact, the minister told me that she was not “about the fast lane” and cautioned me against rushing things “at our peril”. She did not want to be tied to a timeline that would require the Government to deliver regulations within two years, but she recognised

“the need to make swift progress ... and that timelines are important.”—[Official Report, Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee, 14 May 2024; c 30.]

I was disappointed by what I saw as a lack of ambition. We want the Government of the day, whoever that is, to deliver a circular economy properly, but also at pace. I did think that giving the Government three years was far too long. However, in the light of how things progressed at stage 2, I am opting for that now. Three years should give any Government more than ample time to make regulations, including the meaningful consultation to which the minister referred at stage 2.

In this group, I also have a series of sunset clauses that say that if the Government has not made regulations under those sections within three years, those provisions will expire. That should focus the mind of any minister, I would have thought.

I am grateful to have the support of Friends of the Earth on amendments 1 and 2 in this group. Amendment 1 says that ministers must make regulation-setting targets within three years. Friends of the Earth agrees that such regulations should be introduced as soon as possible. Amendment 2 says that if ministers do not hit that target, they should make a statement to Parliament to explain themselves.

Members will be pleased to hear that I am about to sit down. I will decide how to proceed with my other amendments after I have heard other members’ views on them.

I move amendment 1.

I have nothing to add. I press amendment 1. We will see how that goes.

Handily, I was just about to come on to that. I had skipped a whole load of speaking notes just to address that very point.

First, the minister questioned what is meant by “social benefit” and how that would be defined in law. I accept her point. We have discussed the matter and I do not want to see something in legislation that has no real meaning. Secondly, I also hear what she says about the phrase “existing network”. On reflection, I think that the word “existing” is superfluous and it perhaps damages the amendment. I take her point that amendment 35 would not work with that word included, so I will not move it. Sadly, it has not been written—it is my fault—in the way that I would have liked. However, I will move amendment 34.