Chamber and committees

I will comment briefly on amendments 71 and 101. Sarah Boyack’s amendment 101 builds on what I attempted to do stage 2, which was to exempt compostable materials from the regulations. Bizarrely, people did not buy that proposal—they did not go for it. I would have thought that, if a material is compostable—in other words, it can break down naturally—we should not apply a charge to it. Ms Boyack has had another go at proposing that, although she has been a little more technical than I was. I will be happy to support her amendment, just as I will be happy to support Gillian Mackay’s amendment 71 on introducing a take-back scheme for single-use vapes, which are a problem. The littering of such products is an issue, so her proposal is definitely worth exploring. She mentioned issues that are caused by the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020. We would have to get those right before introducing such a scheme, but her proposal is definitely worth exploring.

I am curious to know how Bob Doris thinks that we could measure the potential international impacts of circular economy policies in Scotland. How does he think that could be done?

I am really grateful to Circular Communities Scotland for suggesting my amendments 34 and 35. I am grateful to Monica Lennon and Sarah Boyack for supporting them and to the minister for supporting amendment 34. I will speak about that one first.

Section 8, which is on restrictions on the disposal of unsold goods, is a really important section and it has wide support. It speaks to the minimisation of waste, which we all want to see, but it could and should go further and state explicitly that the reuse of unsold goods and returns should be prioritised over recycling, as per the waste hierarchy.

Amendment 34 seeks to ensure that section 8 will be explicit in highlighting the value of reuse over just taking things back and breaking them down for recycling. For example, small electrical goods, textiles, furniture and even bikes that are in good working order deserve to be put back into the economy and kept in safe use for as long as possible. Amendment 34 is in line with the principles of creating the conditions for a strong circular economy, and I am really grateful for the minister’s support for it.

I see my amendment 35, which is backed by Monica Lennon, as being complementary to amendment 34. It speaks to the principles of passing unsold goods back into the economy via the existing network of community-based and charitable organisations across the country. Most members will be aware of their local reuse projects and charity shops. They not only take in donations of goods and reduce waste but maximise the social value of those donations by undertaking wider charitable activities using the income from the sale of donated goods.

I will skip ahead to the comments that were made—

I am somewhat confused by the minister’s approach. Does she not accept that, given that we have a circular economy bill, we at least ought to know what is meant by “circular economy”? That is what amendment 38 sets out. Is the minister against having a purpose in the bill or is she just against Maurice Golden’s version of a purpose?

I support the amendment, but I would like to know how Gillian Mackay sees it working in practice. Does she think that there should be a take-back scheme applying to every retailer who sells single-use vapes—should the retailers be compelled to take the vapes back, and if someone takes back a single-use vape, will they be given some money for doing so?

I urge you to look at them—I think that I saw them on the BBC, so they should not be too difficult to find. You should have that sort of data.

You have mentioned technology. NHS England has an app that people can use to book an appointment with a GP, get repeat prescriptions and do other things. Why do we not have a similar app here?

Okay. I will very much be looking forward to that.

The issue of private finance initiative contracts came up in a previous evidence session, so you will be expecting to be asked about it and will, I hope, be prepared for these questions. We know that a number of PFI contracts in the health service are due to expire. I will just run through them. The contract for Tippethill hospital in Bathgate expires next year; the contract for New Craigs hospital in NHS Highland expires in 2026; the contracts for the Carseview centre in NHS Tayside and Larkfield in NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde expire in 2027; the contract for the Royal infirmary of Edinburgh expires in 2028; and the contracts for Ellen’s Glen house in NHS Lothian and—in my patch, and the convener’s patch—Wishaw general in NHS Lanarkshire expire in 2029. What happens when the contracts expire? Do you have to pay a sum of money in all those cases to retain the facilities?

Let me take just one of them—Wishaw general, the contract for which ends in 2029. What happens when it ends?

This is my final question, convener. Are there too many health boards?

I am just asking about that contract.