The Official Report is a written record of public meetings of the Parliament and committees.
All Official Reports of meetings in the Debating Chamber of the Scottish Parliament.
All Official Reports of public meetings of committees.
Displaying 8181 contributions
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee
Meeting date: 21 May 2024
Edward Mountain
Thank you. I am looking around to see whether any other members want to contribute. They do not appear to. Therefore, I move to the minister.
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee
Meeting date: 21 May 2024
Edward Mountain
The question is, that amendment 106 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee
Meeting date: 21 May 2024
Edward Mountain
The result of the division is: For 2, Against 5, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 106 disagreed to.
Amendment 39 not moved.
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee
Meeting date: 21 May 2024
Edward Mountain
I call amendment 40, in the name of Graham Simpson, already debated with amendment 5. I remind members that amendments 40 and 41 are direct alternatives
Amendment 40 not moved.
Amendment 41 moved—[Graham Simpson].
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee
Meeting date: 21 May 2024
Edward Mountain
I am going to intervene here. I am sure that everyone knows the processes of the Parliament far better than I do and will give me an opinion on whether I have interpreted them properly or not, but the idea of the stage 2 debate is that we go through the debate on the principles, and the member who is moving the lead amendment speaks to it and the other amendments in the group, and there is then a debate at that stage. The minister comes in if they have not spoken already and responds to the member. Then, the member sums up at the end. That is not another area for debate.
I gently remind members, for fear of being chided about my understanding of parliamentary process, to try to stick to procedure in the hope that we will get through this before day 6. I would love to extend the process to day 6, if members want to debate for that long, but I do not think that that would be helpful in allowing time for further debate at stage 3.
I am going to push Mr Simpson to wind up on this group of amendments and we will see if we can move forward.
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee
Meeting date: 21 May 2024
Edward Mountain
The question is, that amendment 41 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee
Meeting date: 21 May 2024
Edward Mountain
I call amendment 42, in the name of Graham Simpson, already debated with amendment 5. I remind members that amendments 42 and 43 are direct alternatives.
Amendment 42 not moved.
Amendment 43 moved—[Graham Simpson].
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee
Meeting date: 21 May 2024
Edward Mountain
The question is, that amendment 43 be agreed to. Are we all agreed?
Members: No.
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee
Meeting date: 21 May 2024
Edward Mountain
There will be a division.
For
Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Against
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee
Meeting date: 21 May 2024
Edward Mountain
The solution could be anything, but Ms Lennon is right that the point, and the evidence that we heard, is that the more standardisation that we have, the more likely people are to ensure that they put the right things in the bin. It was not until I went on some of our visits, including the visit to Change Waste Recycling, that I realised that “Plastic bottles” means just plastic bottles; it does not necessarily mean other plastic containers. The fact that we have separation in this Parliament for waste is extremely helpful, and it is interesting that the Government buildings in Edinburgh do not use the same system.
I am all for recycling where we can and for educating people. The easiest way to do that is to have a standard scheme, which we see in countries such as Norway and Sweden, I believe, which are more diverse.
I have sympathy with Sarah Boyack’s amendment 105, which is on tenements. My problem is that the issue goes further than tenements. If you drive round the countryside, you see bins at every single road end, all lined up neatly, because waste authorities’ collectors of waste no longer travel down to the properties; they want the bins stacked at the roadside. If you stack them at the roadside, you get all sorts of waste put in—that is what most of us get. Dog poo bags appear in every single recycling bin, and I am not sure that any of that is recyclable.
Maurice Golden made the same point that I wished to make. If I have misquoted the minister, I have no doubt that she will correct me—she will be strong on that and will no doubt support my amendment. I will conclude there and move to the deputy convener, who wishes to speak about the amendments.