I am pleased to speak on behalf of the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee. I thank two groups of people. First, I thank my committee colleagues for all their diligent work in considering the bill, and I am sure that they would want me to extend our thanks to the clerking team for drawing together what I believe is a comprehensive report. I also acknowledge the careful and considered reports on the bill from the Finance and Public Administration Committee and the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee.

The committee began our work on the bill back in June, when we issued a call for evidence and hosted an online discussion on the bill. We took oral evidence in the autumn, holding 10 evidence sessions in nearly as many weeks. Among all that, we squeezed in three visits and an online engagement event with small and medium-sized enterprises that aim to run their businesses in line with the circular economy principles.

I thank everyone who contributed to our work on the bill, which has been invaluable in informing the stage 1 report. We consistently heard about the need to make progress towards a more circular economy in Scotland, in order to tackle the climate and nature emergencies at home and abroad. At the moment, Scotland is estimated to be only 1.3 per cent circular, and a Zero Waste Scotland report suggested that Scotland’s per capita material footprint is nearly double the global average, which is simply unsustainable.

Those statistics show why the Circular Economy (Scotland) Bill is needed. However, the committee is unconvinced that a bill on its own will create the system-wide changes that we need, and we believe that the Scottish Government must look at additional opportunities to act.

The fact that the bill is a framework bill presented us with some challenges. It was difficult for us to express an informed view on the bill’s interplay with the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020. Committee members have a range of views on the use of framework legislation, but we are all agreed that the Scottish Parliament must have adequate opportunity to scrutinise future regulations that the Scottish Government introduces through the bill. I welcome the fact that the minister agreed with that point in her response to the stage 1 report.

The Finance and Public Administration Committee has taken the view that the financial memorandum for the bill is not adequate in providing the best estimates of the financial costs. We think that that could be mitigated by the Scottish Government committing to providing the Parliament with robust costings when regulations are made under key order-making powers and by ensuring that the Parliament has enough time to consider and take evidence on the regulations.

Let me turn to some of the committee’s recommendations on specific provisions in the bill. First, we support the provisions to create a circular economy strategy, and we support the setting of legally binding targets to drive the transformative changes that we need in society, but the bill must set out how the strategy and targets will interact. We also want to ensure that the Scottish Parliament has a greater role in scrutinising proposed targets, given their national significance to the Scottish economy and our response to the climate emergency. We think that the setting of targets should be a Scottish Government obligation, not an option.

We believe that the circular economy strategy must include more support for charities and social enterprises that promote reuse and repair, because they do a huge amount to foster a sharing economy.

Regulation-making powers to restrict the disposal of unsold goods should be developed in consultation with those who will be affected. We will not have a more circular economy unless the Scottish Government takes businesses on that journey with it. In her response to our report, the minister said that restrictions would apply only to durable goods, not to food waste. I would welcome clarification from the minister of why that distinction is not mentioned in the bill.

We agree with the principle of cutting down on single-use items where possible. We think that additional charging could help, but care is needed to ensure that well-meaning actions do not impact disproportionately on consumers and, in particular, on vulnerable groups.

The bill creates new enforcement powers relating to household waste. We recognise that the measures might help to prevent recycled goods from being contaminated and help local authorities to tackle fly-tipping, but local authorities must use the powers carefully and only after careful engagement with householders.

On the code of practice and local recycling targets, we welcome the proposals to create a more consistent, high-performing recycling system across Scotland, but the Scottish Government must ensure that local authorities have sufficient resources to make the necessary improvements to their services in order to achieve the new standards. The committee was convinced—I particularly agree with this—by the arguments for a standardised approach to bin collections across Scotland’s local authorities, and we call on the Scottish Government to explore that in detail with COSLA. It should not be too much to ask to have the same system of coloured bins across Scotland. That could certainly help to reduce confusion and increase compliance.

We welcome the strengthening of enforcement powers to tackle littering and more serious forms of waste crime, but the Scottish Government must ensure that the powers are fully funded, otherwise they will fall short of expectations.

I know that time is short, so I will conclude. The committee supports the general principles of the bill. We give the bill a qualified welcome. However, we want the Scottish Government to engage constructively with our recommendations on how the bill can be improved. The minister has indicated that she is still considering a number of the committee’s suggestions, so I remain hopeful that improvements will be made as the bill progresses.

Mark Ruskell has a brief question.

Mark Ruskell has a brief question.

The deputy convener has a couple of questions.

I would just clarify that the night-time economy in Inverness stops at 9.32, which is the latest time that you can get on a train at Inverness to head back towards Aberdeen. That line has no late-night services.

I want to ask two quick questions, if I may. Caledonian Sleeper Ltd and ScotRail—two different organisations—are now part of the same organisation. Will we see a merging of boards and management structures to bring it all into one structure? After all, it all belongs to one group of people—the people of Scotland. Who wants to answer that?

But there will be a cost to keeping them apart within the management structure, will there not?

That answer takes me back to the answer to our first ever question on this subject, which I seem to remember was lodged by Stewart Stevenson at the committee. It is interesting to hear that nothing has changed, then.

Thank you very much. That concludes our session, and I am going to briefly suspend the meeting to allow the witnesses to leave. I must ask committee members to be back here by 12:30 at the latest, please.

Douglas, you have a wonderful way of asking your last question and then asking a couple more. Briefly, this is your last question.

Our next item is consideration of a Scottish statutory instrument. As the instrument has been laid under the negative procedure, its provisions will come into force unless the Parliament agrees to a motion to annul it. No such motion has been lodged. As the clerk’s paper notes, the instrument has been laid in all four UK legislatures and is UK-wide.

Do any members have any comments?

Monica, do you want to come in briefly?