Chamber and committees

Are you taking that up with The Guardian?

On that point, then, you seem to agree more with Mr Packham, who is calling for a moratorium until we look at the issue with mortality rates.

Rape crisis centres are trusted emergency services and should be funded as such. However, more than 800 survivors of rape and sexual assault are stuck on waiting lists. If that is not shocking enough, 28 rape crisis workers face redundancy in the new year unless the Scottish Government extends emergency waiting-list funding beyond March 2024.

Survivors cannot wait, so will the First Minister agree to take immediate action to save those jobs, reduce waiting times and commit to long-term sustainable funding for rape crisis centres across Scotland?

It is probably quite timely that the Scottish litter survey for 2023 was published last month. It will not surprise colleagues that nine out of 10 people believe that litter is a problem in Scotland; that opinion has grown over the past three years. There have been questions about data on what local authorities and SEPA are doing. Minister, I know that you do not hold all that information, but you are able to access it and to have those conversations.

One of the things that came out in the litter survey—and in another report that I think that Diffley Partnership consultants were involved in—is that there is quite a bit of inequality between the most and least affluent communities. If you live in a less affluent area, you are more likely to have litter problems. It looks as though that is not being tackled as robustly as it is in wealthier areas.

I wonder whether I can get a commitment from you, minister: when you look at the data on how much discretion has been applied to taking action, can you look at the equality impact of that as well? There was an equality impact assessment for the fly-tipping strategy, but I hope that the Government agrees that it is not fair that, just because you live in a less wealthy area, you have to put up with litter and fly-tipping and it is not seen as a priority compared with areas that are better resourced and where people have more power and wealth. I am keen to get your views on that.

I was referring to an article in The Herald, I think, this morning.

Would you like to introduce such an accreditation?

Are you not slightly concerned that we are in a climate and nature emergency and we need to do everything in a hurry? Obviously, we need to get it right, but we need to act fast. I gave the example of North Ayrshire Council. There are others, but that is the best example. That approach is not new; it has been going on for maybe four or five years now. There is some good practice. Obviously, there is not a duty on local government to do more, but we have heard that the North Ayrshire approach is cost neutral. I know that there have been discussions with COSLA. I am considering amendments, and we will continue to discuss the matter with the Government, but are you not concerned that, if such a requirement does not go into the legislation, those good ideas will not happen, possibly because there is a lack of resource and capacity in local government? Are you worried about the pace of any of this?

Thank you, convener. My question is on a similar topic and it has been asked a few times in different ways. It is important to emphasise that we have heard a lot of support for the Circular Economy (Scotland) Bill in principle, but we have also heard from many stakeholders, including Circular Communities Scotland, that the bill lacks focus on sharing, reuse, repair and remanufacture, and we have been given examples of other countries and regions, including Austria and Flanders, that are able to give clear targets where reuse is being mainstreamed. I understand why the minister wants to get the bill right, but there is also a lot of frustration that we cannot get clear answers on the targets that everyone should be aiming for.

The minister might not want to put a national reuse target into the bill, but you must have some idea of what ideal targets would look like. Have you given a lot of thought to reuse targets? What discussions have taken place? If the targets are not in the bill, how could they be manifested? How can the Parliament scrutinise that?

As the Verity house agreement was mentioned, I will make a brief point in relation to that. Many of us are nervous about saying, “Let’s put a duty on councils,” because councils feel under so much pressure. However, where there is co-production and good discussion, councils are often the right place to take things forward.

Just this morning, we saw in the media—I think that she has written directly to the committee as well—that Councillor Gail Macgregor, who is the COSLA economy and environment spokesperson, has raised serious concerns. She says that the approach is

“not in tune with co-production, or the Verity House Agreement”

and that the Scottish Government has been asked to remove from the bill reference to penalties that councils would incur. At this stage in the bill process, that is quite worrying. What is the Government going to do to put that right?

Okay. On reuse, I am thinking about the baseline as it is now. We know that there is too much consumption and waste, and that we are very much a throwaway society. We do not reuse materials and goods that we have. What does good look like in terms of reuse?