Seòmar agus comataidhean

I am not aware of any agreement with COSLA, but I am sure that it would be open to being part of the process, as opposed to just being consulted.

I move amendment 106.

I am trying to work out how that would work in practice. Would a written warning go to everyone in the tenement building? Would the final notice be sent to everyone in the tenement building? Would the civil penalty be divvied out between people in the tenement building? How would it work in practice? That is why excluding people who live in tenements is part of that amendment.

In our evidence taking, we visited Leith and went to the Edinburgh Tool Library and the Edinburgh Remakery. It is not only local authorities that have a part to play here; for example, men’s sheds could play a big part, too. Does the member envisage the funding for such organisations always going through the local government route or would there be a role for the Government in directly funding some of the organisations that provide services in our communities?

Amendment 82 is on the annual reporting of targets. There is no point in us doing any of this work if we are not going to monitor our progress towards a circular economy so that we can see what additional steps are needed, what is working and what is not working. For me, annual reporting seems to be a sensible approach and I am hoping that everyone can support my amendment, which seeks to ensure that there is not a drift in the move towards a circular economy. As Maurice Golden has stated, the debate on a circular economy has been on-going since 2016. Without having an annual review of the targets, we will not be able to see where we are going wrong, what adjustments need to be made and where we need to move forward. It seems to me to be a simple and sensible approach.

I will.

I will set out right at the start that my amendment 87 is not an attack on devolution; it just aims to make sure that anything that is passed complies with the devolution settlement and does not overstep it. We heard from Mark Ruskell that the DRS was impossible, but that was not Circularity Scotland’s view. However, I agree that the dialogue between the two Governments was not what it was meant to be. I lodged amendment 87 to make sure that that dialogue takes place right up front. I heard what the minister said about the engagement with the UK Office for the Internal Market, but that is different from what we heard when we took evidence from people from that office—well, we did not take evidence from them, but we met them in an informal session. They said that there had been no dialogue with the Scottish Government on the bill, so it is good to hear that that has now taken place.

Whether we like it or not, we have got into a situation in which there is a lot of blame between the two Governments on where things are falling down, and the internal market act is being flagged up. As I said, there is no hidden agenda here and no attack on devolution. I just want to make sure that, before regulations are introduced, discussion has taken place and that there is nothing—

The United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 is often discussed and argued about in this Parliament. The aim of amendment 87 is to ensure that discussions take place between the Scottish and UK Governments ahead of the final regulations being voted on.

During a previous evidence session, we heard that the former minister had not spoken to the Office for the Internal Market because she had not felt that that was necessary at that point. We also had a meeting with the Office for the Internal Market, and I think that it had expected that there would have been more engagement from the Scottish Government, but that had not been forthcoming at that time. Therefore, there appeared to have been no early engagement between Scottish ministers and that office.

I totally accept that the Scottish Government does not like the 2020 act, but it exists and, while it does, we have a duty to pass legislation that complies with it. If issues are not ironed out ahead of time, there will be conflicts between the Scottish and UK Governments. That will add more expense, take time and bring uncertainty, so surely it is better for dialogue to take place up front to ensure that regulations that are passed comply with the 2020 act.

I am nervous about some of the cross-border implications of the bill. For example, there are potential issues relating to unsold goods and the extended producer responsibility. We need to consider the 2020 act in relation to such issues, which is why it would be best to have provision in place to ensure that things are ironed out before the legislation reaches its final stages.

I move amendment 87.

Will Mr Doris take an intervention?

Does Graham Simpson share my concern that, if we do not put some of those deadlines in place, bits of the bill could just sit on the shelf gathering dust and not be enacted? I guess that that is the reason why he has lodged the amendments.

On trying to deal with waste as locally as possible, I am trying to understand why the Government would not want that, especially if the waste is not being dealt with in Scotland. Is there a danger that we could just offshore all our waste if we do not have in the bill something such as you are proposing?