Seòmar agus comataidhean

Will the minister take a further intervention?

I agree that more probably needs to be done by the designers of products to get us to a circular economy, but how does the Scottish Government fit into that process? For example, once my phone battery starts fading, I will probably get a new phone. What steps can the Government take to influence manufacturers on that?

When I was listening to you, I was thinking of fly-tipping, because I can see some real benefits to your suggestion. If someone sees something get dumped when they are out somewhere, they might not know which local authority they should report the incident to, and they might have to try to give a description of exactly where they are. With an app, they could give a location using the global positioning system and take a picture of what has been dumped. There could be real benefits to having an app. I imagine that such information would be fed back to the local authority for it to decide whether to take action. It is about making things easier.

I agree with the intent. It is just that what we have in the amendment that you have lodged is, I believe, unworkable. I do not see how it can be brought forward. Amendment 189, in the name of Mark Ruskell, also sounds good, and I think that it is workable, so I am happy to support that amendment.

Graham Simpson mentioned the timescale and whether it should be six months, one year or two years. Mr Simpson is right to point out the already arbitrary two-year target, and the aim is to reduce that time period. I have reflected on the proposal for a one-year period, but what I will say is that, if we are serious about this and if we believe that urgent action is needed, we need to look at the timescales and reduce them as much as possible while ensuring that they remain practical.

I am not going to ask where I can buy clothes for myself. I am trying to understand a little bit more about amendment 132 and trying to measure the impact. How could we measure and monitor that? I am really struggling to understand.

Thank you, minister, for taking my intervention.

I often hear about the co-design approach and had thought that it was embedded in the national care service, so I am surprised that the wording of amendment 1 cannot be accepted, although I accept what you said in your latter points on Maurice Golden’s amendment.

Thank you, convener. Amendment 80 is, I think, quite simple; it would just change the reporting period from two and a half years to one year. We often hear talk of the climate emergency and everything else, and, if we are serious about doing this, it is time to, if not turbocharge—I do not want to say that—some of our timelines, then really up the pace. That is why I propose changing the reporting period to 12 months.

I turn to the other amendments in the group. The co-design approach and working with local authorities, which Maurice Golden has mentioned, will be vital for all the work that we are doing, so that is absolutely key. Amendment 190 is about a review by SEPA, which is another key partner, so that is a fairly sensible approach.

Amendment 187, in the name of Bob Doris, sounds good, but, in practice, I think that it would be unworkable. In the lead-up to COP, it was probably a bit easier, because people were getting together anyway. It would be a bit harder to do that when looking at the circular economy strategy.

I want to understand how the consultation would take place. If the consultation were widened too far, could that delay the strategy?

Will the member take an intervention?

Do you not feel that if we leave the report too long—for two and a half years, say—we might be seriously off track by the time that reporting is carried out, and we will have less time to adjust? If we were to report after a year, we could see how far we are from the targets, then make changes to put us back on track.