Seòmar agus comataidhean

Mhairi, do you want to come in?

Okay. If there are no further comments on that, I will hand back to you, convener.

Sorry, I just want to say that there are other things that, in time, may be added to that list. Our understanding of carbon sequestration is rapidly evolving. At the moment, we are talking about salt marsh codes and blue carbon. Say that 10 years from now we start thinking about new markets. I am wondering to what extent the list in the bill captures everything. I will ask you to answer that briefly, Christopher, and then go to Jeremy and Jackie.

In this case, I am not content for consent to be given. I believe that the Scottish Government should legislate in this area to ensure maximum alignment with the European Union approach and regulations in the area. It is clear that persistent organic pollutants are a danger to human health and the environment, and that we should aim to drive them out of our environment as quickly as is practicable.

The European Union’s approach to the issue has been wise. It has fully considered the precautionary principle and the fact that there are numerous hazards and risks associated with such chemicals. As a result, it proposes two limits—one in 2025 and further regulatory action at the end of 2027—to allow industry and the waste management sector to make adjustments to how they deal with these toxic chemicals.

I believe that that is the right approach. I have reviewed the responses that we have had from the cabinet secretary and other stakeholders and I do not see a clear reason to diverge from that European Union thinking. The European Union has not only worked on the precautionary principle but assessed the economic impact of driving regulation in the area and considered some of the economic questions around adjustments to waste disposal. It has still come to the conclusion that it needs to increase regulation and drive these chemicals out of use.

I do not see a reason for Scotland to diverge from European Union environmental regulations. We are now eight years from Brexit. Of course, if we were still in the European Union, we would just adopt the regulations as a matter of course with some oversight from the committee, but there would not be a proposal on the table to diverge from the good work of the European Union. Given that the Scottish Government’s policy is to remain in alignment with the European Union, this is a key area where I want to stick my neck out and say that I am not content with diverging from European Union policy, which is fundamentally about protecting human health and our environment.

Thanks. Sorry for cutting you off, Jeremy.

Thanks. That is useful.

The scenes that we saw were absolutely horrific, and I pay tribute to the emergency services. We never want to see such scenes again, but we have seen such fires repeatedly across Scotland, particularly at Friarton in Perth, where one incident led to a tragic loss of life.

Does the minister agree that those who manufacture and sell disposable electronic devices need to take more producer responsibility for their products, including through take-back schemes in which they can invest in proper health and safety requirements that will keep them safe and enable those products to be recycled?

Those are warm words. [Interruption.] I will give the minister a moment to get a lozenge. I am on the lozenges as well. When do we go beyond warm words, and the writing of letters, to actual plans from the enterprise agencies? In the debate, there has been a lot of talk about burdens but, ultimately, this is about businesses and organisations becoming much more resource efficient and much leaner. That is a good thing for productivity and business.

That would be a real shame, but all that good practice is difficult to sum up and lump into the bill. I think that the most appropriate way forward is the way that Ms Lennon has secured by working with the minister, which is to get the James Hutton Institute to do an extensive piece of work on the matter and to look at how to embed the good practice. Whether we are talking about nappies, bikes or a range of other reusable items, there needs to be detailed work through the route map. I am not convinced that a legislative approach is the way to crack the issue at this point, although I think that we will crack it. There is a strong future for such schemes, but I think that that is best achieved through a non-legislative route, and I know that Ms Lennon will hold the Government’s feet to the fire over that.

During group 2, we discussed the desirability of an economy in which the consumption of material goods and products that we use is reduced, together with their carbon life-cycle emissions. Amendments 46 to 48 mirror my earlier amendments 40 to 42, as they would insert similar provisions into section 6 relating to targets. I ask that members support those amendments.

I turn briefly to other amendments in the group. Scottish Greens support Maurice Golden’s amendment 67, which is in line with his earlier amendment on managing waste within Scotland, as discussed in group 2. We also support amendment 77, from Monica Lennon. As I said previously, it is right to take human rights and environmental due diligence into account when setting circular economy targets. Related to that is Sarah Boyack’s amendment 100, which would take into account the “carbon emissions associated with” the consumption of materials.

I move amendment 46.