Seòmar agus comataidhean

I absolutely welcome that. I suppose that it is a question of whether we trust the vaping industry, given where it has been and what it has developed into, to work in the spirit of the regulations that are being put in place and to establish a genuine market for rechargeable, reusable vapes that might have a role to play in smoking cessation but which are not more widely available to a market that is huge and growing. I have my doubts that smart people somewhere will not find a way around what is proposed by targeting the price point. People on the boards of vaping companies will be thinking, “Let’s go for the price point—that way, we’ll keep our market alive.” Why would they not do that?

That is great. When will the draft circular economy 2030 route map be finalised? Lorna Slater provided an earlier version of that, which the committee saw in January. It would be useful to know when that whole picture can be finalised and brought forward.

I am very proud that the bill will be passed today. It has been a long time in the making. Covid delayed the introduction of a bill on the circular economy in the previous session of Parliament, so it is welcome to see the bill before us today. The bill is a product of positive cross-party work across the chamber. In many ways, it has shown Holyrood working at its best.

I join other members in paying tribute to my Green colleague Lorna Slater. I am pleased that she took the opportunity to speak in the debate. She successfully led the bill’s development through all the stakeholder negotiation and drafting, and she secured a positive recommendation from the committee at stage 1. I thank her and the bill team for their work.

I also thank the new minister, Gillian Martin, who picked up the bill at incredibly short notice in somewhat bizarre circumstances. She kept the spirit of co-operative working very much alive throughout stages 2 and 3.

Last night, amendments from every party in the chamber were agreed to and included in the bill. I thank the environmental non-governmental organisations for inspiring many of the amendments and for their positive discussions with MSP colleagues. Who knows? Perhaps if everyone who supported the amendments had actually voted last night, more might have been agreed to in the bill.

Throughout the bill’s passage, the Government has made it clear that the bill will set a framework for action on the circular economy. It is a framework bill, and there was an on-going debate in the committee about what would appropriately be put in the bill and what would appropriately come afterwards. The key element—co-design—is really important.

The elephant in the room is, of course, the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020. We will see how the incoming Westminster Government will treat that act in relation to Scotland’s ability to take action and develop statutory instruments on the back of the Circular Economy (Scotland) Bill.

Some members have said that the bill is primarily focused on household recycling—Sarah Boyack mentioned that there is, perhaps, a sense of disappointment about that—but I do not think that it is, although household recycling is an important element of it. We have to recognise that levels of household recycling have plateaued in Scotland in recent years, so it is important that the bill equips councils to take the next big step in investing in recycling.

I think that I am a bit short of time.

I am a little short of time, so I will not, unless there is time in hand.

I turn to the Green amendments. I am pleased that we made progress on ensuring that ministers will consider reuse, refill and take-back schemes. The critical thing is to ensure that ministers do not just consider those things, but that they act on those powers.

I regret that we could not make more headway with amendments on public funding. I am also a bit disappointed that Maurice Golden’s amendment to strengthen the reporting requirement on public bodies was not agreed to. I hope that that discussion can continue, and I thank Action to Protect Rural Scotland for its support on those cross-party discussions.

I welcome the minister’s offer to look at how the issue of critical minerals recycling can be addressed in other parts of the Government’s energy policy. The case that was set out by Friends of the Earth Scotland on why Scotland needs to plan for how we prolong use of key minerals such as copper and lithium, particularly in the renewables sector, is strong, and I hope to see mention of critical minerals recycling and reuse in the upcoming energy strategy.

I am also pleased that Green amendments strengthened the bill’s focus on education and skills needs for the transition to a more circular economy. Finally, I am pleased that our amendments to require ministers to consider carbon emissions across a product’s entire life cycle when preparing circular economy strategies were agreed to. That will be critical to addressing the climate crisis.

In closing, I say that the bill is excellent, but it is only the first step towards delivering a circular economy. Lorna Slater’s point is critical; it is about how the powers are now used, so the Scottish Greens will continue to push for action and push the Government to use the powers that the bill will give it to deliver that circular economy.

I am delighted to hear Douglas Lumsden talk about renewable energy and the need to invest in it. Does he acknowledge that it is critical to build the transmission infrastructure that is required in the north-east in order to get the renewable energy from where it is being generated to where it needs to be consumed? Why does his party not back the development of the Scottish and Southern Electricity Networks transmission lines that are so desperately needed?

I join other members in giving my best wishes to the cabinet secretary. I, too, am looking forward to working with Dr Allan in the months ahead.

The minister asked us at the beginning of the debate to recommit to the declaration of the climate emergency and I am happy to do that. Of course, I am happy to celebrate the work that was done in the Sturgeon era on climate justice, particularly the whole debate about loss and damage at the 26th UN climate change conference of the parties—COP26—and the commitments that were made there.

However, the minister has to acknowledge that the debt that Scotland owes to countries that are not responsible for climate change but are now bearing the brunt of the crisis is now spiralling out of control. It is many orders of magnitude beyond what the Scottish Government put on the table for the loss and damage fund at COP26. That should inspire us to take more meaningful action to reduce our emissions and meet our global obligations.

The minister went on to challenge the chamber to back action, which I absolutely agree with. However, I also ask the Scottish Government to reflect on how we have got to the point at which the 75 per cent target has had to be dropped.

In 2020, as Sarah Boyack mentioned, the UK CCC wrote to the Scottish Government and identified a range of areas that the Government had to move on then—not now, but then—in order to get anywhere close to meeting that target. One of those areas was heat pumps, which is within the Scottish Government’s devolved responsibilities, and it could have acted on it then. The reality is that the climate plan that came on the back of that target was not fit for purpose, as numerous parliamentary committees told the Government. However, the Government did not make the necessary changes that were needed. I hope that the Government recognises and learns from that experience.

The minister went on to mention the UK Government’s cut to capital infrastructure funds. She is absolutely right that those cuts have been devastating. When we talk about the interests of members around the chamber—solar panels for Sarah Boyack, tree planting for Edward Mountain, bus infrastructure for Alex Rowley, EV charging points for Douglas Lumsden—we see that they all require capital infrastructure and for us to build our way out of climate change.

That point stands up and it reinforces what I am saying. The question is for a new Labour Government—and we will be backing the Labour amendment in the debate. However, if the party cuts its net zero commitment from £28 billion to £5 billion, that would leave us in a poor state. Reflecting on Labour’s manifesto, Greenpeace said:

“You can’t deliver real change with spare change”.

We absolutely need infrastructure, which I know that the Tories do not always like. They do not like transmission lines or wind farms. They love nuclear, but Mr Lumsden cannot say whether he would love nuclear if it was in his backyard. We need to get serious about what is needed.

Patrick Harvie summed it up well when he talked about the new climate bill being a pivotal moment where we need to take bold policy choices. I ask the Government to double down on what we were starting to achieve collectively through the Bute house agreement and not to roll back on the initiatives that were started. I ask the Government to resist pressure within its own party and perhaps among those who are not speaking in the debate who want to see certain policies rolled back.

We are absolutely on the right track with heat in buildings—it is a template for the rest of the UK, and we should be doubling down on the work of Patrick Harvie when he was in Government and delivering on that, just as we will be doubling down this afternoon on the work of Lorna Slater with the Circular Economy (Scotland) Bill. When it comes to the onshore wind sector deal and the vehicle mileage reduction plan, we need to be raising revenue to reinvest in public transport so that we can deliver safer communities. We need the Government to raise its ambition. As Ben Macpherson spelled out in his speech, we need to see climate co-benefits being delivered alongside climate change, and we need to make people’s lives easier, not harder, in tackling the crisis. That is what the Government needs to do: it needs to double down. We will be backing those actions and those policies in the chamber.

Will the member give way?

I want to focus on compensation for improvements. Will new schedule 5 to the 1991 act, which will be inserted by section 14(9) of the bill, improve the process for agreeing improvements between tenant and landlord? In some of the evidence that we have had there has been a bit of concern about the split between those measures that require notice and those that require consent. What are your thoughts on those splits and on schedule 5?