Chamber and committees

I certainly do not want to speak on every amendment, but four in this group are really worth considering. Amendments 149 and 150, from the Scottish Government and Bob Doris respectively, would help to strengthen the bill and so are definitely worth supporting.

I will comment briefly on amendments 14 and 152, both of which are in the name of Maurice Golden. We must think about how we raise issues up the agenda. Listening to Graham Simpson has reminded me that we have clearly not seen the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009 being implemented. However, the circular economy did not have a high profile in that legislation. It might have been included in the sense of people saying, “Oh, it would be good if we did this” or “We should do this”, but it was not there. It is important to draw the connection between circular economy principles, on which the committee has taken excellent evidence, and lowering our carbon emissions. It is a key part of that.

I will support Maurice Golden’s amendment 152, because procurement is absolutely critical. Earlier, Douglas Lumsden intervened on me about what the Scottish Government can do and how it should relate to businesses. Procurement is an incentive to businesses to go down the circular economy route, because it enables them to produce products that will earn money but will also be used by the public sector.

The minister said that public sector organisations should be part of the circular economy, but we have not been given any analysis that tells us that brilliant progress is being made on that. We must push harder on that. We can see the impact that it has made on fair trade, for example, with local authorities using fair trade principles in procurement.

The main point there is about raising the importance of procurement and creating positive incentives in supply chains by using public sector investment. That would bring down costs in the long term and would certainly reduce our carbon emissions.

May I comment on that point?

Thanks very much. The question is really just to push a bit further. You have talked about the strategy. Would the strategy potentially have elements that would focus on different types of products, to raise issues up the agenda even if they are not in the bill?

I mistakenly included amendment 150 in my remarks on this group. That was because when I was looking at amendments 149 and 150 I noted that I would support them both. The key point is that we must raise the profile of the issue. Unless the bill is made stronger, it will not do that.

You talked about the practical experience in North Ayrshire. Do you want to say a bit about parents’ awareness? The statistic that 160 million disposable nappies are thrown away in Scotland every year—5,000 per child—is striking. Will you also say a bit about the costs? Consumer attitudes are important, but so is the work of the councillors who put the scheme in place and are keeping it going.

First, I apologise for being late. That was not my intention.

As with previous sections, I propose through amendments 100 to 103 that the word “things” be replaced with “goods, products and materials” in order to provide clarity. I hope that the minister will be keen to support those amendments.

On scrutinising section 6 in advance of the debate on this group, I still had a fundamental question, and it remains unanswered. What will the targets look like? When I met the former minister and asked that exact question, I did not get an answer. We are being asked through the bill to provide ministers with powers to set circular economy targets, but we do not have clarity on what those targets will look like or at what level they will be set.

I missed the opening comments by Maurice Golden, but I know that he has been pushing on that issue as well. This morning, I would very much welcome an outline of the minister’s thoughts and an answer to the fundamental question of what the targets will look like, because that is critical to MSPs being satisfied that the right targets will be set, that they will be supported by industry and civic society, that there will be a clear route to achieving them and that there will be clear routes to monitoring the targets and holding the Government to account.

I am under no illusion that all my amendments to section 6 will be agreed to, but I lodged them to test what the targets will look like. I would be happy to work with the Government, other parties and members round the table to develop those ideas further.

Amendment 192 would require ministers to have regard to the waste hierarchy and amendment 193 would require targets to be set in line with achieving the waste hierarchy. To create a circular economy, we need people to see more value in what they put into recycling or straight into their refuse bin. We have to raise awareness of the waste hierarchy and get people to think about it. For example, instead of throwing out a punctured bike tyre, could a person repair it, or is there somewhere locally where they could go and get it repaired? If a pair of trainers that they ordered from a website do not fit but they have worn them a couple of times, what other opportunities are available to sell them or gift them? We also need to rethink and redesign goods and products so that they can be used for multiple purposes. That requires manufacturers to change their designs and users to change their habits.

My strong view is that having targets would place an emphasis on all stages of the waste hierarchy; send a signal to producers, manufacturers and voluntary organisations, who already do a great deal of work in our communities, that the Scottish Government and Parliament are serious about creating a circular economy; and push towards that step change.

Amendment 104, in my name, would make it clear in the bill that the regulations in section 8 would not cover food products.

There are some great initiatives in which unsold food products are given to local charities or organisations for onward distribution. FareShare is an excellent example of such work that is already on-going. Also, there is a financial incentive to sell products before their use-by date, and a number of retailers place discounts on food products to make sure that they are sold. That reduces the volume of products that would be captured under regulations in that sector.

The regulations could also be challenging for the hospitality sector, which already has a financial incentive to ensure that food waste is kept to a minimum in order to increase profit margins. I am aware that restaurants already employ smart ordering and preparation to anticipate demand and ensure that waste is kept to a minimum.

Retailers, in particular, are concerned about the section 8 provisions and feel that measures affecting unsold food waste, in addition to a number of other regulations that will be placed on them over a short period of time, could prove challenging. I hope that my amendment can help to remove those concerns.

Amendment 198 would enable ministers to publish guidance on how the section 8 regulations would work in practice for industry. To support scrutiny of the regulations, the guidance would be published before, or at the same time as, the regulations are published. The guidance would be helpful because it would make clear to businesses the scope of the unsold goods that would be affected. Given that a number of businesses are already trying to repurpose unsold goods and/or divert them away from landfill, that would be helpful. It is also worth saying that there are circumstances, such as when a good is damaged or contaminated, in which it would be unsafe to put it to another use. In crafting amendment 198, I tried to address the committee’s recommendation that guidance should be drafted in consultation with stakeholders.

I hope that that will kick off a debate on section 8.

I move amendment 104.

In addition to the earlier discussion about targets, I am keen to hear the minister’s view of the role that a national target for household waste recycling might play. Amendment 205, in my name, would set a national target for household waste recycling, which would complement the target for local authorities that is set out in section 13.

The discussion that we have just heard is really important, because it is important to learn lessons from local authorities in both urban and rural areas. We might expect urban authorities to have higher recycling rates than rural ones, but that is not necessarily the case. Infrastructure, political leadership and investment all play a part in public awareness.

Amendment 205 says that,

“before laying a draft of a Scottish statutory instrument”,

the Scottish ministers would consult local authorities and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, but also such persons as the Scottish Government considered appropriate. That would ensure that there was a wide discussion—particularly one that followed on from the discussions that we have had in considering the bill.

Amendment 206 is a consequential amendment that would ensure that targets for local authorities could not jeopardise the setting and achievement of national targets.

It is good to get feedback from colleagues. The overall ambition is to strengthen the bill, because it was suggested on a number of occasions that the bill is a recycling bill, rather than a circular economy bill. From the start, my amendment 92 has sought to strengthen and highlight that, and to reflect that we need to be ambitious, but not overly so. That is why I did not try to achieve a world first with a definition of the circular economy and have used definitions that are already available.

I welcome Monica Lennon’s comments on reducing the use of virgin materials. I totally accept Mark Ruskell’s comments about the need for clarity—that is partly what we are trying to achieve. We are also trying to get people to gear up and think about how they can invest now. There is a worry that the circular economy elements of the bill are not strong enough and that we are looking at the recycling end of the spectrum, rather than thinking about how we redesign, repurpose and reuse materials. That is why amendment 92 is worded in the way that it is.

On the minister’s comments, it is good to think about the waste hierarchy and just transition from the start, because they must be involved in everything that happens thereafter. I welcome the fact that amendments 136 and 137 were lodged. I want a joined-up and ambitious approach, which has to be in place up front in the bill. I will press amendment 92 but I have no expectations, because there is a competition with amendment 131.

The content of my amendment should be at the start of the bill to get the discussion going. I am happy to talk to colleagues afterwards to see whether we can tighten things for stage 3.

I am slightly under pressure. The range of amendments that colleagues have lodged is good. It clearly shows that, having taken evidence, committee members have an appetite to strengthen the bill and ensure that it delivers in the way that it can and must do.

I am delighted that the minister is happy to accept my removal of the word “things” and the inclusion of the words “goods, products and materials”. That is constructive and I hope that it will strengthen the bill.

On the issue of the just transition partnership, there is clearly competition between members’ amendments. I am keen to push my amendment, because I crafted my proposal in light of what I think that the just transition partnership team was after, but it is up to the committee to decide what it prefers.

I add to the declarations of interests the fact that I have voluntarily declared in the register of members’ interests on the Parliament’s website a long-term commitment in relation to Friends of the Earth Scotland.

On my amendment 184 and the European waste directive, I will have a look at the issue before stage 3. I am very committed to it, but I will reflect on what colleagues have said.

There has been a really good debate, and what really strikes me is the appetite for action. Maurice Golden made the link to the climate change plan and noted that we do not have it yet so there is a big gap in terms of action. The refillables promotion plan is about increasing awareness, linking to companies, improving deliverability and, again, tackling day-to-day issues, but we need to consider how we can ramp those things up.

I turn to Monica Lennon’s amendments on human rights and procurement. As somebody said, the procurement legislation was passed in 2014 but there is still a gap between the ambition and the delivery. Those of us who were privileged to be in Parliament in 2013 will remember the horrendous experience at the Rana Plaza. That was over a decade ago now. The companies that bought materials from the companies that were producing at Rana Plaza were some of the most well known, fashionable companies in our clothing supply chain. Those of us who are interested in the subject know that the fast fashion movement has developed massively, but I wonder how aware people who buy clothes from such producers really are of the terms and conditions, the costs and the import issue. As Britain and Scotland have moved out of supplying fashion, a global question has developed that we need to address.

There has been strong support for Clare Adamson’s amendment 211, on electrical safety. It, too, is about increasing awareness and getting strategic action in place. More fires are happening, and examples have been given of waste products, but there is also an important point about the supply of products that are not good enough. I am thinking of discussions that we have had in the cross-party group on sustainable transport, which Graham Simpson convenes, for example on e-bikes. People are going under the radar and there are products that are not safe. We need the issue to be higher up the agenda.