Chamber and committees

Thank you very much, convener, and thank you for running through the exact instructions for how we move or not move our amendments. I also welcome Gillian Martin, who is attending in her role as minister.

Amendment 92, in my name, would insert a section on the purpose of a circular economy. A number of stakeholders have called for a purpose section, and I am grateful to Action to Protect Rural Scotland for supporting the drafting of my amendment. I opted for “purpose” rather than “definition,” because I think that a definition of a circular economy might be too narrow for what we are trying to achieve with the bill and because changes are happening in relation to the circular economy agenda, which I wanted to reflect.

Having a purpose section in the bill would help to provide clarity on what we want a circular economy to look like, which would ensure that the strategy and targets that will be created as a result of the bill are coherent. It would also send a signal to industry and consumers to consider their actions and behaviours and think about what they can change to ensure that goods, products and materials are being kept in use for longer—that is, to not just talk about the waste hierarchy but get on and manage waste in line with it.

A purpose section would also send a signal to the wider public sector. Local authorities are taking decisions every day on managing their waste services. Setting out the purpose of a circular economy here in Scotland would help them to make decisions for the long term to ensure that we progress towards a circular economy now and over the longer term.

Amendment 131, in the name of Maurice Golden, is similar to my amendment and contains a number of the same features. If members agree with setting out the purpose of a circular economy in the bill, I ask that they agree to my amendment.

I would be happy to look at amendments to achieve cross-party consensus at stage 3, because I hope that there is an appetite to strengthen the bill today.

I move amendment 92.

Absolutely. That was an important intervention by the deputy convener. Skills are critical for delivering a circular economy, because we will need them in every single community and local authority across Scotland. I am sure that we will come back to the issue of how we deliver that later.

I move on to Ben Macpherson’s amendments 122 and 123 about the issues that he raised at stage 1 on construction, on which I totally agreed with him. Action on the matter needs to be ramped up—the committee recognised that in its report on the extensiveness of construction material waste. There is something about working with businesses, but also something about prioritising investment in existing buildings and on the nature of the materials used, which is way more efficient than demolition and starting again from scratch. As the world changes at a rate of knots in relation to digital relationships and retail, there are important issues around town centre renewal. I hope that, if Ben Macpherson negotiates with the minister, we do not lose the amendments on construction from the bill, because they are critical.

Mark Ruskell’s amendments 182 and 183 on transition materials are really important. They go back to the discussion that we had about e-bikes, batteries and renewables. These materials are critical. Although technology is moving at pace and, as the minister pointed out, we could be thinking about the matter differently in the 2040s or 2050s, it is actually a “now” issue. We need to influence the producers in a constructive way so that we get more efficient, safer products that we can all buy. That is absolutely critical in relation to the use of minerals. We need to question that. I would much prefer those points to be in the bill, given the importance of the issue, which goes back to human rights and production.

There have been several references to other pieces of legislation such as the 2019 act, the Procurement Reform (Scotland) Act 2014 and the Environment Act 2021. What all those references had in common was the fact that we are not making fast enough progress and that this bill is critical to our economy, our environment and our communities.

We will come on to local authorities later, but I want to finish on the point that this is our opportunity to deliver. This issue is really important and I hope that, if members do not move their amendments today, we can come back to them in advance of stage 3—that was a welcome offer and there will be a queue at your door, minister.

I will press amendment 93.

As a further intervention, is there an opportunity to reconfigure Zero Waste Scotland so that it is able to use the expertise that it clearly has and which is of huge benefit, while at the same time ensuring that it has independence on this issue? We have to be thoughtful in setting up new organisations. I totally understand the ambition behind Mr Golden’s amendment 141, but I want to tease out its implications and understand whether there might be other ways of delivering its aim.

Will the member take an intervention?

Your point about leadership is critical. I very much agree with you that, at COP26, Scotland put itself on the world stage in terms of best practice. Through the bill, we have an opportunity to follow up that best practice by embedding in legislation not just leadership, but an obligation on the current and future Governments to have conversations to make sure that we are not offshoring our emissions and our waste. I hope that you will consider supporting my amendment on the basis of that principle, which would deliver on the very issues that you have just raised.

You have managed to get in at almost my last line.

Part of this is about Governments working together, giving each other a heads-up on what they are doing and doing proper intergovernmental work. There are also lessons to be learned from the deposit return scheme—somebody is going to mention that in today’s discussion.

This is doable if we take the right constructive approach, which is what the businesses that lobbied us all in the past couple of years want. They are not against innovation; the issue is having early information and working collaboratively and constructively with the Government.

Convener, you will be delighted to hear that I am coming to the end. Important amendments to section 1—from Mark Ruskell, Maurice Golden, Monica Lennon, Lorna Slater, Clare Adamson and Ben Macpherson—would also strengthen the bill, and I am very much looking forward to the discussion. It is unusual to support so many amendments that colleagues have lodged, but there is a raft of constructive amendments to the section. In different ways, they would all strengthen the bill, make it more effective and genuinely promote the delivery of a circular economy.

I hope that colleagues will be constructive and keen to support my amendments to section 1. I move amendment 93.

There are rather a lot of amendments in the group. A number of my amendments would enhance the circular economy elements of the bill, with a focus on strategy.

The first couple of amendments in my name seek to strengthen the presence of the just transition principles. Amendment 93 would require the Scottish ministers to

“set out how the just transition principles are applied in the ... strategy”.

That is backed up by amendment 98, which would require the Scottish ministers to have regard to the just transition principles in preparing the strategy.

Amendment 99, in my name, makes it clear that, where the just transition principles are referenced in section 1, they have the same meaning as under the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009. Those principles concern the importance of reducing emissions in Scotland in a way that

“supports environmentally and socially sustainable jobs ... supports low-carbon investment and infrastructure ... develops and maintains social consensus through engagement with workers, trade unions, communities, non-governmental organisations, representatives of the interests of business and industry and such other persons as the Scottish Ministers consider appropriate ... creates decent, fair and high-value work in a way which does not negatively affect the current workforce and overall economy”

and

“contributes to resource efficient and sustainable economic approaches which help to address inequality and poverty.”

The Just Transition Partnership is keen to see those principles in the bill, and the committee’s report referred to that. The committee took a lot of evidence, and I know that a lot of reflection went into its recommendations.

Amendment 181, in my name, would require ministers to act in accordance with the “do no harm” principle in the circular economy strategy, and amendment 213 would clarify the definition of that principle that was to be used in the bill.

Amendments 94 to 97, in my name, would strengthen the terminology in the bill. That was a particular ask of Friends of the Earth Scotland, which the committee report referred to. The dictionary definition of the word “thing” says that it refers to an object that cannot be precisely described. Retaining the word “things” in the bill would leave us in a precarious position in using the eventual act to help us achieve the circular economy, particularly in ensuring that materials—not just objects—were captured in the scope of the legislation. I have a strong preference for the phrase “goods, products and materials”, which is so much better than “things”. That would really help stakeholders and those who will be implementing the bill on a day-to-day basis.

Amendment 184, in my name, would set out in the bill the waste hierarchy, which contains the seven Rs of waste management. The amendment would require ministers to have regard to the waste hierarchy when developing the circular economy strategy.

I appreciate that, through amendment 136, the Scottish Government would look to adopt the hierarchy that is set out in the European Union waste directive framework. However, I feel that the waste hierarchy that I have proposed is gaining traction globally. It helps producers and consumers to rethink their behaviour when it comes to the goods, products and materials that they use every day so that, when products reach the end of their life or the end of their use, people do not just automatically put them in the bin—instead, they consider whether there is a further use for them. I hope that, in relation to the circular economy, that will get people to think further up the waste stream and to think about how products are designed in the first place, so that products can be reused.

I return to the point that I made in my opening comments—I am concerned that we are not being ambitious enough. The Scottish Government’s proposed hierarchy refers to “disposal” and “other recovery”. It would be useful to get clarity from the minister on whether that covers incineration and whether that sits with, or in opposition to, the Scottish Government’s actions to move away from incineration in the long term.

Amendment 212, in my name, builds on the commitment on product stewardship, as detailed in the circular economy route map, and it comes on the back of suggestions from the APRS, which I very much thank for help with drafting. I hope that I have captured its comments in my remarks.

Producer responsibility and product stewardship are key areas where we can take concrete action in line with the waste hierarchy to redesign products so that they are designed from scratch to be kept in use for as long as possible. That encourages better product design, especially for durability and efficient recovery, and it inverts the current incentive structures, which favour producers who externalise their costs on to the environment more than their competitors do.

Amendment 212 would put product stewardship on a statutory footing and ensure that a plan is developed, so that producers are aware of the Scottish Government’s clear intentions. With extended producer responsibility—EPR—many businesses are already working on that, and having a product stewardship plan would help to further that work.

Thank you for that strategic intervention, convener. Yes. The point here is that lower standards mean cheaper goods, but that, whether we are talking about fashion or electrical goods, that is not good in a number of ways. Graham Simpson’s point was well made.

I will not move amendment 99, but I would like to discuss the matter with the minister in advance of stage 3.

Amendment 99 not moved.

Amendments 123, 186 and 213 not moved.

Section 1, as amended, agreed to.