Chamber and committees

I will just finish my point. Furthermore, the deadlines that have been proposed for making regulations, whether one or two years, do not take account of the time that is required to carry out meaningful consultation, which the Parliament would expect in advance of the finalising of any draft regulations.

Graham Simpson talked about public acceptance. I go back to the point that I have been making ever since I have been in this chair—public and stakeholder acceptance is absolutely dependent on that meaningful consultation. The consultation periods that are required for a strategic environmental assessment alone can take up to six months.

That brings me to my final point. With regard to any action following the bill that relates directly to the circular economy, the consultation that we are carrying out on the route maps and the strategy will inform quite a lot of the work that we do, and obviously, all of that will feed into the climate action plan. The cabinet secretary will be taking that forward, and I do not want to put words into her mouth, but what I will say is that a lot of these pieces of legislation, plans and strategies dovetail into one another to provide a cohesive approach not just for one portfolio of Government but across many. That is where these actions will exist; they will not necessarily exist in my portfolio, which is all about setting out the strategy, but across a lot of sectors outwith my portfolio.

Finally, Maurice Golden’s amendment 152 risks creating burdensome additional duties on public bodies not only to develop specific plans but to submit them to ministers. However, there might be some merit in considering what we might expect from public bodies, particularly those that have a delivery function in relation to key aspects of a circular economy, in helping to deliver the bill’s aims and the route map. That might involve putting some provision in the bill. I therefore ask Mr Golden not to move the amendment but to allow me to consider the matter and to come and speak to me ahead of stage 3 about how we might strengthen the proposal and put it in the bill. However, if the amendment is moved, I encourage members not to support it.

I will speak generally to that point. Our mission in the Scottish Government is to continue alignment with the European Union in those areas. I do not have to hand an indication of what will be coming forward, but we have stated on many occasions that we wish to be aligned with the EU.

Many regulations will be put forward. I will not be tied to a timeline that requires me to have them all delivered within two years. Undertaking the consultation will take longer for some regulations than for others. That is the point that I have been making while I have been sitting in this chair.

On amendments 19 and 20, which relate to the regulations for the prohibition or restriction of the disposal of unsold goods, the draft circular economy and waste route map sets out that we will commission research in 2024 into potential products in order to inform consultation on regulations in 2026. The amendments do not provide sufficient time to undertake that vital work, which should come first to ensure that we take an informed approach, which the Parliament would expect, with the fullest data and analysis available.

Regulations under the powers in new section 34ZC, which will be inserted into the Environmental Protection Act 1990 by section 10 of the bill, would enable important future changes in relation to the fixed-penalty notice procedure for failure to comply with the householder duty of care. Those powers are not for the purpose of implementation but to ensure that the penalty amount can be adjusted in the future and to accommodate any changes to enforcement authorities that are necessary, for example, as a result of the establishment of a new national park. Those regulations are not likely to be made within the first year, or the first two years, of the coming into force of the new section 34ZC. Amendments 40 and 41, which would require ministers to use those powers within the next one or two years, simply do not make sense.

A similar problem arises with amendments 73 and 74. Section 15 will provide SEPA and local authority officers with additional enforcement powers, including a power to search and seize in relation to vehicles that are believed to have been used in the commission of certain waste offences. Ministers have been given the power to make regulations to allow offences in other acts, including future acts passed by the Parliament, to be designated as offences for which those additional enforcement powers can be used if a vehicle is believed to have been used in waste crime. That is a specific power to ensure that the legislation can be adjusted for any new waste offences that are created in the future. It might well not need to be used within one or two years following its coming into force. Therefore, amendments 73 and 74, which would require ministers to use those powers within one or two years, do not make sense.

I will now talk to Graham Simpson’s related amendments that seek to impose expiry dates on various regulation-making powers in the bill if they have not been used within the next one or two years. Those expiry dates, or sunset clauses, which Graham Simpson is seeking to impose in relation to many sections of the bill, are sometimes used in legislation that confers on the Government particularly intrusive, or what people might call “draconian”, powers. We saw a lot of them being used during Covid, but we are very far from that here.

The Scottish Government could not support the precedent of imposing a range of unnecessary sunset clauses on what are, in some cases, ordinary policy-making powers to make regulations and, in other cases, necessary regulation-making powers that will allow changes to be made, such as changes to the level of fixed penalties, or to ensure the application of enforcement powers without the need for primary legislation. The sunsetting of all those powers surely cannot be something that the Parliament would want either, particularly in relation to powers to make small adjustments as a result of future legislative changes.

A whole series of amendments from Graham Simpson and a couple from Maurice Golden seek to ensure early commencement of various sections of the bill. Apart from the final sections, 18 to 20, the sections of the bill will come into force on such date

“as the Scottish Ministers may by regulations appoint”

by virtue of the commencement provision in section 19. That will allow for appropriate preparation to be undertaken before implementing regulations are made.

As regards amendments 175 to 179 and amendments 78 and 79, which all relate to the circular economy strategy and targets, I appreciate that there is the need to make swift progress in that area and that timelines are important. However, it is standard practice that sections are commenced no sooner than two months after royal assent, so I cannot support those amendments.

Other amendments from Graham Simpson purport to insert early commencement provisions into acts that are being amended by the bill, such as the Environmental Protection Act 1990. Those amendments are not legally effective given that sections of the bill can be brought into force only by commencement regulations made under section 19. For all those reasons, I urge the committee not to support any of those amendments.

I imagine that everything that we want to see in the hierarchy will be discussed as part of the development process. Ben Macpherson has mentioned particular repair facilities, for example—and that brings me on to some of the issues that have been mentioned in relation to third sector organisations and what part they play in that.

A variety of sources of Government funding supports other bodies that contribute to the development of a circular economy, such as the Circular Communities Scotland share and repair network, Social Enterprise Scotland and the just transition fund in my constituency in the north-east area, which I share with some of my colleagues here. I have been able to assist quite a lot of third sector organisations in applying for just transition funding, including Ellon men’s shed, other men’s sheds in my constituency and, indeed, other third sector organisations that are doing a great deal of work on the circular economy. There are a lot of other funding streams, and all new policy commitments as well as changes to existing policy are discussed with our colleagues in COSLA and have agreement from Scottish ministers and COSLA political leaders, as everyone here knows.

As Mr Macpherson knows, I am happy to discuss with him how we can better signpost the many funding streams that are available to third sector organisations. It should not be for MSPs to pick up the phone and ask people whether they are applying for funds—that knowledge should be readily available.

Yes.

It was very subtle but effective.

I have a whole speech about the issue, which very much alights on what Monica Lennon, Mark Ruskell and Bob Doris have said. The amendments are unacceptable because they undermine the basic principles of devolution. We would be under an obligation to consult the secretary of state, but the secretary of state would be under no obligation to respond to us.

The vehicles for discussion and agreement on the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 are set out through the common frameworks, as colleagues have said. Monica Lennon asked about the Office for the Internal Market. We engage with it regularly. My officials have been speaking to that office throughout the process, and we will continue to do so. The Circular Economy (Scotland) Bill has been discussed with other UK nations through the common frameworks process. Other nations have been aware of the bill throughout its development and were informed of its contents when it was introduced to Parliament last year.

There have been discussions on the potential interaction between the bill and the internal market act at the resources and waste common framework working group and, at senior level, the senior officials programme board. Both groups noted that there were no provisions in the bill that would trigger the application of the IMA. Therefore, members will not be surprised to hear that I will not support the amendments, for the reasons that have been outlined by my colleagues, which I will not go over.

On Mark Ruskell’s amendment 196, I recognise the importance of encouraging businesses to play their part in developing a more circular economy—they obviously have a crucial role in that—but I understand that Mr Ruskell does not want to place extra burdens on businesses. I am particularly concerned about the capacity of smaller businesses and their limited ability to impact on our aspirations in this area because of the scale of their business model. The proposal runs the risk of hindering access to funding or support that is not in line with the new deal for business that the Government has set out. Capacity is an important consideration. Small and medium-sized enterprises might struggle with the additional reporting requirement.

Although I cannot support the amendment as it stands, I am happy to explore alternatives and potential options involving working through the grants process—levers are already in place for getting support from Government agencies, for example—and talking to enterprise agencies about a more targeted approach, which can make a more significant impact than a blanket approach.

On amendment 197, Mr Doris rightly says that the United Kingdom Government—specifically, the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero—put out a call for evidence on scope 3 emissions reporting, and I thank him for raising the point. Apparently, the responses have already been analysed, and UK officials have expressed a willingness to work with the Welsh and Scottish Governments on that. I confirm that the Scottish Government will engage in that process. As alignment across all the countries of the UK might ultimately end up having the desired effect of Mr Doris’s amendment, I am not going to support the amendment, but I am happy to look at what he said in relation to EU directives. I do not have information on that at the moment.

I am sorry to say that I cannot support amendment 4, in the name of Maurice Golden. Our draft circular economy and waste route map sets out that the target-setting process will follow the development of the monitoring and indicator framework from 2025. Work is already under way to establish the framework, which will be used to track various aspects of the circular economy and will form the basis of future targets. The development process will include stakeholder input and engagement in the coming year. That stakeholder engagement process is the right way to approach the setting of targets.

Amendment 4 would provide no flexibility in the approach and would require that the first targets be set for 2030, which would mean that the first targets could not be set for any years before or after 2030.

Amendments 100, 101, 102 and 103 are consistent with Sarah Boyack’s amendments that have been agreed, and which inserted similar wording in section 1. They will replace “things” with “goods and products”. I am happy to support those amendments.

I thank Ben Macpherson for saying that he will not move amendment 124.

I turn to amendments 125, 126 and 127. Although the list in section 6(3) simply sets out examples of possible target areas and is not intended to be exhaustive, I agree that “refurbishment”, “repair” and priority “sectors and systems” that are identified in the development of the circular economy strategy should all be referenced, given their potential significance in focusing actions further up the waste hierarchy. I am happy to support amendments 125 and 126 from Ben Macpherson, and I am generally supportive of the aims of his amendment 127. I am happy to work with the member ahead of stage 3 to see what we can do in that respect.

I am happy to work with Mark Ruskell on amendment 191—I think that I said that last week. I will not rehearse the arguments that I gave in last week’s session about why I cannot support it, but we can certainly do some work to see what we can do to make the amendment stronger.

We discussed the issue in amendment 192 in last week’s debate on group 2, in relation to the circular economy strategy. I appreciate Sarah Boyack’s additions to the waste hierarchy. However, the description of the waste hierarchy, as set out in Government amendment 136, derives from article 4 of the European waste framework directive, so it ensures consistent application of the waste hierarchy that everyone is familiar with and which exists across waste-related legislation in Scotland. I think that it is unnecessary to include that requirement in provisions relating to targets, so I cannot support amendment 192.

Sarah Boyack asked what the targets would look like. I go back to what I said in relation to Maurice Golden’s amendment 4. As a result of the co-design and engagement process, targets will be set following the development of the monitoring and indicator framework. That will be developed over this year and next year and will include stakeholder engagement. Apart from—as I said—working with stakeholders being the right thing to do, it means that when the targets are set there is buy-in from all the stakeholders who will have been involved in the creation of the targets.

Similarly, the Scottish Government cannot support amendment 143, which is also in the name of Maurice Golden. Although a circular economy can provide significant opportunities for communities in repair and reuse, for example, as we have previously discussed, that is, because of logistical and economic realities, not always the case. Indeed, they are not always desired by communities. I get that by “locally” Maurice Golden means “in Scotland”, but what is meant by “local” is quite subjective. I understand the reasoning behind the amendment—that all waste materials should be treated as locally as possible. That would be desirable, but I do not think that we can mandate it in the bill.

We have set out our intention to co-design a process that would set recycling targets per local authority. It is important to mention that using the powers in section 13 of the bill will help to drive continued improvements in local recycling.

Every local authority area faces different challenges and might have different targets that it wants to meet. Glasgow has been mentioned; as Mr Doris said, it is putting in a great deal of infrastructure. It has been in receipt of quite a lot of recycling improvement fund money to be able to do that.