Chamber and committees

On amendment 82 in the name of Douglas Lumsden, section 7 already requires that regulations must set out arrangements for monitoring and reporting on progress towards achieving targets. Those regulations would enable provision to be made on the frequency of reporting, which would depend on the nature of the target and the availability of data to measure it, and that would be established as part of the development of a monitoring and indicator framework and the consultation on the targets themselves. As I do not believe that it would be appropriate to pre-empt that process, I cannot support amendment 82.

On amendment 148, in the name of Maurice Golden, section 7 sets out that regulations must make arrangements for the monitoring of and reporting on targets. The achievability or appropriateness of the targets would be covered in the development of the targets themselves, instead of being a matter for the progress reports. Depending on the targets that are provided for in regulations, they might not necessarily be attributable to sectors; additionally, those sectors would be set out in the strategy rather than in section 1(4). For those reasons, I cannot support amendment 148.

The Scottish Government cannot support amendment 12, in the name of Graham Simpson, as it proposes activity that I think is unworkable. I am also not entirely sure that what Graham Simpson is proposing is needed. Scottish ministers will be required to report to the Scottish Parliament on progress towards targets and any actions that have been taken to achieve them, and that will provide a strong level of accountability.

Moreover, Mr Simpson’s amendment does not set out the basis upon which the Parliament would impose fines or the mechanism for distributing them. In response to Douglas Lumsden’s point that it is the Government that imposes fines, I would just note that the amendment that we lodged and which was agreed last week removed penalties for local authorities not meeting their targets, and that the amendment came about as a result of a great deal of consultation with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities.

On amendment 149, the committee, in its stage 1 report, called for more clarity and mandated action to meet the targets in section 7, which deals with reporting on progress towards targets. As meeting the targets will constitute a statutory duty, Scottish ministers will already be legally required to take action to do so. In response to the committee’s recommendation, we have lodged amendment 149 to clarify that reporting on the targets will focus on current action being taken by ministers, in recognition of the fact that the reporting requirements in section 7 are to do with monitoring the progress that has been made towards achieving the targets. I hope that members will support the amendment.

On amendment 13, in the name of Maurice Golden, Scottish ministers will, under section 7, be required to report to the Scottish Parliament on progress towards targets. As I have just noted, amendment 149 means that the regulations will require the report to set out the actions that ministers are taking to achieve those targets, and that reporting provision will give a very strong level of accountability. The bill, once enacted, will consist of a wide range of provisions, not all of which will be relevant to the delivery of any specific target, so a requirement in the reporting provisions to review the act’s operation as a whole would be disproportionate and unnecessary.

Similarly, we cannot support amendment 14. It is unnecessary to introduce for the circular economy targets an additional review and reporting requirement that is linked to the 2045 net zero target set in the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009. The climate change targets already require their own reporting to Parliament, and the measures in the 2009 act will apply to the measures in this bill, where appropriate. Therefore, a requirement to review the operation of the act as a whole is again disproportionate and unnecessary.

On amendment 152, I agree that public bodies have a significant role to play in delivering Scotland’s circular economy, and the amendment highlights the role of procurement in particular. The Procurement Reform (Scotland) Act 2014 introduced the sustainability procurement duty, which requires public bodies to consider how they can improve economic, social and environmental wellbeing and secure improvements. Public bodies should outline in their annual procurement strategy how they will use procurement to contribute to the response to the global climate emergency and report progress in their annual procurement reports. That is required explicitly to address climate change and circular economy obligations.

In addition, public bodies are required to comply with and report on wider climate change duties. Since 2015, more than 180 public bodies have been required to report annually on their compliance with climate change duties under the Climate Change (Duties of Public Bodies: Reporting Requirements) (Scotland) Order 2015, including, where applicable, targets for reducing indirect emissions.

I am always happy to meet Ms Lennon. It is a topic that we need to have a discussion about, whether it is about its inclusion in the bill through amendments or about a wider programme of work that we need to do. I am happy to meet Ms Lennon.

The difference between having that in legislation and having it in the strategy is that we have flexibility within the strategy. The strategy is about the here and now and the few years after the strategy. It will identify some of the most problematic areas where there is a great deal of waste. That is why the strategy will have that detail in it. I give Sarah Boyack my assurance that some of the things that she perhaps wants to see in the bill at the moment will be prioritised and dealt with in the strategy. I made that point in relation to quite a few members’ questions about specific materials last week.

I turn to amendments 214 and 194. At stage 1, the committee noted the need for a robust approach to setting targets and offered its support for rigour in that process. I think that requiring, in the bill, targets for specific measures would undermine that process. The circular economy and waste route map sets out that the target-setting process will follow the development of a monitoring and indicators framework from 2025, as I have already said. That work is under way and will go on into next year.

Furthermore, the Scottish Government is already required to publish carbon footprint statistics annually, but those statistics are not suitable for targets because much of the data that underpins them is based on averages and is dependent on emissions from other countries, over which Scotland has no control. Therefore, we cannot support amendment 214 or amendment 194.

I absolutely understand the sentiment behind amendments 144, 145 and 146, which are in the name of Monica Lennon. It is laudable that local authorities do what they can to facilitate use of reusable nappies. A great example was given from North Ayrshire Council. I was not in post at that time, but I have heard great things about the work that has been done there. We want to encourage sharing of best practice as much as possible. The work that will be done after the bill is passed will facilitate that. When we have the circular economy route map, there will be examples for local authorities to look at, and there will be the vehicle of using the work that Ms Lennon has said that COSLA wants to do on encouraging take-up and sharing of good practice.

The things that are mentioned by Ms Lennon in her amendments, including reusable nappies and food waste, could already be the subject of targets, should those be deemed to be appropriate when we are developing the regulations. Targets and regulations could already be made for use of reusable nappies and food waste, so it is not necessary for them to be inserted in the bill through amendments.

The Scottish Government is doing what it can through the voucher that is included in the baby box. I am looking forward to receiving the results of the research that Ms Lennon mentioned, which I believe is coming to me quite soon. There is a lot more that we can do on promotion of reusable nappies and in development of the circular economy route map, but I do not think that it is necessary to have that in the bill.

I hope that Monica Lennon will not press the amendments. I will understand it if she does, but I cannot support them.

The wording “as possible” is not the kind of language that we want in the bill. What does it actually mean? Maybe Maurice Golden and I can discuss that ahead of stage 3, so that we can get to the nub of what he is asking for and see whether we can make the wording better. As amendment 143 stands, we cannot support it.

We also cannot support amendment 142. I agree that having regard to the waste hierarchy is crucial. My amendment 136 will ensure that, in the preparation of the circular economy strategy, ministers must have regard to the waste hierarchy. That does not have to be restated in the section on targets.

Regarding amendment 193, which is in the name of Sarah Boyack, targets need to be both measurable and deliverable. Concepts such as “rethinking” or “encouraging” are unlikely to be suitable because they would be difficult to define, design or measure. I agree that repairing is a significant part of the efforts to focus action further up the waste hierarchy, so I support Ben Macpherson’s amendment 126, in that context. However, for the reason that I have given, I cannot support amendment 193.

Amendment 195 sets out that “different targets” can be made

“in relation to different materials, such as ... glass ... PolyEthylene Terephthalate”

and “cartons”—although cartons are not a material, but a type of packaging. Section 6 already allows for targets to be set for specific materials, so identifying only some specific materials in the bill is not necessary. It would also be inappropriate to highlight certain materials over others, given that the relative importance—

I will finish this point and then take a quick intervention.

It would be inappropriate to highlight certain materials over others, given that the relative importance of setting targets for specific materials will change over time. I think that I made that argument last week. It would be prudent to future proof that power as much as possible. That is my reasoning.

I will take Sarah Boyack’s question.

This will not drift. There is a climate emergency, and the bill puts in place a raft of work that will be done in consultation with stakeholders. I am making the point that the deadlines that I have been asked to put in the bill are outwith the control of the Scottish ministers, because a lot is dependent on parliamentary process and the timetable that Parliament decides for dealing with the regulations.

No, I will continue. In relation to amendments—

I will have to go back and ask the new Minister for Parliamentary Business when that bill will be brought in, because I do not have that information. Obviously, we have also had a change in ministerial appointments, and I will need time to reach out to the new people in post and get that answer for Ms Lennon, but I will ask my officials to look into that for you.

I also want to point out that the UK Parliament is looking at the Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill. If and when that becomes law, the Scottish Government will have to ensure that our policies and guidance comply with that. If anything, the bill seems likely to give us less freedom to set out our own approach rather than more.

I support the intention behind the amendment and I am happy to consider what more we can do within the existing frameworks that I mentioned, including through guidance in relation to the sustainable procurement duty. Through the forthcoming Scottish human rights bill, I will also do what I can across portfolios to influence what happens in relation to the sentiments that Maurice Golden has expressed. However, I cannot support the amendment as it is written for the reasons that I have said.

Given the changes in ministerial responsibility, there has been very little time for me to have meetings with members, but there will be time to do that ahead of stage 3.

I turn to Sarah Boyack’s amendments 181 and 213. Although the principle of “do no harm” is a worthy aspiration, the principle, as it is defined in amendment 213, would be impossible for the Scottish ministers to comply with in developing the circular economy strategy. Given the global nature of trade in products and materials, it would simply not be possible to identify and alleviate all adverse consequences in affected populations in other countries. For those reasons, the Government cannot support amendments 181 and 213.

I turn to amendments 182 and 186, on transition minerals. I am grateful to Mr Ruskell for raising the important issue of the resources that are required for the transition to a circular economy. Minerals, some of which are rare, are critical for that transition, including materials that are involved in the production of batteries in wind turbines, which have been mentioned by Mr Ruskell, and in electric vehicles.

Amendment 182 refers to “transition minerals”, and amendment 186 provides a definition of them. They are often called “critical minerals”. I must argue against the inclusion of the proposed requirement in the bill. The bill needs to be future proofed, and what is critical for the energy sector in the 2020s may no longer be critical in the 2040s or 2050s. There is already a great deal of innovation happening across the world, and even just in Scotland, on the materials that are being used for batteries, for example. New technologies may later be developed that do not need the same minerals, or improved processes for recycling and recovery of minerals from existing uses may have greatly increased their supply. For that reason, I am afraid that I cannot support amendments 182 and 186.

I agree, however, that the issue is an important one. Zero Waste Scotland has published energy infrastructure materials mapping research, which outlines material requirements up to 2050, including for critical materials such as lithium, and that research will be taken into account as part of on-going policy development.

Thank you.

Amendment 183, from Mark Ruskell, refers to

“giving priority to materials which are most harmful or polluting across the material’s life cycle”.

That is a worthy aim, but such materials are difficult to define in law. Some materials that are harmful are also necessary—for example, pesticides and certain other chemicals that are controlled and managed through other regimes, such as the registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals regulations, or REACH. For that reason, I cannot support amendment 183.

The Scottish Government cannot support amendment 133, from Maurice Golden, or amendment 184, from Sarah Boyack. I agree that having regard to the waste hierarchy is crucial and I noted earlier that the description of the waste hierarchy that is set out in the Government’s amendment 136 derives from article 4 of the waste framework directive. Amendment 136 will ensure that ministers take into account the use of resources in a circular economy, in line with the established legal framework of the waste hierarchy.

It will also ensure consistent application of the waste hierarchy across waste-related legislation in Scotland. For that reason, I cannot support amendment 184, in the name of Sarah Boyack, nor can I support amendment 133, which I believe is unnecessary. My view is that, in the interests of seeking continued EU alignment, we should continue to use the definition of “waste hierarchy” that is enshrined in the EU waste framework directive.

Monica Lennon’s amendments 134 and 185 would introduce the concept of “due diligence” with regard to environmental protection and human rights. Due diligence with regard to procurement is important, and our national procurement legislation, the Procurement Reform (Scotland) Act 2014, has already established a national legislative framework for public procurement that supports sustainable economic growth by delivering economic, social and environmental benefits.

The sustainable procurement duty in the 2014 act requires contracting authorities to “consider” and “act” on opportunities to

“improve ... economic, social, and environmental wellbeing”.

Contracting authorities with a procurement spend of £5 million or more in any financial year must set out, in an organisational procurement strategy, how they intend to comply with the sustainable procurement duty and their

“policy on ... the procurement of fairly and ethically traded goods and services”.

They must also report on compliance with that strategy in their annual procurement reports and, in the interests of transparency, both procurement strategies and annual procurement reports must be published.

In addition, a significant body of rights that derives from the European convention on human rights is already hard-wired into the devolution settlement. In fact, it is already unlawful for Scottish public authorities to act in a way that is incompatible with those rights. Further rights—in particular, economic, social, cultural and environmental rights—and non-discrimination will be the subject of a Scottish human rights bill.

I recognise that reflecting those duties in a circular economy strategy may be helpful, and I acknowledge the value of an approach that is founded on a commitment to the on-going improvement and enhancement of due diligence processes. While I cannot support amendments 134 and 185, for the reasons that I have set out, I am, again, happy to work with the member ahead of stage 3 to establish what more we can do to usefully embed those duties in existing frameworks.

I am afraid that I cannot support amendment 135, in the name of Maurice Golden. Although a circular economy may provide significant opportunities for communities, for example in repair and reuse, it is not always the case, given the logistical and economic realities—for instance, in our many island communities—that all waste material should be treated “as locally as possible”. However, I take on board Maurice Golden’s points about having more repair and reuse take place in Scotland in general.

Similarly, amendment 137A, in the name of Maurice Golden, refers to

“the desirability of goods, products and materials being managed as locally as possible”,

but that will not always be viable, logistically or economically. The amendment also refers to

“the prevention of harmful goods, products and materials”.

As I said with regard to amendment 183, however, some goods, products and materials that could be classified as harmful are also necessary, and are managed under other regimes such as the REACH regime. Amendment 137A also refers to “just transition” and “due diligence”, to which I have already spoken. For those reasons, I cannot support the amendment.

Amendment 211, in the name of Clare Adamson, refers to the Scottish ministers having

“regard to safety considerations that may arise as a result of the circular economy strategy, including electrical safety considerations.”

Health and safety are clearly valid concerns, but they are subject to their own regimes, which means that it is unnecessary to provide such detail in the strategy. I cannot, therefore, support amendment 211; I note that Clare Adamson has not yet spoken to it.