Chamber and committees

I am sorry if you thought that I interrupted you, convener. I thought that you had finished. You had made your point, and I have taken it. The proposal of an 18-month period has been mooted, but it is in neither of the amendments that are under consideration. On amendments 2 and 3, I ask Graham Simpson not to move them, although I imagine that he will.

For similar reasons, the Scottish Government cannot support amendment 80, which is in the name of Douglas Lumsden. Section 5 requires that Scottish ministers report on progress on objectives and plans in the circular economy strategy 30 months after the publication of each strategy. In other words, there is a requirement for a progress report at the halfway point of each strategy. I think that that strikes a balance between ensuring that the Scottish Government is accountable for progress on each circular economy strategy, and our not imposing onerous reporting burdens that would distract from delivering policy. Our view is that amendment 80, by imposing annual reporting on the strategy, would go too far in that direction and should be resisted.

Although I understand the sentiments behind amendments 92 and 131, I am afraid that I cannot support them. In the first place, both amendments claim to set out a purpose for a circular economy for the whole bill, but in reality they simply attempt to describe a circular economy. Specifically, amendment 92 describes a circular economy with reference to the waste hierarchy and both amendments refer to just transition principles under the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009. I strongly agree that the waste hierarchy and just transition principles are important considerations, which is why the Scottish Government has lodged amendments 136 and 137, which require that the Scottish ministers have specific regard to both of those when preparing a circular economy strategy.

Amendments 136 and 137 have direct legal effect and will allow the Parliament to hold ministers to account for the content of the strategy that will provide an overall framework for wider policy in this area. In contrast, amendments 92 and 131 are not linked to the substantive sections of the bill, nor do they impose any duties or obligations, so they would have no legal effect.

The term “circular economy” appears only in sections 1 to 7 of the bill, and the remaining sections of the bill mostly amend other legislation. In the bill as introduced, sections 1 and 6 set out a list of criteria for what constitutes a circular economy that ministers must have regard to when preparing the strategy and making regulations to set targets. Unlike the proposed purpose clauses in amendments 92 and 131, the list of criteria for what constitutes a circular economy has legal effect because ministers must have regard to those matters when preparing the strategy and making regulations to set targets.

In addition—this was one of Mark Ruskell’s points—there is no accepted international definition of a circular economy and including one in the bill would risk the terminology becoming outdated. In short, the Scottish Government’s view is that the amendments do not work legally and therefore would not add value to what is already in the bill. On that basis, I am afraid that I cannot support them.

Okay—apologies to Clare Adamson. Again, she knows very well the regimes that exist across the whole of the UK.

Mr Lumsden rightly points out that co-design is something that could happen across many areas of Government, but there is no actual legal definition of it. It is a proposal to have stakeholder engagement in order to work out a workable strategy; the bill to which you referred enables co-design. I hope that Mr Lumsden gets that I agree with Mr Golden on the wider point about widening consultation and am happy to do that.

Amendments 187 and 188 rightly recognise the impact that decisions that are taken here in Scotland can have on the global south. It was good to hear so many members recognising that civic Scotland and the Scottish Government have taken a leading role in that in their work in COP26 and COP28.

We are the first country to put forward proposals on loss and damage and to take the discussion about climate justice to the fore in everything that we do. Climate justice is an important consideration and an important concern of our Government across multiple portfolios.

Although I fully appreciate the sentiment and the intention behind amendment 187, I cannot support it because the very broad way in which it is framed would make identifying the relevant stakeholders and experts in the global south too uncertain in legal terms, and it would therefore not be possible for ministers to properly identify statutory consultees.

However, we will always listen to the views of stakeholders in the global south. I refer to the fact that Ms Slater, in taking the bill forward as she did from the start, engaged with and consulted stakeholders thoroughly until the bill was handed over to me. We will always listen to representative organisations. This has been a useful discussion.

With regard to amendment 188, I appreciate the sentiment, but

“such persons or organisations that may be affected or interested by the strategy, in particular any international organisations”

is too broad a description to be deliverable. The consultation requirement in the bill already requires ministers to consult

“such persons as they consider appropriate”,

which would therefore allow ministers to consult international organisations. Indeed, we consult international organisations and engage with international partners; many ministers do so, across their daily work.

However, as with amendment 1, I am happy to consider whether we can work together to broaden the consultation requirements ahead of stage 3 to include the kinds of categories of persons that amendments 187 and 188 envisage. I hope that we can arrive at something that we all agree with.

Amendment 189, which is in the name of Mark Ruskell, will strengthen the reporting requirements for the circular economy strategy. I thank Mr Ruskell for lodging the amendment. It will add value to the bill, so I am happy to support it.

Amendments 2 and 3 relate to section 3 of the bill, which currently requires ministers to

“publish the circular economy strategy”

and lay it before Parliament within two years of the section coming into force. Effectively, the provision in the bill gives ministers and stakeholders two years to develop the strategy, including stakeholder engagement, consultation, analysis of the responses and revision of the draft strategy in the light of those responses.

First, I will speak to the Scottish Government amendments 136, 137, 138 and 139. Following the committee’s recommendations in the stage 1 report, the Scottish Government lodged a number of amendments to strengthen the provisions in section 1 of the bill in relation to the circular economy strategy.

The committee welcomed the principle of placing the strategy on a statutory basis and recommended that the strategy

“must focus action and resources on measures further up the waste hierarchy than is currently the case.”

I agree that focusing action high up the waste hierarchy is crucial. Amendment 136 will ensure that, in preparing the strategy, ministers must have regard to the waste hierarchy. The description of the waste hierarchy that is set out in 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 the circular economy in line with that established framework for the waste hierarchy.

Incineration has been mentioned by a number of members, including—initially—Sarah Boyack. Incineration is part of the waste hierarchy, but it is at the lower end of that hierarchy.

We also want to ensure that we keep in alignment with the European Union on that, and that we refer to an established waste hierarchy that sectors are familiar with, already use and recognise.

As I have said, we will take into account what has been mentioned with regard to the policy direction. The energy strategy is reaching its final stages before its publication in the summer, but I will have a look at what we have in there and at what can perhaps be signposted by way of stronger action in this area.

I am afraid that the Scottish Government cannot support Maurice Golden’s amendment 210. I fully support the premise that a system for refillables brings many benefits compared with single use. We all have refillables operations in our constituencies across Scotland, and they do a great job. Having a refillables plan is in line with our vision for a circular economy, but I do not consider it necessary to include such a requirement in the bill. The powers that exist in the Environment Act 2021 to make provisions in relation to producer responsibility could be used to deliver refillables proposals. In addition, one purpose of the forthcoming reforms to extend the producer responsibility obligations in relation to packaging is to encourage and further incentivise reuse and refill.

We will continue to work with the UK Government and other devolved Governments, along with industry, to promote the reuse of drinks containers. Reuse and refill will, of course, be central to the development of our circular economy strategy. I agree that any plans that are set out in the strategy should include measures that are designed to cut waste, to challenge the current approach to production, to promote sustainable choices and to encourage reuse. That can include plans for refillables, if appropriate.

If Mr Golden would be happy not to move his amendment 210, I would be happy to work with him to consider his proposals for refillables plans as part of our broader work on the circular economy and our engagement with the UK Government and the other devolved nations on this important topic.

On Sarah Boyack’s amendments 94 to 97, I agree that replacing the word “things” with “goods, products and materials” provides additional clarity to sections 1 and 6, so I am happy to support those amendments.

The Scottish Government cannot support amendment 140, in the name of Maurice Golden. Section 1(5), on page 2 of the bill, already requires that

“The circular economy strategy must be prepared with a view to achieving consistency ... between the objectives and plans set out in ... the climate change plan”.

The amendment, which refers to the sectors that must already specifically be included in the climate change plan, is unnecessary.

I move to amendments 122 and 123, in the name of Ben Macpherson. I agree that construction waste, food waste and household waste would necessarily be considered and prioritised as part of the development of the first circular economy strategy. Those are all priorities in the draft circular economy route map and, therefore, will be considered in the development of the strategy. The route map has a specific focus on reducing food and construction waste, as you would expect, given that they are at the top of the issues that we have with waste more generally.

Construction is a sector in our climate change plan and is central to our forthcoming consultation on delivering a just transition for the built environment, which will include consideration of the circular economy. The approach in section 1(4) is that

“the Scottish Ministers must have particular regard to sectors and systems most likely to contribute to developing a circular economy”

strategy rather than specifying particular sectors and systems. That will allow future strategies the flexibility to focus on the most relevant sectors and systems of the time, which would be informed by relevant research and engagement. Including specific sectors in the bill would limit that flexibility. I agree with Maurice Golden, who also made that point.

Therefore, I cannot agree to Ben Macpherson’s amendments 122 and 123. However, ahead of stage 3, I would be happy to look at what we can consider in that area around, for example, criteria for identifying sectors rather than naming the sectors themselves in the bill.

Product stewardship is the substance of amendment 212, in the name of Sarah Boyack. We recognise the importance of the topic, which is why we are already committed to creating a product stewardship strategy, as set out in the draft circular economy route map.

Our proposed product stewardship plan, which is due to be developed and published by 2025-26, will include at least three priority products for which a range of product stewardship measures will be identified alongside clear delivery timelines. For each product, we will consider both the action that we can take in Scotland under devolved powers and our expectations of the UK Government where effective action relies on reserved powers.

As set out in our draft route map, determining the products and the measures to be taken must be decided on the basis of a robust evidence-based approach, selecting the right strategy for the right products. Agreeing to amendment 122 would pre-empt the thorough research that will evidence the most effective measures for driving product stewardship.

We recognise the need for a strategic approach to product stewardship across the waste hierarchy, from production and consumption through to recycling and end-of-life management. We welcome the suggestions for measures to consider as part of the product stewardship design process. Although it would not be appropriate to commit to them legislatively at this stage, we will consider the measures as part of our on-going work to develop the product stewardship plan. I would be extremely happy to work with MSPs while we develop our product stewardship strategy as part of our broader work on the circular economy.

I think that that deals with all the amendments in this group, convener.

Amendments 141 and 151 relate to the designation of either a new advisory body or an existing body to provide advice to Scottish ministers on their functions with regard to the circular economy strategy and targets. It seems to be envisaged that such a body’s role would be similar to that fulfilled by the existing Climate Change Committee under the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009.

I acknowledge that it is extremely important to regularly monitor and report on the strategy and targets, but I do not agree that it is necessary for a new advisory body to be established for the purposes set out in amendment 151. Section 5 of the bill requires ministers to lay a report on progress before the Scottish Parliament halfway through the expected five-year duration of the circular economy strategy, while section 7 provides for regulations to set out progress towards achieving circular economy targets. Such a report must also be laid before the Scottish Parliament.

I do not consider the setting up of a new body to be a good use of taxpayers’ money. We already have several circular economy bodies that fulfil similar roles. [Interruption.] If the member who is seeking to intervene will let me finish my point, I will give way after that.

We came to that conclusion when we considered responses to questions in the bill consultation on the establishment of a new circular economy public body. Concern was raised that such a body could duplicate existing provision and lead to unnecessary administration and cost. Scotland already has a relatively new independent body in Environmental Standards Scotland, which scrutinises and assesses the effectiveness of environmental law and public authorities’ compliance with it and is accountable to the Scottish Parliament. Progress against waste and recycling targets and the development of the circular economy are analytical priorities in ESS’s existing strategic plan.

Moreover, the Climate Change Committee typically includes recommendations on circular economy and waste as part of its duties under the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009. Finally, Zero Waste Scotland, which has been mentioned a lot, already provides advice and support to ministers on the delivery of their objectives. It is already working on construction waste, which I think was mentioned earlier, and it engages with relevant businesses on best practice.

I am not sure who was trying to intervene earlier—I do not know whether it was Mr Golden.

Mr Golden is welcome to interrogate SEPA about its decisions. It is not for me to answer on behalf of SEPA about an example on which I do not have detail. If you will forgive me, I will not walk into that one.

Zero Waste Scotland is Scotland’s circular economy expert and already provides advice and support to ministers on the delivery of the objectives in that area. It will complete its transition to becoming a non-departmental public body this year, and that will be taken forward in amendments 174 and 180.