Chamber and committees

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.

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.

That takes me to the point about guidance—it is important and helpful, but we do not want it to take so long that it delays implementation of the legislation. Timing is critical, as are engagement and consultation.

Can you give us a sense of a timescale for that advice and guidance for local authorities being ready to use?

I have had a strong interest in seeing a visitor levy enabled in Edinburgh in order to raise vital funding to enable our council to promote, and to deal with the impact of, tourism.

My amendments are mostly probing amendments. I want to test them. I have met the minister, and I also want to hear his comments on his amendments in this group. I have lodged the amendments because I seek clarity about the impact of the bill as currently drafted.

My aim is to support the reduction of complexities for local authorities in the setting of objectives for their scheme. As members will be aware, the amendments are similar to amendments that I have lodged in relation to later sections about how local authorities can use the proceeds in partnership with local stakeholders.

Amendment 20 would take out the word “substantially” in line 28, because I have concerns that the use of that word could make it overburdensome for local authorities to determine what expenditure would be allowable or not allowable under the legislation. If you look at dictionary definitions of the word, “substantially” can mean to a great or significant extent, or for the most part.

The challenge for us in Edinburgh is that visitors use a number of the same services and facilities as local residents, but they impact on them, and they can do so dramatically. Proving that they are used to a great or significant extent could be difficult. Because services are efficient, in that they can be used for both resident and visitor needs, it could also potentially stifle innovation or ways of moving forward.

I know from talking to the City of Edinburgh Council that it is concerned that, if we get into legal arguments, it would not be good for anyone. That also picks up on the points that Miles Briggs made earlier about short-term lets. We really do not want to get into legal arguments about what proceeds are being used for and how to define whether the “substantially” test is being met.

I want to test how the legislation will work, and how it is intended to work, in our discussions. I suggest that removing the word “substantially” would reduce complexity in relation to consulting on how the proceeds are to be used, and would enable councils to get on and use the funds. I am interested in the minister’s comments about how he would define “substantially”.

Amendment 24 would achieve the same thing by ensuring that the bill is consistent in section 17 so that the complexity is removed for councils and they can get on and use the proceeds from a visitor levy, in consultation with stakeholders. Amendments 25 and 23 are worded differently and aim to achieve the same thing through different means. I have put on the table two different options that could be used to make the use of proceeds less restricted.

There is a debate about councils’ concerns that the bill will ring fence the proceeds, which is counter to the Verity house agreement. There will be different circumstances, and different councils will have different tourism challenges, so it is about enabling flexibility.

Amendment 25 would only remove the words “for leisure purposes”. I suggest that removing those words would give councils the flexibility and freedom to spend the net proceeds on the range of services and facilities that serve the tourism sector. I am interested in what is meant by “leisure”. Investing in our arts and culture, our tourism infrastructure and our festivals is absolutely critical to Edinburgh’s success; it is important in supporting a successful tourism economy that is all year round in our city. That would also benefit our communities.

We are a capital city, so we have national infrastructure. If we take, for example, the issue of the police presence in our city, we already have major challenges with that. It is the capital city, so we have the Parliament and Government buildings, we have our airport and we have areas of significant interest. If there is a match at Murrayfield, Easter Road or Tynecastle, or if there is a demonstration in the city centre, the ability to ensure a police presence is stretched further. To what extent can a visitor levy enable the council to support the additional police services that we need but that are not there?

There is the issue of how to define the type of expenditure of net proceeds that falls under “leisure purposes”, which could unnecessarily restrict councils. Amendments 24 and 25 would increase the flexibility for local authorities to enable them to address local needs in relation to supporting tourism, but without creating unnecessary restrictions on using the net proceeds.

It is really important to try to achieve flexibility, and I stress that it is not just me that sees that. In an Edinburgh Evening News article in which the First Minister commented on the tourism visitor levy, he was clear that he was a supporter of the levy and that it could help many parts of Scotland but that he saw the advantages for Edinburgh, in particular. He said:

“I’ve been to many European cities where you pay a few extra euros and it’s not a disincentive to going to those places, so I don’t accept that argument people use against it. I think it would be wise to allow local authorities as much flexibility in relation to that spend. I’m in favour of allowing local authorities to decide how that money should be spent.”

I am very much in line with that direct quote from the First Minister.

Let us move on to consider how other councils around the world have operated tourism levies. I want to focus on the timescale issue.

Amendment 22 in my name would reduce the period of time that is currently in the bill, to give local authorities a bit more flexibility. This issue was discussed in the committee’s stage 1 report on the bill. It is important to get on the record—this is the point of stage 2—the fact that the timescale in section 13(2) must be after consultation with stakeholders and not inclusive of that consultation. That is key. If we take Edinburgh as an example, we see that a huge amount of consultation is already on-going about how the legislation could benefit the city, how it would impact the business community, on the principles and details and, critically, on how to support small businesses, in particular, which my colleague Daniel Johnson mentioned earlier.

It will be a challenge from day 1, which means that a lot of support must be in place now and there must be a lot of discussion of the details. I am conscious that how a visitor levy scheme works in practice is critical, and that discussion does not start after a scheme is proposed; it starts now—indeed, it has started already.

If you look at other countries, globally, and at localities in those countries, you will see that they have been able to implement similar levies in less than 12 months, although that is not what I am suggesting. I suggest 12 months. Others have done it differently. In Rome, for example, they managed to do it in a matter of months to raise support for their city. I understand that a number of Scottish rugby fans paid a levy of €10 just this weekend. However, on current assumptions, in reality, the City of Edinburgh Council is looking at a best-case scenario for a levy being introduced of late 2026, or possibly later. Those Italian fans who come to our city for the six nations tournament in 2027 will probably not pay a levy to visit Edinburgh, so the need to get going on this is critical.

I have put forward a proposal for a timescale just to create some clarity and test what colleagues around the table think. Amendment 22 would change the minimum time from decision to implementation from 18 to 12 months. It would still be a minimum, and it would still be up to local authorities. However, I stress that that time period would be after the formal decision that would be required by a local authority. The provision would enable a decision to go ahead with a scheme that had already been widely consulted on. It would enable local authorities to get going on such a scheme and to deliver the benefits from it.

I turn to the other amendments in the grouping. I think that amendment 9 in the minister’s name seeks to achieve similar aims to my amendment 25, so I will be interested to hear his comments on that. I welcome the fact that I have already had discussions with the minister, but getting things on the record today is key.

I recognise that the minister’s amendments in this group would take on board feedback from the Edinburgh Hotels Association in relation to business customers, but I do not believe that they would change the situation that I described in my earlier example, nor would they take into account day visitors.

I am looking for some reassurance from the minister in his comments. I am looking to get some clarity on the record on what we are doing to empower our councils to get on in order to maximise the opportunity for visitors coming to our country, particularly to our capital city of Edinburgh, to have a fantastic tourist experience. That would allow us to invest in our city, in culture and in the arts, noting the practicalities of making our tourist visits as successful as possible while getting investment on the go from day 1.

I move amendment 20.