Chamber and committees

In what way does missing nine of the past 13 targets demonstrate it? It does not demonstrate it at all.

We need to get real—Scotland’s record is not good. We need pragmatic plans that bring people with us on the journey to net zero. Douglas Lumsden’s speech was all about plans, but we do not have them from the Government.

The Climate Change Committee’s damning report was published in March. It should have been a wake-up call for the Scottish Government, because it found that the Scottish Government has failed to achieve its ambitious climate goals yet again, that the publication of the draft climate change plan has been delayed yet again, and that

“Most key indicators of delivery progress ... are off track”

yet again. Most concerning of all, the committee said that

“there is ... no comprehensive delivery strategy”

from the Scottish Government. No wonder its actions continue to fall short of its legal requirements.

I mentioned transport. I am very keen to know when we might see a route map for the Government’s plan to deliver 24,000 EV charge points by 2030. I would also like to know when we will see an integrated ticketing system for our public transport network, to get more people using public transport. We have been promised that for well over a decade, but there is no sign of it.

Our amendment also calls on the Scottish Government to

“reverse its anti-science approach to new nuclear technology”.

When I asked the—

I am really grateful to Circular Communities Scotland for suggesting my amendments 34 and 35. I am grateful to Monica Lennon and Sarah Boyack for supporting them and to the minister for supporting amendment 34. I will speak about that one first.

Section 8, which is on restrictions on the disposal of unsold goods, is a really important section and it has wide support. It speaks to the minimisation of waste, which we all want to see, but it could and should go further and state explicitly that the reuse of unsold goods and returns should be prioritised over recycling, as per the waste hierarchy.

Amendment 34 seeks to ensure that section 8 will be explicit in highlighting the value of reuse over just taking things back and breaking them down for recycling. For example, small electrical goods, textiles, furniture and even bikes that are in good working order deserve to be put back into the economy and kept in safe use for as long as possible. Amendment 34 is in line with the principles of creating the conditions for a strong circular economy, and I am really grateful for the minister’s support for it.

I see my amendment 35, which is backed by Monica Lennon, as being complementary to amendment 34. It speaks to the principles of passing unsold goods back into the economy via the existing network of community-based and charitable organisations across the country. Most members will be aware of their local reuse projects and charity shops. They not only take in donations of goods and reduce waste but maximise the social value of those donations by undertaking wider charitable activities using the income from the sale of donated goods.

I will skip ahead to the comments that were made—

I am somewhat confused by the minister’s approach. Does she not accept that, given that we have a circular economy bill, we at least ought to know what is meant by “circular economy”? That is what amendment 38 sets out. Is the minister against having a purpose in the bill or is she just against Maurice Golden’s version of a purpose?

I support the amendment, but I would like to know how Gillian Mackay sees it working in practice. Does she think that there should be a take-back scheme applying to every retailer who sells single-use vapes—should the retailers be compelled to take the vapes back, and if someone takes back a single-use vape, will they be given some money for doing so?

Mandating consistent household collections through an updated national code of practice is a critical step in creating a consistent approach to recycling collections across Scotland. Any approach should include as wide a range of materials as possible, including drink cartons, to drive progress towards a truly circular economy. It is vital that drink cartons remain in the metal, plastic and beverage carton collection stream, as set out in the existing code of practice, to ensure that they can be easily sorted for recycling.

When people put things in their recycling bins and send them to be recycled, it is essential that they can trust that those materials will actually be recycled, but that is sometimes not the case, particularly with cartons. That came as a surprise to me. I am sure that all members dutifully put drink cartons in the right bin, but they will be as surprised as I was to discover that quite often they do not get recycled. Without the mandating of sorting, consumers cannot be confident that that will be the case.

It is only through proper sorting that materials can be sent to the most appropriate destination for processing, so without mandatory sorting, there is a risk that, for commercial reasons, a waste management company will choose to treat less valuable materials as contaminant and put them in a different material stream, rather than sorting them so that they can be sent to the most appropriate processing facilities. Amendment 21 fixes that problem.

Although amendment 37 is less prescriptive in that it does not mention cartons, we need to create the conditions where there is a market to recycle materials, and I have discussed that with the minister. Too much is slipping through the net. I said to the minister that the bill ultimately needs to achieve things, one of which is recycling and the other of which is reuse. My amendments achieve the recycling bit, so they are very important. I think that the minister understands the importance of the issue, so I look forward to hearing her views.

Certainly.

What led to the breakdown in trust between the board and the programme director?

I do not wish to move the amendments en bloc; I will not be moving them. [Applause.]

I have a couple of amendments in the group: amendments 10 and 36. The bill will increase recycling rates in Scotland only if it introduces dedicated recycling targets for household waste and core materials, which I will discuss later. Those targets should be aligned with those that are set under the UK-wide extended producer responsibility scheme. Without targets, waste management companies here have no incentive to properly sort and recycle all materials. Introducing targets means that they would need to demonstrate proper treatment of all materials in order to receive EPR fees. That would drive improved recycling in Scotland.

Amendment 10 says that there should be targets for each core material, including drinks cartons, while amendment 36 is slightly less prescriptive. I am grateful to Monica Lennon for supporting amendment 36.

I have 27 amendments in this group, all of which relate to deadlines for expiry of regulation-making powers under the law. I do not intend to give chapter and verse on them individually. Given the minister’s current state of health, I invite her to follow the same approach.

At stage 2, I lodged similar amendments that offered the committee an opportunity to reduce timescales to either six months, one year or two years. I thought that those were reasonable amendments. None of them required a particularly quick turnaround, because if we are serious about delivering a circular economy, we need an ambitious pace of working. Like my previous attempts at stage 2, my current amendments would set a timetable for the making of various regulations under the bill and would give the Government of the day a deadline. At stage 2, I invited the committee to

“turbo-boost the bill under the dynamism of Gillian Martin”—[Official Report, Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee, 7 May 2024; c 47.]

but the committee and the minister rejected my invitation. In fact, the minister told me that she was not “about the fast lane” and cautioned me against rushing things “at our peril”. She did not want to be tied to a timeline that would require the Government to deliver regulations within two years, but she recognised

“the need to make swift progress ... and that timelines are important.”—[Official Report, Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee, 14 May 2024; c 30.]

I was disappointed by what I saw as a lack of ambition. We want the Government of the day, whoever that is, to deliver a circular economy properly, but also at pace. I did think that giving the Government three years was far too long. However, in the light of how things progressed at stage 2, I am opting for that now. Three years should give any Government more than ample time to make regulations, including the meaningful consultation to which the minister referred at stage 2.

In this group, I also have a series of sunset clauses that say that if the Government has not made regulations under those sections within three years, those provisions will expire. That should focus the mind of any minister, I would have thought.

I am grateful to have the support of Friends of the Earth on amendments 1 and 2 in this group. Amendment 1 says that ministers must make regulation-setting targets within three years. Friends of the Earth agrees that such regulations should be introduced as soon as possible. Amendment 2 says that if ministers do not hit that target, they should make a statement to Parliament to explain themselves.

Members will be pleased to hear that I am about to sit down. I will decide how to proceed with my other amendments after I have heard other members’ views on them.

I move amendment 1.