Chamber and committees

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.

In response to Clare Adamson, I recognise, as always, her long-standing work on health and safety. Obviously, she will know that health and safety is a reserved matter and that all electrical items should comply with the legislation on that.

She made mention of the handling of materials that are used in electrical items as part of the circular economy strategy. I assure her that safety concerns will be referred to in the strategy. In saying what is expected on those items, it will make reference to a lot of reserved areas. That is an important discussion to have.

To give Ben Macpherson even more assurance, I can say that construction will be prioritised in the waste route map, for obvious reasons. Waste in construction is still a real concern. A specific just transition plan will be associated with the built environment, in which the circular economy and the waste associated with the sector will be mentioned in great detail. The sector is also taken account of in the forthcoming climate change plans. It is important that Ben Macpherson raised the fact that we still have to have serious action in the construction sector, in order to reduce the waste that is associated with it. I thank him for raising that.

The bill is one thing, but the development of the strategy after that will be the meat on its bones. I totally appreciate that there has not been as much movement as there could be, else we would not have the statistics that are associated with the construction industry.

I was exercising discipline earlier when, with everyone talking about construction, I showed my hand by noting that I am the convener of the cross-party group on construction. Does Douglas Lumsden agree that there is a lot of innovation and good practice happening across construction already and that many in the industry would probably welcome being included in the strategy, because there is a feeling of disconnection, with people not being listened to by everyone across Government, which means that some of that good practice is not being shared and learned from? The idea is not to have a go at sectors; rather, it is to bring them in and have them at the table. Is there a danger that we might lose some of that opportunity if we do not have those sectors referenced in the strategy?

I do not make quite the same interpretation as Monica Lennon has of Maurice Golden’s amendment 190, which would require that all the guidance be reviewed. Ms Lennon mentioned capacity, which is what I would be worried about if we were asking for a review of all that when guidance is already in place and we already have a framework embedded in what SEPA does. [Interruption.] I am answering Ms Lennon, if you would forgive me.

The regulated code of practice and the waste to resources framework are the mechanism that Ms Lennon asked about. Obviously, SEPA will be working to review the framework in line with any changes to legislation and in response to the strategy that we will produce.

We might have different interpretations of the intention of amendment 1. I cannot support it, because our interpretation is slightly different.