Chamber and committees

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.

I will in a second, but I really want to get to the end of my point.

I say to Graham Simpson that I am not personally about the fast lane: I am about going in the right direction with stakeholders behind me and about the careful consideration that Mark Ruskell mentioned. The consultation time period that is set out in the guidance for statutory environmental assessments under the Environmental Assessment (Scotland) Act 2005 alone could take six months. For those reasons we do not support amendments 2 and 3, so I ask Graham Simpson not to press them. I think that we rush things at our peril, to be honest.

I assure Mr Doris that a just transition is embedded throughout a lot of the Government’s thinking across portfolios. I will come to that later.

Ensuring a just transition is central to the development of a circular economy. Amendment 137 would ensure that the just transition principles that are set out in section 35C of the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009 are taken into account by ministers in the development of the circular economy strategy.

The committee also emphasised the importance of behavioural change. I agree with that view, so amendment 138 proposes an additional requirement that, in developing the circular economy strategy, the Scottish ministers must have regard to the kinds of behavioural change that are needed to meet the strategy’s objectives.

Finally, the committee called for a clearer link in the bill between the strategy and the targets. Those are already linked by the criteria for a circular economy being repeated in the same terms in sections 1 and 6. However, amendment 139 would go further and put a specific obligation on ministers to have regard to the targets in preparing the strategy.

Together, amendments 136 to 139 provide for a comprehensive and broad-reaching circular economy strategy that takes into account a range of relevant factors. The amendments also impact on some of the amendments that have been lodged.

I want to make a point about the use in the legislation of the phrase “have regard to”, which means, in effect, that ministers must take account of the principles in preparing the strategy. We think that that is the appropriate level of compliance.

I will talk about some of the amendments that have been lodged by other members. Several amendments refer to just transition principles. As I have said, I agree that ensuring a just transition is central to the development of a circular economy. That is why I have lodged amendment 137, which will ensure that the just transition principles are taken into account in the development of the circular economy strategy.

More widely, our approach to just transition planning is guided by our just transition planning framework and the national just transition outcomes that are described in that framework. I would like to provide reassurance that circular economy principles are, therefore, being considered as part of on-going just transition planning work, particularly in relation to supporting economic, job, place and environmental outcomes.

However, I would say that just transition is wider than that, because it is also about ensuring that people are not disadvantaged unnecessarily, and the word “communities” could also refer to, for example, people in rural areas or those who have mobility issues. We must always take into account the possible unintended consequences of what we are doing, for good reason, and think about how they might impact on people. I agree with Bob Doris’s comments on that.

The Government is committed to just transition plans for high-emitting sectors, sites and regions. We began with our energy strategy and just transition plan, which will be published in the summer. We are also developing sectoral plans for agriculture and land use, the built environment and construction, and transport. I will take those forward with my colleagues who have responsibility for those portfolio areas. Work is also well under way on the just transition plan for Grangemouth and the site plan for the Grangemouth industrial cluster.

Amendment 93 would, I believe, add unnecessary detail to the circular economy strategy. If Government amendment 137 is accepted, the Scottish ministers will have to “have regard to” just transition in the development of the strategy, so it will already be considered. Amendments 98 and 99 are not necessary, given amendment 137, which will require ministers to have regard to just transition principles in developing the strategy.

Circular economy principles should be embedded across all sectors of the economy, which is why they are already being considered as part of just transition policy. Requiring the level of detail that is referred to in amendments 208 and 209 to be included in the circular economy strategy would be burdensome; those matters will be considered as part of the sector-specific plans that are already in development. For those reasons, the Scottish Government cannot support Sarah Boyack’s amendments 93, 98 and 99 or Bob Doris’s amendments 208 and 209.

I will move on to other amendments that have been mentioned. I agree with the principle and sentiment that Monica Lennon expresses in amendment 132. The wider extraterrestrial—did I say extraterrestrial? [Laughter.] I realise why everyone is looking at me as though I am a bizarre person. The wider

“extraterritorial impact of material consumption”

is an important consideration. The Scottish Government is already required to annually publish carbon footprint statistics, which include statistics on embedded carbon from imported goods and experimental statistics that outline the embedded material requirements by country of origin in 2019 that were associated with final consumption in Scotland. Zero Waste Scotland also publishes material flow accounts, which consider imported goods.

Monica Lennon mentioned the impact of waste that is exported to other countries, but I am afraid that the policy on that is reserved to the UK Government. We need to be clear about what we can and cannot influence. Exports are a matter that is reserved to the UK Government, and the carbon footprint is based on broad trade and is heavily dependent on emissions from other countries, over which Scotland has no control. However, I am happy to reflect on what we can reasonably and feasibly do ahead of stage 3. I cannot support amendment 132 as it stands, but we will take it away and have a look at what we can include that recognises the wider impacts that Monica Lennon mentioned.

We are required to report at the halfway point, and I think that that is sufficient. Members are always welcome to write to ministers asking for updates on whether targets are being met in the intervening period, but the proposed approach strikes the right balance.

On amendment 190, in the name of Maurice Golden, the circular economy sits at the heart of the Scottish Environment Protection Agency’s published “One Planet Prosperity: A Waste to Resources Framework”, which recognises that the organisation has a clear role in helping Scotland to move to a more circular economy and that it is in a unique position for protecting Scotland’s environment while helping to create prosperity through greater resource efficiency. The framework already guides SEPA’s work on waste and resources, and SEPA guidance already takes account of a circular economy in which resources are recirculated in the context of there being high levels of environmental protection.

More than 100 individual pieces of SEPA guidance relate to waste management activities and are generally on legal, technical or pollution issues—for example, interpretation of legal definitions, practical guidance on consigning special waste, landfill waste acceptance criteria, odour abatement and when a recycled product such as compost ceases to be waste. It also includes guidance on UK schemes, such as the scheme on producer responsibility.

Mr Golden said that amendment 190 is a “nudge” in a certain direction, but I hope that I have demonstrated that SEPA has already embedded such action in all its activities. All the guidance already takes into account the regulators code of practice, SEPA’s statutory purpose and its waste to resources framework, so requiring that all waste guidance be reviewed would be a significant undertaking with the prospect of there being no significant change, given that SEPA guidance is already in line with that framework. SEPA will also be involved in, and consulted on, development of the strategy.

In short, therefore, I believe that amendment 190 is unnecessary and could be overly burdensome on SEPA. On that basis, I cannot support it.

Yes. I would like to briefly outline what has been done to date.

The order under consideration is a minor amendment to the Renewables Obligation (Scotland) Order 2009. The renewables obligation scheme provides revenue to generators of renewable energy through the trading of renewables obligation certificates, or ROCs. Suppliers purchase ROCs, either directly or through traders, from generators. The generators are awarded ROCs by the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets in proportion to their electricity output. The cost of the scheme is recouped by suppliers through energy bills. The number of ROCs that suppliers must provide to Ofgem for the electricity that they supply is referred to as the obligation level. That level must be published by the Scottish ministers before 1 October each year, giving at least six months’ notice to suppliers before the obligation year begins.

The amendment to the 2009 order is necessary to allow the 2024-25 obligation level to be altered to reflect changes in United Kingdom Government legislation that introduce a new 100 per cent energy intensive industries exemption. It ensures that the ROS obligation level aligns with the UK legislation and the new 100 per cent energy intensive industries level. It also ensures alignment with the scheme in England and Wales, with a parallel amendment being made by the UK Government.

I believe that the amendment order is necessary and proportionate. I will, of course, be happy to take any questions that members have.