Chamber and committees

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.

If you will let me, I will finish and get a bit of my point out before I take an intervention.

Consultation will, of course, be central to the development of a workable and meaningful circular economy strategy. I agree that that should include private, public and third sector bodies. Section 2 of the bill already requires consultation of the general public and other persons whom the Scottish ministers consider appropriate, when preparing the strategy, which would include public, private and third sector bodies.

The circular economy touches on every part of society, and I support the principle of broad engagement. As such, I am happy to reflect on what Mr Golden has proposed and to see how we can broaden the consultation requirements ahead of stage 3. Although we cannot support the wording of amendment 1 as it is just now, there could be movement on that, and I absolutely get the point. I will take Douglas Lumsden now, if he wants to come in.

I am listening to you, convener, but I am smiling wryly as I do so. If things had gone a certain way last week, we would have been having a Scottish Parliament election in a few weeks.

I will consider that point, which is an interesting one, given that a lot of incineration plants are involved in district heating: one of the oldest incineration waste-to-energy plants, which is in Shetland, is used for municipal heating. We need to bear in mind that incineration need not only involve burning waste but can provide other advantages to communities.

I agree with the committee that just transition principles are relevant. Ensuring a just transition is central to the development of a circular economy. Forgive me if I do not agree with people who say that just transition is a buzzword; it is absolutely central.

Thank you, convener. I also thank members for an interesting discussion about the points that have been raised.

The Government cannot support amendment 1, in the name of Maurice Golden. “Co-design” is not a term that is defined in legislation, so arriving at a workable definition that is acceptable to all those who engage in co-design would be difficult and time consuming and we want to get going. I will not use Graham Simpson’s terminology here.

I take Maurice Golden’s point on the intention behind his amendments, but I go back to my point that a range of bodies fulfil similar roles. I do not consider it an option to designate an existing body as the advisory body. No one body would fit the remit that the amendments envisage. Environmental Standards Scotland assesses public authorities’ compliance with environmental law and is accountable to the Scottish Parliament, but it has not been set up to give advice to ministers, while, as I have said, Zero Waste Scotland already provides advice and support to ministers in the delivery of the objectives. I will not rehearse everything that I have already said in that respect.

I also note that, although the committee mentioned in its stage 1 report the strong views of some stakeholders about the creation of an independent oversight body, it did not consider the issue as having sufficient importance to be included in the committee’s report recommendations. For those reasons, the Government does not support amendments 141 and 151.