Chamber and committees

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.

The 100 per cent exemption will reduce eligible energy intensive industries’ electricity costs by between £5 per megawatt hour and £7 per megawatt hour. That will amount to quite a substantial sum if you think about the huge amount of fuel that is used by those particular industries. [Gillian Martin has corrected this contribution. See end of report.]

We are following UK legislation. If we did not follow it, what might be the effect of that on Scottish energy intensive industries? I imagine—and Mr Lumsden would be the first to be critical of this—that they might look at a situation where there is a 100 per cent exemption in the rest of the UK but only an 85 per cent exemption in Scotland, and they might decide to relocate their operations. I imagine that Mr Lumsden would join me in being concerned about that. That is why we are agreeing to the UK legislation.

I never think that it is particularly fair when householders have to shoulder any kind of burden. I suggest that the review of the energy markets is far more critical in that regard. I look forward to Douglas Lumsden joining with me in asking for protections for consumers, particularly things such as a social tariff, which would mean that vulnerable consumers would be protected from any price increases. In my view, that would be far more effective and far fairer than 80p or £1.10 being added to a bill to save highly skilled manufacturing jobs in Scotland.

Gillian Martin has identified errors in her contribution and provided the following corrections.

At col 3, paragraph 6—

Original text—

There is concern that, if we do not make the exemption for energy intensive industries, particularly in the high fuel price situation that we have at the moment

Corrected text—

There is concern that, if we do not make the exemption for energy intensive industries, particularly in the high electricity price situation that we have at the moment

At col 4, paragraph 1—

Original text—

That will amount to quite a substantial sum if you think about the huge amount of fuel that is used by those particular industries.

Corrected text—

That will amount to quite a substantial sum if you think about the huge amount of electricity that is used by those particular industries.

At col 5, paragraph 1—

Original text—

but this particular exemption is about large manufacturers that are particularly affected by inflation and high fuel costs

Corrected text—

but this particular exemption is about large manufacturers that are particularly affected by inflation and high electricity costs

I have some figures here.

I will mention domestic fuel bills, because obviously the exemption is recouped. The measure will have very little impact on domestic fuel bills.

I will have a look for the figures.

I will need to check my notes on that, Ms Boyack. I do not think that I have that information to hand. Obviously, you are making a decision today. If we can find that information we will provide it to the committee.