Seòmar agus comataidhean

Part 4 of new schedule 5 to the 1991 act lists the improvements that facilitate sustainable and regenerative agriculture. Is the inclusion of that list helpful? Are things missing from it? There was a comment about soil carbon, which of course will be hugely important, but perhaps raises a question about landlord and tenant. Who has access to that resource? Who stewards it? Christopher, do you want to come in?

The scenes that we saw were absolutely horrific, and I pay tribute to the emergency services. We never want to see such scenes again, but we have seen such fires repeatedly across Scotland, particularly at Friarton in Perth, where one incident led to a tragic loss of life.

Does the minister agree that those who manufacture and sell disposable electronic devices need to take more producer responsibility for their products, including through take-back schemes in which they can invest in proper health and safety requirements that will keep them safe and enable those products to be recycled?

Those are warm words. [Interruption.] I will give the minister a moment to get a lozenge. I am on the lozenges as well. When do we go beyond warm words, and the writing of letters, to actual plans from the enterprise agencies? In the debate, there has been a lot of talk about burdens but, ultimately, this is about businesses and organisations becoming much more resource efficient and much leaner. That is a good thing for productivity and business.

That would be a real shame, but all that good practice is difficult to sum up and lump into the bill. I think that the most appropriate way forward is the way that Ms Lennon has secured by working with the minister, which is to get the James Hutton Institute to do an extensive piece of work on the matter and to look at how to embed the good practice. Whether we are talking about nappies, bikes or a range of other reusable items, there needs to be detailed work through the route map. I am not convinced that a legislative approach is the way to crack the issue at this point, although I think that we will crack it. There is a strong future for such schemes, but I think that that is best achieved through a non-legislative route, and I know that Ms Lennon will hold the Government’s feet to the fire over that.

During group 2, we discussed the desirability of an economy in which the consumption of material goods and products that we use is reduced, together with their carbon life-cycle emissions. Amendments 46 to 48 mirror my earlier amendments 40 to 42, as they would insert similar provisions into section 6 relating to targets. I ask that members support those amendments.

I turn briefly to other amendments in the group. Scottish Greens support Maurice Golden’s amendment 67, which is in line with his earlier amendment on managing waste within Scotland, as discussed in group 2. We also support amendment 77, from Monica Lennon. As I said previously, it is right to take human rights and environmental due diligence into account when setting circular economy targets. Related to that is Sarah Boyack’s amendment 100, which would take into account the “carbon emissions associated with” the consumption of materials.

I move amendment 46.

Is Sarah Boyack not concerned that creating an exemption for compostable cups will create an enormous loophole in any deposit or take-back scheme that is introduced? A lot of coffee cups require specialist composting in order to have high environmental performance. That might not be available to the smaller coffee shops, householders or whoever—who might find themselves inundated with compostable cups and not know what to do with them.

That is a reasonable point. I will make the point that the renewables sector is already really engaged in looking critically at how it develops more ethical supply chains and how it engages in the reuse and refurbishing of wind turbines. However, it is a fair enough point, and it shows that the Government, through its on-going work and strategies, needs to look across the piece at critical sectors and take action in relation to that.

I have a couple of other points. Sarah Boyack spoke about the huge impact of offshoring our waste and the huge impact on the global south, and Bob Doris reflected on the excellent evidence that we had from SCIAF on that. To answer Graham Simpson’s question to Mr Doris, yes, we need to look at how we measure that stuff, but we have had sustainable development goals in place for decades, and we should be building really strong indicators to ensure that we are not punishing the global south for our profligacy in the north.

Sarah Boyack’s amendment 93 refers to offshoring but, on balance, we prefer the approach in Maurice Golden’s amendment 65. However, I recognise that the associated amendment that Monica Lennon has lodged—amendment 72, which is on environmental and human rights due diligence in relation to the supply chain—is a really important matching element. The bill needs belt and braces. We could say that we are implementing human rights legislation, so the issues are already embedded, but it is worth picking that out and making absolutely sure that due diligence is put in place in relation to supply chains.

I will address one final issue, which relates to amendment 44A. I kind of agree with Maurice Golden on the strong set of criteria that are set out in that amendment for what we would want to prioritise for reuse and take-back schemes, but there may be exceptions. I point to plastic bags as an area where reuse and recycling probably does not have the biggest carbon impact of a reuse, take-back or deposit scheme, but where the measures have nevertheless been useful in driving public debate and behaviour change. Therefore, I do not want to be too restrictive on the Government, which needs to make decisions about what it prioritises. In that case, amendment 44 stands on its own.

I do not wish to press amendment 31.

Amendment 31, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendment 93 moved—[Sarah Boyack].

I will not try to summarise all that has been said, given that so many different issues have been raised, but I will make a couple of points that are relevant to the bill.

In relation to amendment 66, Ben Macpherson made the point about including in the bill the right criteria and the right framework to prioritise action in certain sectors. There is a temptation to put everything in a bill—I am often tempted to do that—but that does not always work and is not always consistent with decisions needing to be made at a later time, often through co-production with councils, businesses and other stakeholders. The approach that Ben Macpherson has taken with amendment 66 is the right way to set out the criteria.

However, that emphasises the importance of parliamentary scrutiny after the bill becomes an act and of the choices that the Government makes on the back of that. I very much welcome the minister’s commitment to addressing the issue of critical minerals in the energy strategy rather than in the bill, but we will wait to see what is in that strategy, which will no doubt be robustly scrutinised by the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee.

Amendment 80 brings back an issue that I raised at stage 2. It would require businesses and organisations in receipt of public funding to report on their contribution to the circular economy.

That matters because of the substantial amount of money that is allocated by Scotland’s three enterprise agencies. The total enterprise training and support budget for 2023-24 was £423 million, which is a considerable investment, with considerable power to transform the economy.

The proposal does not set rigid targets for companies in receipt of public money but merely adds a requirement to assess how circular their existing practices are and to set out the ways in which they intend to improve on that, if possible, during the period that is covered by any grant or loan. It is a light-touch way of embedding thinking about circularity in the operations of businesses across the country and it takes a very similar approach to that in Maurice Golden’s amendment 99. I therefore hope that he will put the constitutional divide to one side and back my amendment 80.

At stage 2, some members raised concerns about proportionality and the need to ensure that the amendment does not place an undue burden on smaller organisations, which might put off potential recipients of public funding. I have listened carefully to those concerns and have considered them in this revised amendment. Rather than making a stand-alone report on their contributions to the circular economy, organisations could make a statement on the extent to which their activities contribute to reducing, reusing and recycling materials as part of their annual report.

Funding bodies would also be able to exempt organisations from reporting requirements on the basis of the sector that they operate in, the annual turnover of the company or the total value of the grant or loan that is being offered. That would reduce the burden because a public agency could decide that it would not add the reporting requirement when making small funding awards or, particularly, when making awards to small businesses. It will be up to the agencies to do that. That gives flexibility to funding bodies, such as Highlands and Islands Enterprise, to apply their judgment on a case-by-case basis.

This is an important mechanism. If we are serious about embedding circular practices across the economy, we must recognise the power of the public pound and should create conditionality for grant making. That was referred to in the Scottish Government’s 2016 strategy “Making Things Last”, which recognised the need for enterprise agencies to more seriously integrate circular economy thinking. The minister will remember from her previous role as convener of the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee that that was mentioned in the committee’s green recovery report in 2020, as we came out of Covid, when we spoke about embedding the circular economy in our grant-making processes.

This mechanism would also keep us in line with the European Union’s 2020 economy action plan. It is hugely important that we stay aligned with the EU so that we can rejoin when Scotland is independent.