Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

There will be targets, which will be co-produced and developed with local authorities. I am not interested in sticking any old target in the bill and then seeing whether it works. This needs careful co-production. I listened carefully to the evidence that we had at stage 1 from the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and from the previous minister. That is why we have reached the position that we are in. However, Mr Lumsden should take heart, because we will back amendment 62.

I am really tempted to back Monica Lennon’s amendment 104, because I am not seeing enough action on reuse. On Friday last week, I met Circular Communities Scotland and a lot of reuse charities in Stirling. Some fantastic work is happening, but it is not happening everywhere, and I am frustrated by that.

I listened to what the minister said—that reuse cannot be a statutory function and does not fit with the statutory duties—but, like Monica Lennon, I am at a loss to see how we then take things forward in this area in a way that is meaningful. I do not want there to be good practice in only one or two local authorities, while other local authorities are not following it—with reuse and repair, in particular, not being an option for people when they go to their waste management site.

Yes: I will take Ms Lennon’s guidance on what she now wants to do with amendment 104.

That was a useful intervention. Those of us who are frustrated at the lack of focus on reuse want to see it highlighted in the bill. I hope that amendment 104 is an elegant amendment to sit within the bill, so that it can work to drive progress from local authorities—notwithstanding what the minister has already said.

I do not know whether the minister wishes to reflect further on what she has heard from Monica Lennon.

I appreciate those thoughts.

At this point I will close and hand back to Mr Golden to wind up.

This is a large group of amendments, so I will try to be as succinct as Maurice Golden was.

Amendments 31 and 33 set out a requirement for ministers to

“set out improvement plans for ... Minerals”

that are critical to the green energy transition. The minerals include copper, lithium, nickel and iron, which are vital for renewables and for the battery technologies that we will use in the decades to come.

Members will be aware that mining those materials has serious social and environmental consequences, and that demand for them is going to grow rapidly. Given their importance, it is vital that the Government considers how reuse and recycling of those materials across the energy sector can be developed. We are already seeing focus on the onshore wind sector and on repowering turbines, and there are great supply chain and economic opportunities around that. However, planning and leadership from the Government are needed.

I lodged similar amendments at stage 2: I thank the minister for discussing the issue again ahead of stage 3. I recognise that primary legislation might not be the most appropriate place for this complex issue, but I seek assurances from the minister that those critical matters will be addressed in the Scottish Government’s work on energy policy—particularly the energy strategy and the just transition plan.

Development of a circular economy is key to tackling the twin crises of climate change and biodiversity loss. Throughout the passage of the bill and in evidence, we have heard about the importance not only of reducing the amount of resources that we consume but of reducing the carbon emissions that are associated with the goods, products and services that we all need and use.

We should always be focused on having an economy in which we not only reduce the amount of materials that we consume but reduce their carbon impacts. I am grateful to the minister for the constructive discussions that we have had on that.

Following those discussions, I lodged amendments 40, 41 and 42, to ensure that the characteristics of a desirable economy that are set out in section 1(3) of the bill include not only reducing consumption of products and materials but reducing their whole-life-cycle carbon emissions. That will help to lay the foundations for the deep transformations in the economy that we need to happen during the next 20 years, as we start to head towards net zero. I urge members, across parties, to support the amendments.

On amendment 43, during discussions with many stakeholders I heard about the importance of education and skills. In its stage 1 report, the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee highlighted the importance of behaviour change. I was pleased that, at stage 2, the Scottish Government lodged an amendment to ensure that that will be taken into account when developing a circular economy strategy.

Amendment 43 expands on that to ensure that education and skills are also specifically taken into account by ministers in the development of the strategy. The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development estimates that, globally, we will have 18 million new jobs in the circular economy by 2040. Our young people need the skills to access those new jobs. There is a precedent for that; in the Irish Circular Economy and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2022, there is a strong focus on education. I ask members to support amendment 43.

Another issue that has been raised regularly with me by stakeholders is the importance of action to move up the waste hierarchy—in particular, strengthening of the commitment to reuse schemes such as refill and take-back. Amendment 44 would insert in section 1 a requirement that

“In preparing the circular economy strategy, the Scottish Ministers must have regard to the role that reuse, refill and take-back schemes have in contributing to the development of a circular economy.”

I again thank the minister for our discussions on the matter. I am sure that, during our proceedings this afternoon, she will receive many thanks for the positive cross-party discussions that have taken place throughout stages 2 and 3.

I welcome the minister’s commitment to developing a product stewardship plan as part of the draft waste and circular economy route map, which will take those issues fully into account.

I believe that my amendment 44 would ensure that those issues would be actively considered. I note, though, that Maurice Golden has lodged amendment 44A, which is an amendment to my amendment 44, to add detail to how such schemes

“will prioritise products and packaging”.

It is important to ensure that there is flexibility in how all manner of potential reuse, refill and take-back schemes are developed. It is therefore important that the Government has flexibility, so I urge members to support amendment 44 as it stands, without Mr Golden’s amendment to my amendment.

Given that I am opening the debate on this group, I will offer some brief remarks on other amendments in the group. Clare Adamson’s amendment 45 and Bob Doris’s amendment 73 would add important requirements for ministers to

“have regard to ... workplace safety”

and “international impacts” when preparing the strategy. I will be happy to support those.

I will also support Monica Lennon’s amendment 95, which would require that reusable items be prioritised over single-use items in the strategy wherever possible. I know that it will not be possible to do so in every case, but it is important to have that aim. Amendment 95 is supported by many non-governmental organisations, and I hope that the minister will consider supporting it, too.

I will also support Maurice Golden’s amendment 98, which requires ministers to “have regard to” critical sectors that have come up in evidence, “including construction”, when preparing the strategy.

Finally, I have sympathy with the thinking behind Maurice Golden’s amendment 65 and Sarah Boyack’s amendment 93, on ensuring that waste is “managed in Scotland” rather than being shipped overseas, but I will listen to the minister’s arguments before I make up my mind on those.

I move amendment 31.

I have no more comments to add. I press amendment 46.

Amendment 46 agreed to.

Amendments 47 and 48 moved—[Mark Ruskell]—and agreed to.

Amendment 67 moved—[Maurice Golden]—and agreed to.

Amendment 77 moved—[Monica Lennon]—and agreed to.

Amendment 49 moved—[Maurice Golden].

Will the member take an intervention?

Will Graham Simpson comment on the minister’s view that, as his amendment 35 refers to “existing” networks of community reuse organisations, the provision would not apply to new networks? Did he consider that in drafting the amendment?