Seòmar agus comataidhean

With regard to sharing best practice, it would be really helpful if, in advance of the debate around reusable nappies, in particular, the Scottish Government would publish its findings on communications in relation to real nappies; the lifecycle analysis and what individuals are required to do, and all the analysis around the absorbent hygiene product trials that Mark Ruskell referred to—there are two different ways of doing that—so that the committee has all the evidence with which to fully consider Monica Lennon’s amendment. That information will be very easy for the Scottish Government to find; indeed, I might have some of it, if I have backups of some emails. The Scottish Government will have the information on how much things cost, behaviour change and all those aspects.

On targets in the bill, I think that in previous sessions we have put targets in bills and have found that that allows us to hold the Scottish Government to account. If we put everything in a strategy, given the debate from last week and given that commencement will be two years after royal assent, a cynic might suggest that the targets in that strategy would be up for further debate post 2026.

I find it bizarre that the Scottish Government does not want circular economy targets in a circular economy bill and, indeed, that waste materials are not to be managed as locally as possible. Clearly, if it is not possible to include such targets, waste cannot be managed in such locations.

I am quite interested in the dualling of the A9 with respect to its compatibility with climate change. I suspect that the theme might be more relevant now than it was during your time, Mr Salmond. I am conscious that, between 2007 and 2011, Scotland established itself as a world leader in climate change. The Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009 was enacted and the zero waste plan was put in place in 2010, which I have been reflecting on. We are still struggling to meet many of the fantastic ambitions of that plan, but was the theme of how compatible the dualling was with the climate change targets that you had set questioned during your time in office?

Thank you, Mr Salmond. Do you have any reflections on why you think the A9 dualling project was not completed and will not be completed by 2025?

Amendment 1 requests

“co-design of all aspects of the circular economy strategy with ... public sector, private sector and third sector bodies”.

I think that such a collaborative, co-design approach is broadly the Scottish Government’s intention—it has been deployed or is intended to be deployed in work with local authorities, for example.

Amendment 190 gently pushes the Scottish Environment Protection Agency to ensure that any waste guidance that it publishes accords with the circular economy strategy. It seeks to ensure that things such as the definitions of “waste”, “end of life”, “end of waste” and “duty of care” are constantly considered and updated in the context of the circular economy—because, as the committee will be aware, once something is defined as waste and enters into waste legislation, particular practices have to be carried out.

An intention of both the circular economy and the bill is to keep materials, products and goods—not “things”—in circulation for as long as possible. If an item is reused, whether that be through resale or sharing, it does not involve waste legislation. Although amendment 190 is quite a gentle nudge, it is a nod to SEPA that we as a committee and indeed as a Parliament would like it to have the circular economy in mind when regulating the environment.

Overall, the group is very positive. I move amendment 1.

I am quite happy to withdraw amendment 1.

Overall, in relation to Bob Doris’s amendment 187, an enhanced duty of care by SEPA might help to improve traceability of waste, perhaps with reference to global supply chains rather than to the global south.

On timescales, we should be aware—particularly given that the purpose provisions were withdrawn—that the circular economy strategy, as it is defined by the bill at this moment, is essentially a waste and litter strategy. It is therefore not going to be transformational; it is, unfortunately, very much a rehash of existing strategies, branded as a circular economy strategy. That is where we are. As far as I can tell, that is the scope at the moment.

The bill has been eight years in the making and we have a climate emergency on our hands. Taking all that into account, I imagine the strategy is very nearly drafted and, therefore, that it could be done very quickly. I appreciate the minister’s points about consultation periods around said strategy, which could undoubtedly delay things. For a starter for 10, however, I note that with eight years of work and dozens of people working on it, the bill is pretty much good to go—subject to amendments, which might or might not change things.

On the SEPA guidance, if the circular economy strategy is already embedded, it will be a really quick process to review it. If it is already there, there is very little to be done. I therefore urge that we do that.

I gently point out that the whisky industry does not produce waste; it produces by-products. If SEPA applied that approach to other sectors—again, with the mitigations that it has to have regarding health and safety and pollutants—and if there was a general approach that we do produce not waste, but by-products, that would help to fulfil the desire for a circular economy. I might come back at stage 3 with more examples—AstroTurf is a good one and wind turbine blades are another. My interpretation is that SEPA has a little bit more to do, but the minister has made it clear that it is already there. If it is already there, the amendment will not change anything.

I turn to the purpose of the other amendments in the group. As we have touched on, amendment 133 seeks to ensure that products are

“managed in line with the waste hierarchy”,

and amendment 135 seeks to provide that the circular economy strategy must, where possible, ensure that waste is managed locally. For example, only 2 per cent of the plastics that are collected for recycling in Scotland are recycled in Scotland. Amendment 135 does not mandate that plastic be recycled in Scotland, because it might not be possible to have a plastic-recycling facility in Scotland. I would like there to be one, but if that is not possible, there we are. That is an indication of where I was going with that amendment.

Amendment 137A says that, in preparing the circular economy strategy, ministers must have regard to

“the desirability of goods, products and materials being managed as locally as possible”.

They must also ensure that

“the prevention of harmful goods, products and materials”

is considered, along with

“global just transition principles”

and

“due diligence in supply chains”.

I will link amendment 140 to amendment 122. I considered naming specific sectors in the bill, but I felt that, in mirroring the climate change plan, amendment 140 provides the flexibility to include the relevant sectors that are mentioned in the plan and in the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009.

If we deviate from that approach, it becomes quite tricky to highlight a specific sector. As we have discussed, there are sectors that are at the forefront now as regards our thinking on the circular economy, but which might drop down the agenda. For example, food waste, which is referred to in amendment 122, is partly a subset of household waste. The construction sector is incredibly important, but if we highlight one sector over another—as amendment 122 seeks to do—we quickly go down a rabbit hole, especially given the technological advances that are made.

However, Ben Macpherson’s other amendment in the group is interesting and could potentially be beneficial, and it could be worked on, because we might want to have some sector-specific analysis. Again, it would be helpful for the minister and the Scottish Government to provide us with information on sector targeting, what might be achieved, what is possible and what lies within the parameters of the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament to do in that area. I am conscious of how important the construction sector is, and it should be part of the circular economy.

Would the Scottish Government consider rebanding different types of incineration? For example, pyrolysis, as defined by the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, is included in incineration. Further, an energy from waste system is different from a pure incinerator and could, therefore, be rebanded. Would the Scottish Government consider working with SEPA to delimit the different types of incineration?

In lodging my amendments, I was intending not to create an advisory body, but to achieve consistent scrutiny and application of Government policy. As I know from first-hand experience from the stopping of the textiles programme, people become worried about their jobs. That, in itself, is a waste of money. Has the minister any thoughts on how we could achieve consistency in application, which was the intention behind my amendments?

No, I have not, but it would be worth while to have a joint UK-wide funding model, if possible. However, the body that takes on the role might be required to be funded by the Scottish Government, as there will be no one else to fund it. There might be other sources of funding, but that will depend on whether the amendments progress.

The short answer is yes. That is why amendment 151 makes it clear that it could be a public body—that is the only thing that I would say. Zero Waste Scotland is on the journey towards that end, but it is not currently a public body. There could be an opportunity to reconfigure it to fulfil that task; for example, it is not uncommon in lawyers’ offices to have Chinese walls to ensure that, even within the same office, there is an ability to scrutinise actions. That might be another opportunity for Zero Waste Scotland.