Seòmar agus comataidhean

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?

I thank Monica Lennon for continuing to press and campaign on this issue. It is clear that we need good reuse schemes operating for lots of types of items in our economy, and nappies are a good example. I would add bikes, too. There are great initiatives involving bike libraries being set up, through which local authorities are working with social enterprises in a similar way. There are loads of opportunities for councils to work with the third sector to drive forward on reuse. However, I think that the most appropriate way to develop reuse schemes is through the waste route map, and that we should not put individual schemes in the bill.

My amendment 44, which we discussed earlier, requires ministers to consider reuse, refill and take-back schemes as part of the strategy. Personally, I will absolutely hold the minister to account—I know that Monica Lennon will, too—to ensure that nappies are considered as part of that, because there is a strong case for that. However, there is a doubt in my mind, because we have to acknowledge that reusable nappy schemes have been on the go for more than 20 years. I was proud to use them for my children, 18 years ago, through a social enterprise in Stirling, and I know that Monica Lennon has used them for her children this year. Given that we had successful schemes almost 20 years ago, we need to understand why the public uptake has not followed on the back of that.

I think that Monica Lennon secured a win by working with the then minister, Lorna Slater, to get a Government-commissioned report by the James Hutton Institute on the public attitude towards reusable nappies. I hope that that will point to a way ahead to make reuse schemes more accessible, cheaper and more successful. However, I do not think that we can draw in all that learning and put a requirement in the bill to have such schemes.

In principle, I support Maurice Golden’s amendment 64. I recognise, as I am sure he does, that the review of Scotland’s incineration capacity, which was commissioned by my colleague Lorna Slater, has been enormously helpful. Prior to that, the Government had no understanding of what level of incineration was needed in Scotland, which effectively resulted in a free-for-all in the planning system, with lots of companies proposing speculative developments and each of them claiming that their capacity was needed to meet Scotland’s needs.

We have that information now, and Lorna Slater, the then minister, set an important precedent, which I know has inspired Maurice Golden’s amendment 64. We need that level of analysis for all waste infrastructure, in the round. What infrastructure do we need in Scotland? Where are the best locations? What capacity do we have at the moment? Where is it located, and in which regions and which sectors? Where can we foster innovation to deliver meaningful change? Those are the kinds of questions that need to be thoroughly investigated, and that is why I support the bulk of Mr Golden’s amendment.

However, I do not want some of the specifics and detail in Mr Golden’s amendment 64 being used as a basis for its being rejected. I lodged amendment 64A because I do not think that it is necessary to have detail about a broader waste strategy in the waste infrastructure plan. That can be dealt with elsewhere, in the route map and in other policy areas.

I urge members to support amendment 64A, so that Parliament can unite behind a meaningful investigation of Scotland’s waste infrastructure that builds on the good work on incineration that this Government has already started.