Seòmar agus comataidhean

It is not driving economic growth. It is just bureaucracy, is it not?

Yes—it is a waste of time. Kate, do you want to come in?

I will speak first about amendments 182 and 186, which address the use of key minerals, which are sometimes called transition minerals, in our transition towards green energy. Members will be aware of many of the social and environmental impacts of minerals such as lithium, cobalt, nickel, iron ore and copper, which are all critical to the development of renewable energy and of battery systems. I acknowledge that the renewable energy industry is doing increasingly impressive work on circularity and on addressing the impact of transition minerals, but we need to go further, because the roll-out of renewable energy will continue apace and the limitations of those minerals will not go away. We need a focus and a plan from Government to drive that.

I acknowledge that Scotland currently does not have a strategy for the renewable energy sector for sourcing those minerals and that the UK has a critical minerals strategy. Although there is an acknowledgement in the draft energy strategy of the role of those minerals, there is not exactly a plan at the moment that will ensure that their availability and the environmental and social impacts of their use will be addressed.

Amendments 182 and 186 would require the circular economy strategy to include improvement plans for transition minerals for the energy sector. That would promote a more responsible and resilient approach to securing those essential resources. I hope that the Government will be open to working with me on a way forward on that.

Amendment 183 is linked to amendment 191, which we will come to later. It addresses concerns from Scottish Environment LINK that ministers need to give priority to the most damaging materials that are circulating in the economy. I have resisted putting in a specific list of those materials, because I think that that will change over time. However, members will, obviously, be aware of some of the more problematic materials at the moment, such as PFAS—perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances—or forever chemicals, which we see in packaging. Flame retardants in mattresses and upholstered furniture are a particular problem at the moment.

Amendment 183 would add in section 1(3) a requirement for ministers, in having regard to processes for the design and distribution of products, to focus in on particular minerals that are the most harmful and polluting over their life cycle. It would be up to Government to determine what the most problematic materials are.

I will in a second.

I would also point to the climate package that was announced a couple of weeks ago. The Scottish Government’s intention is to drive forward citizens panels, citizens assemblies and participative democracy in that space. Consumption is a very important part of our climate impact, so I hope that some kind of initiative and leadership can be shown on that.

Yes, thank you, convener. I certainly take on board a lot of the stakeholders’ comments about the need for clarity in the bill, but I am a little bit concerned about creating a definition of a circular economy at this point that is effectively fixed and immovable and cannot change over time. The sector is developing rapidly and there is a rapidly developing understanding of the circular economy, so I would appreciate some thoughts on that from the members who lodged the amendments when they are winding up.

Also, I think that it would be setting a precedent to have a purpose clause in the circular economy bill. I would be interested to know whether there are other areas of legislation where a purpose clause has been beneficial in focusing legislation on a particular area. I am not aware of that, but I will note with interest the minister’s comments and Sarah Boyack’s closing comments.

If the minister feels that it is not appropriate to put such a provision in the bill, is there another way for the Scottish Government to work with industry to ensure that the aspiration to deal with critical minerals in a sustainable way can be reflected elsewhere in policy—in the energy strategy, for instance?

I would be looking for a bit more detail on this between stages 2 and 3, because, at this point, I am not very clear how an advisory body would work with Zero Waste Scotland, given its existing role. I am not sure how much a new body would cost and whether it would be best for it to work on a Scotland-wide or a UK-wide basis to make best use of resources. Those are the areas of uncertainty.

My amendment 189 is simple. It should be clear to members that the bill requires ministers to report to the Parliament on progress in meeting the objectives under the strategy. However, there is a gap. To my mind, if ministers have been unable to meet their objectives, there needs to be an additional requirement that they must report back to the Parliament on what additional measures they will take to meet those objectives before the next reporting round. Members will know that we have very similar provisions in a range of legislation, including on the climate.

I turn to the interesting debate about amendments 187 and 188, the essence of which is about leadership. It is about having a dialogue with the global south, which is dramatically impacted by our resource overconsumption and the environmental and social impact of waste. I am not sure that that needs legislation, but Bob Doris is right to point to the amazing work that was done through the Glasgow climate dialogues ahead of COP26, which had real resonance around the world. That was about the communities in the global south, the experts and us in the developed north being part of the conversation about how we tackle climate change in a fair and just way. That approach was hugely powerful, but it did not require legislation to do that.

However, if the Government does not want to go down the legislative route, I want to hear from the minister what initiatives the Government can put in place to take the debate, and the awareness of our consumption and its global impacts, into a space where those can land and lead to change.

Although we have left the European Union, we still, thankfully, have a vast amount of environmental regulation that defines materials that are polluting and problematic and which impact on human health. We also have Environmental Standards Scotland, which is constantly reviewing existing legislation and making suggestions to Government and agencies about how we can better enforce that legislation, change the law and enhance environmental protection. The process of developing environmental legislation is continuous; indeed, new materials and new scientific evidence will continually come forward and change our understanding of which materials are problematic in their impact on human health and the environment. I do not think that it is right to fix in time today a list of problematic chemicals, given that scientific understanding and the work of our regulators continue apace within the European Union and outside it.

This is an area for flexibility. Members will recognise the danger of putting a list into legislation. A lot of lists have been brought forward this morning. The danger is that we will leave something out because we do not think that it is a problem now. However, it can, of course, be a problem going forward.

In answer to the question, I believe that the process of environmental regulation is robust enough to ensure that Government will be able to choose to take action on particular materials that are problematic.

Those are pretty much all the comments that I want to make. However, I was struck by a comment that Sarah Boyack made about amendment 136, which is the minister’s alternative amendment in relation to embedding the waste hierarchy in the legislation. She made a point about where incineration sits within the waste hierarchy. The Government has made substantial progress in weaning us off incineration in this country and prohibiting the development of more waste incinerators where they are unnecessary. I would be interested to hear the minister’s views about how that approach to the waste hierarchy puts incineration in its appropriate place, which is right at the bottom. We should not be relying on incineration any more.

The principle is important, but I am not clear what the options might be for the Government to take that forward as a meaningful piece of work.

The Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Act 2019 included a requirement to establish a citizens assembly. I do not think that there would be a need for more legislation to revisit a citizens assembly on climate. I see parallels with this issue. Yes, one way forward would be to bootstrap it and put it into legislation, but I am looking for leadership from the Scottish Government, whatever that looks like, whether that is put into legislation or it is a non-legislative measure.

Graham Simpson’s amendments 2 and 3 show the inevitable tension between Maurice Golden and Graham Simpson on turbocharging co-design. We must recognise that we have to take people with us: we have to take businesses and communities with us. A lot of careful work was done in the early years, right the way through to the implementation of the deposit return scheme. Members who have sat on this committee and looked at the evidence, heard about the work of Lorna Slater and scrutinised Circularity Scotland and others will recognise that that model was being developed and came very close to being implemented. That emphasises for me the importance of co-design. It is important.

I think that the Government is pursuing co-design in a meaningful way right now, and to simply put an arbitrary timescale on the development of a circular economy strategy, just for the sake of it, would not be a good way forward. We need work to progress at pace on all the areas in the circular economy strategy, but that will take some time, and just putting “six months” or “1 year” on it, as in the amendments, is a little churlish. It underestimates the depth of the work that is needed with stakeholders to work this through and the depth of work that was put in place for the deposit return scheme.