Seòmar agus comataidhean

The bill is one thing, but the development of the strategy after that will be the meat on its bones. I totally appreciate that there has not been as much movement as there could be, else we would not have the statistics that are associated with the construction industry.

I was exercising discipline earlier when, with everyone talking about construction, I showed my hand by noting that I am the convener of the cross-party group on construction. Does Douglas Lumsden agree that there is a lot of innovation and good practice happening across construction already and that many in the industry would probably welcome being included in the strategy, because there is a feeling of disconnection, with people not being listened to by everyone across Government, which means that some of that good practice is not being shared and learned from? The idea is not to have a go at sectors; rather, it is to bring them in and have them at the table. Is there a danger that we might lose some of that opportunity if we do not have those sectors referenced in the strategy?

I do not make quite the same interpretation as Monica Lennon has of Maurice Golden’s amendment 190, which would require that all the guidance be reviewed. Ms Lennon mentioned capacity, which is what I would be worried about if we were asking for a review of all that when guidance is already in place and we already have a framework embedded in what SEPA does. [Interruption.] I am answering Ms Lennon, if you would forgive me.

The regulated code of practice and the waste to resources framework are the mechanism that Ms Lennon asked about. Obviously, SEPA will be working to review the framework in line with any changes to legislation and in response to the strategy that we will produce.

We might have different interpretations of the intention of amendment 1. I cannot support it, because our interpretation is slightly different.

If you will let me, I will finish and get a bit of my point out before I take an intervention.

Consultation will, of course, be central to the development of a workable and meaningful circular economy strategy. I agree that that should include private, public and third sector bodies. Section 2 of the bill already requires consultation of the general public and other persons whom the Scottish ministers consider appropriate, when preparing the strategy, which would include public, private and third sector bodies.

The circular economy touches on every part of society, and I support the principle of broad engagement. As such, I am happy to reflect on what Mr Golden has proposed and to see how we can broaden the consultation requirements ahead of stage 3. Although we cannot support the wording of amendment 1 as it is just now, there could be movement on that, and I absolutely get the point. I will take Douglas Lumsden now, if he wants to come in.

I am listening to you, convener, but I am smiling wryly as I do so. If things had gone a certain way last week, we would have been having a Scottish Parliament election in a few weeks.

I will consider that point, which is an interesting one, given that a lot of incineration plants are involved in district heating: one of the oldest incineration waste-to-energy plants, which is in Shetland, is used for municipal heating. We need to bear in mind that incineration need not only involve burning waste but can provide other advantages to communities.

I agree with the committee that just transition principles are relevant. Ensuring a just transition is central to the development of a circular economy. Forgive me if I do not agree with people who say that just transition is a buzzword; it is absolutely central.

Thank you, convener. I also thank members for an interesting discussion about the points that have been raised.

The Government cannot support amendment 1, in the name of Maurice Golden. “Co-design” is not a term that is defined in legislation, so arriving at a workable definition that is acceptable to all those who engage in co-design would be difficult and time consuming and we want to get going. I will not use Graham Simpson’s terminology here.

I take Maurice Golden’s point on the intention behind his amendments, but I go back to my point that a range of bodies fulfil similar roles. I do not consider it an option to designate an existing body as the advisory body. No one body would fit the remit that the amendments envisage. Environmental Standards Scotland assesses public authorities’ compliance with environmental law and is accountable to the Scottish Parliament, but it has not been set up to give advice to ministers, while, as I have said, Zero Waste Scotland already provides advice and support to ministers in the delivery of the objectives. I will not rehearse everything that I have already said in that respect.

I also note that, although the committee mentioned in its stage 1 report the strong views of some stakeholders about the creation of an independent oversight body, it did not consider the issue as having sufficient importance to be included in the committee’s report recommendations. For those reasons, the Government does not support amendments 141 and 151.

On one hand, I agree that lots can be started now, because there has been a great deal of engagement. However, throughout the morning, lots of references have been made to where there has not been movement or sufficient engagement. In fact, in the group of amendments that we are talking about, members have asked for the consultation to be even wider than it has been.

Allowing two years for the development of a strategy is reasonable. The intention would be to engage with a wide range of stakeholders in developing the strategy and assessing the likely impacts. I do not want to curtail that vital engagement; indeed, I am taking on board quite a lot of what has been said this morning about extending it.

I am sorry if you thought that I interrupted you, convener. I thought that you had finished. You had made your point, and I have taken it. The proposal of an 18-month period has been mooted, but it is in neither of the amendments that are under consideration. On amendments 2 and 3, I ask Graham Simpson not to move them, although I imagine that he will.

For similar reasons, the Scottish Government cannot support amendment 80, which is in the name of Douglas Lumsden. Section 5 requires that Scottish ministers report on progress on objectives and plans in the circular economy strategy 30 months after the publication of each strategy. In other words, there is a requirement for a progress report at the halfway point of each strategy. I think that that strikes a balance between ensuring that the Scottish Government is accountable for progress on each circular economy strategy, and our not imposing onerous reporting burdens that would distract from delivering policy. Our view is that amendment 80, by imposing annual reporting on the strategy, would go too far in that direction and should be resisted.