Seòmar agus comataidhean

In general, it is about a balance between having things in the bill that compel, and trusting and enabling a co-design process in which the people who will have to deliver better recycling rates on the ground are actively involved. That is what I am striving to do and what my predecessor strived to do, and that is what the committee recommended that we do.

I will talk about amendments 161 and 162. Reuse and repair are, of course, important to achieving a circular economy—and, frankly, there is not enough of it going on. That has been a common theme over the past three weeks, as it was at stage 1.

The bill already makes provision for the code to address preparation for reuse. I envisage that the development of the new code, alongside wider work through the route map, will enable further consideration of how we can maximise local authorities’ contribution across and further up the waste hierarchy, including reuse and repair.

A number of members have made that point throughout the process. It would not be appropriate for the new code to provide mandatory requirements in relation to the provision of wider reuse or repair services, as those do not fall within local authorities’ statutory waste management functions. That is why I cannot support the amendments as written, and I hope that Mr Golden understands that.

The committee should note that, in the current voluntary code of practice, there is guidance on desirable reuse activities, approaches and communication that local authorities should consider in their ways of working. I would be keen to build on that approach through the planned co-design of the new code and to explore opportunities to enhance local authority activities to promote reuse and repair on a voluntary or recommended basis, even if those do not become statutory.

We are currently developing the improvement programme as an alternative to financial penalties for local authority recycling targets. That could offer a more practical route to share best practice on waste prevention measures, which I think are the first line in a circular economy—it is about prevention of waste in the first place. For those reasons, I will not be able to support amendments 161 and 162.

On amendment 89, local flexibility is very much in the spirit of the Verity house agreement, so I will support the amendment, and I urge the committee to support it as well.

On amendment 58, I understand the desire to ensure that the new code of practice is available as soon as possible. However, I cannot support the amendment, because I do not want to set a statutory deadline that could potentially prevent meaningful co-design and consultation on the new code. Again, it comes back to the balance.

Will Mr Golden take an intervention?

Yes.

On Mark Ruskell’s amendment 196, I recognise the importance of encouraging businesses to play their part in developing a more circular economy—they obviously have a crucial role in that—but I understand that Mr Ruskell does not want to place extra burdens on businesses. I am particularly concerned about the capacity of smaller businesses and their limited ability to impact on our aspirations in this area because of the scale of their business model. The proposal runs the risk of hindering access to funding or support that is not in line with the new deal for business that the Government has set out. Capacity is an important consideration. Small and medium-sized enterprises might struggle with the additional reporting requirement.

Although I cannot support the amendment as it stands, I am happy to explore alternatives and potential options involving working through the grants process—levers are already in place for getting support from Government agencies, for example—and talking to enterprise agencies about a more targeted approach, which can make a more significant impact than a blanket approach.

On amendment 197, Mr Doris rightly says that the United Kingdom Government—specifically, the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero—put out a call for evidence on scope 3 emissions reporting, and I thank him for raising the point. Apparently, the responses have already been analysed, and UK officials have expressed a willingness to work with the Welsh and Scottish Governments on that. I confirm that the Scottish Government will engage in that process. As alignment across all the countries of the UK might ultimately end up having the desired effect of Mr Doris’s amendment, I am not going to support the amendment, but I am happy to look at what he said in relation to EU directives. I do not have information on that at the moment.

I am sorry to say that I cannot support amendment 4, in the name of Maurice Golden. Our draft circular economy and waste route map sets out that the target-setting process will follow the development of the monitoring and indicator framework from 2025. Work is already under way to establish the framework, which will be used to track various aspects of the circular economy and will form the basis of future targets. The development process will include stakeholder input and engagement in the coming year. That stakeholder engagement process is the right way to approach the setting of targets.

Amendment 4 would provide no flexibility in the approach and would require that the first targets be set for 2030, which would mean that the first targets could not be set for any years before or after 2030.

Amendments 100, 101, 102 and 103 are consistent with Sarah Boyack’s amendments that have been agreed, and which inserted similar wording in section 1. They will replace “things” with “goods and products”. I am happy to support those amendments.

I thank Ben Macpherson for saying that he will not move amendment 124.

I turn to amendments 125, 126 and 127. Although the list in section 6(3) simply sets out examples of possible target areas and is not intended to be exhaustive, I agree that “refurbishment”, “repair” and priority “sectors and systems” that are identified in the development of the circular economy strategy should all be referenced, given their potential significance in focusing actions further up the waste hierarchy. I am happy to support amendments 125 and 126 from Ben Macpherson, and I am generally supportive of the aims of his amendment 127. I am happy to work with the member ahead of stage 3 to see what we can do in that respect.

I am happy to work with Mark Ruskell on amendment 191—I think that I said that last week. I will not rehearse the arguments that I gave in last week’s session about why I cannot support it, but we can certainly do some work to see what we can do to make the amendment stronger.

We discussed the issue in amendment 192 in last week’s debate on group 2, in relation to the circular economy strategy. I appreciate Sarah Boyack’s additions to the waste hierarchy. However, the description of the waste hierarchy, as set out in Government amendment 136, derives from article 4 of the European waste framework directive, so it ensures consistent application of the waste hierarchy that everyone is familiar with and which exists across waste-related legislation in Scotland. I think that it is unnecessary to include that requirement in provisions relating to targets, so I cannot support amendment 192.

Sarah Boyack asked what the targets would look like. I go back to what I said in relation to Maurice Golden’s amendment 4. As a result of the co-design and engagement process, targets will be set following the development of the monitoring and indicator framework. That will be developed over this year and next year and will include stakeholder engagement. Apart from—as I said—working with stakeholders being the right thing to do, it means that when the targets are set there is buy-in from all the stakeholders who will have been involved in the creation of the targets.

Similarly, the Scottish Government cannot support amendment 143, which is also in the name of Maurice Golden. Although a circular economy can provide significant opportunities for communities in repair and reuse, for example, as we have previously discussed, that is, because of logistical and economic realities, not always the case. Indeed, they are not always desired by communities. I get that by “locally” Maurice Golden means “in Scotland”, but what is meant by “local” is quite subjective. I understand the reasoning behind the amendment—that all waste materials should be treated as locally as possible. That would be desirable, but I do not think that we can mandate it in the bill.

We have set out our intention to co-design a process that would set recycling targets per local authority. It is important to mention that using the powers in section 13 of the bill will help to drive continued improvements in local recycling.

Every local authority area faces different challenges and might have different targets that it wants to meet. Glasgow has been mentioned; as Mr Doris said, it is putting in a great deal of infrastructure. It has been in receipt of quite a lot of recycling improvement fund money to be able to do that.

On amendment 82 in the name of Douglas Lumsden, section 7 already requires that regulations must set out arrangements for monitoring and reporting on progress towards achieving targets. Those regulations would enable provision to be made on the frequency of reporting, which would depend on the nature of the target and the availability of data to measure it, and that would be established as part of the development of a monitoring and indicator framework and the consultation on the targets themselves. As I do not believe that it would be appropriate to pre-empt that process, I cannot support amendment 82.

On amendment 148, in the name of Maurice Golden, section 7 sets out that regulations must make arrangements for the monitoring of and reporting on targets. The achievability or appropriateness of the targets would be covered in the development of the targets themselves, instead of being a matter for the progress reports. Depending on the targets that are provided for in regulations, they might not necessarily be attributable to sectors; additionally, those sectors would be set out in the strategy rather than in section 1(4). For those reasons, I cannot support amendment 148.

The Scottish Government cannot support amendment 12, in the name of Graham Simpson, as it proposes activity that I think is unworkable. I am also not entirely sure that what Graham Simpson is proposing is needed. Scottish ministers will be required to report to the Scottish Parliament on progress towards targets and any actions that have been taken to achieve them, and that will provide a strong level of accountability.

Moreover, Mr Simpson’s amendment does not set out the basis upon which the Parliament would impose fines or the mechanism for distributing them. In response to Douglas Lumsden’s point that it is the Government that imposes fines, I would just note that the amendment that we lodged and which was agreed last week removed penalties for local authorities not meeting their targets, and that the amendment came about as a result of a great deal of consultation with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities.

On amendment 149, the committee, in its stage 1 report, called for more clarity and mandated action to meet the targets in section 7, which deals with reporting on progress towards targets. As meeting the targets will constitute a statutory duty, Scottish ministers will already be legally required to take action to do so. In response to the committee’s recommendation, we have lodged amendment 149 to clarify that reporting on the targets will focus on current action being taken by ministers, in recognition of the fact that the reporting requirements in section 7 are to do with monitoring the progress that has been made towards achieving the targets. I hope that members will support the amendment.

On amendment 13, in the name of Maurice Golden, Scottish ministers will, under section 7, be required to report to the Scottish Parliament on progress towards targets. As I have just noted, amendment 149 means that the regulations will require the report to set out the actions that ministers are taking to achieve those targets, and that reporting provision will give a very strong level of accountability. The bill, once enacted, will consist of a wide range of provisions, not all of which will be relevant to the delivery of any specific target, so a requirement in the reporting provisions to review the act’s operation as a whole would be disproportionate and unnecessary.

Similarly, we cannot support amendment 14. It is unnecessary to introduce for the circular economy targets an additional review and reporting requirement that is linked to the 2045 net zero target set in the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009. The climate change targets already require their own reporting to Parliament, and the measures in the 2009 act will apply to the measures in this bill, where appropriate. Therefore, a requirement to review the operation of the act as a whole is again disproportionate and unnecessary.

On amendment 152, I agree that public bodies have a significant role to play in delivering Scotland’s circular economy, and the amendment highlights the role of procurement in particular. The Procurement Reform (Scotland) Act 2014 introduced the sustainability procurement duty, which requires public bodies to consider how they can improve economic, social and environmental wellbeing and secure improvements. Public bodies should outline in their annual procurement strategy how they will use procurement to contribute to the response to the global climate emergency and report progress in their annual procurement reports. That is required explicitly to address climate change and circular economy obligations.

In addition, public bodies are required to comply with and report on wider climate change duties. Since 2015, more than 180 public bodies have been required to report annually on their compliance with climate change duties under the Climate Change (Duties of Public Bodies: Reporting Requirements) (Scotland) Order 2015, including, where applicable, targets for reducing indirect emissions.

I am always happy to meet Ms Lennon. It is a topic that we need to have a discussion about, whether it is about its inclusion in the bill through amendments or about a wider programme of work that we need to do. I am happy to meet Ms Lennon.

The difference between having that in legislation and having it in the strategy is that we have flexibility within the strategy. The strategy is about the here and now and the few years after the strategy. It will identify some of the most problematic areas where there is a great deal of waste. That is why the strategy will have that detail in it. I give Sarah Boyack my assurance that some of the things that she perhaps wants to see in the bill at the moment will be prioritised and dealt with in the strategy. I made that point in relation to quite a few members’ questions about specific materials last week.

I turn to amendments 214 and 194. At stage 1, the committee noted the need for a robust approach to setting targets and offered its support for rigour in that process. I think that requiring, in the bill, targets for specific measures would undermine that process. The circular economy and waste route map sets out that the target-setting process will follow the development of a monitoring and indicators framework from 2025, as I have already said. That work is under way and will go on into next year.

Furthermore, the Scottish Government is already required to publish carbon footprint statistics annually, but those statistics are not suitable for targets because much of the data that underpins them is based on averages and is dependent on emissions from other countries, over which Scotland has no control. Therefore, we cannot support amendment 214 or amendment 194.

I absolutely understand the sentiment behind amendments 144, 145 and 146, which are in the name of Monica Lennon. It is laudable that local authorities do what they can to facilitate use of reusable nappies. A great example was given from North Ayrshire Council. I was not in post at that time, but I have heard great things about the work that has been done there. We want to encourage sharing of best practice as much as possible. The work that will be done after the bill is passed will facilitate that. When we have the circular economy route map, there will be examples for local authorities to look at, and there will be the vehicle of using the work that Ms Lennon has said that COSLA wants to do on encouraging take-up and sharing of good practice.

The things that are mentioned by Ms Lennon in her amendments, including reusable nappies and food waste, could already be the subject of targets, should those be deemed to be appropriate when we are developing the regulations. Targets and regulations could already be made for use of reusable nappies and food waste, so it is not necessary for them to be inserted in the bill through amendments.

The Scottish Government is doing what it can through the voucher that is included in the baby box. I am looking forward to receiving the results of the research that Ms Lennon mentioned, which I believe is coming to me quite soon. There is a lot more that we can do on promotion of reusable nappies and in development of the circular economy route map, but I do not think that it is necessary to have that in the bill.

I hope that Monica Lennon will not press the amendments. I will understand it if she does, but I cannot support them.

The wording “as possible” is not the kind of language that we want in the bill. What does it actually mean? Maybe Maurice Golden and I can discuss that ahead of stage 3, so that we can get to the nub of what he is asking for and see whether we can make the wording better. As amendment 143 stands, we cannot support it.

We also cannot support amendment 142. I agree that having regard to the waste hierarchy is crucial. My amendment 136 will ensure that, in the preparation of the circular economy strategy, ministers must have regard to the waste hierarchy. That does not have to be restated in the section on targets.

Regarding amendment 193, which is in the name of Sarah Boyack, targets need to be both measurable and deliverable. Concepts such as “rethinking” or “encouraging” are unlikely to be suitable because they would be difficult to define, design or measure. I agree that repairing is a significant part of the efforts to focus action further up the waste hierarchy, so I support Ben Macpherson’s amendment 126, in that context. However, for the reason that I have given, I cannot support amendment 193.

Amendment 195 sets out that “different targets” can be made

“in relation to different materials, such as ... glass ... PolyEthylene Terephthalate”

and “cartons”—although cartons are not a material, but a type of packaging. Section 6 already allows for targets to be set for specific materials, so identifying only some specific materials in the bill is not necessary. It would also be inappropriate to highlight certain materials over others, given that the relative importance—