Seòmar agus comataidhean

Zero Waste Scotland is Scotland’s circular economy expert and already provides advice and support to ministers on the delivery of the objectives in that area. It will complete its transition to becoming a non-departmental public body this year, and that will be taken forward in amendments 174 and 180.

I will in a second, but I really want to get to the end of my point.

I say to Graham Simpson that I am not personally about the fast lane: I am about going in the right direction with stakeholders behind me and about the careful consideration that Mark Ruskell mentioned. The consultation time period that is set out in the guidance for statutory environmental assessments under the Environmental Assessment (Scotland) Act 2005 alone could take six months. For those reasons we do not support amendments 2 and 3, so I ask Graham Simpson not to press them. I think that we rush things at our peril, to be honest.

I assure Mr Doris that a just transition is embedded throughout a lot of the Government’s thinking across portfolios. I will come to that later.

Ensuring a just transition is central to the development of a circular economy. Amendment 137 would ensure that the just transition principles that are set out in section 35C of the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009 are taken into account by ministers in the development of the circular economy strategy.

The committee also emphasised the importance of behavioural change. I agree with that view, so amendment 138 proposes an additional requirement that, in developing the circular economy strategy, the Scottish ministers must have regard to the kinds of behavioural change that are needed to meet the strategy’s objectives.

Finally, the committee called for a clearer link in the bill between the strategy and the targets. Those are already linked by the criteria for a circular economy being repeated in the same terms in sections 1 and 6. However, amendment 139 would go further and put a specific obligation on ministers to have regard to the targets in preparing the strategy.

Together, amendments 136 to 139 provide for a comprehensive and broad-reaching circular economy strategy that takes into account a range of relevant factors. The amendments also impact on some of the amendments that have been lodged.

I want to make a point about the use in the legislation of the phrase “have regard to”, which means, in effect, that ministers must take account of the principles in preparing the strategy. We think that that is the appropriate level of compliance.

I will talk about some of the amendments that have been lodged by other members. Several amendments refer to just transition principles. As I have said, I agree that ensuring a just transition is central to the development of a circular economy. That is why I have lodged amendment 137, which will ensure that the just transition principles are taken into account in the development of the circular economy strategy.

More widely, our approach to just transition planning is guided by our just transition planning framework and the national just transition outcomes that are described in that framework. I would like to provide reassurance that circular economy principles are, therefore, being considered as part of on-going just transition planning work, particularly in relation to supporting economic, job, place and environmental outcomes.

However, I would say that just transition is wider than that, because it is also about ensuring that people are not disadvantaged unnecessarily, and the word “communities” could also refer to, for example, people in rural areas or those who have mobility issues. We must always take into account the possible unintended consequences of what we are doing, for good reason, and think about how they might impact on people. I agree with Bob Doris’s comments on that.

The Government is committed to just transition plans for high-emitting sectors, sites and regions. We began with our energy strategy and just transition plan, which will be published in the summer. We are also developing sectoral plans for agriculture and land use, the built environment and construction, and transport. I will take those forward with my colleagues who have responsibility for those portfolio areas. Work is also well under way on the just transition plan for Grangemouth and the site plan for the Grangemouth industrial cluster.

Amendment 93 would, I believe, add unnecessary detail to the circular economy strategy. If Government amendment 137 is accepted, the Scottish ministers will have to “have regard to” just transition in the development of the strategy, so it will already be considered. Amendments 98 and 99 are not necessary, given amendment 137, which will require ministers to have regard to just transition principles in developing the strategy.

Circular economy principles should be embedded across all sectors of the economy, which is why they are already being considered as part of just transition policy. Requiring the level of detail that is referred to in amendments 208 and 209 to be included in the circular economy strategy would be burdensome; those matters will be considered as part of the sector-specific plans that are already in development. For those reasons, the Scottish Government cannot support Sarah Boyack’s amendments 93, 98 and 99 or Bob Doris’s amendments 208 and 209.

I will move on to other amendments that have been mentioned. I agree with the principle and sentiment that Monica Lennon expresses in amendment 132. The wider extraterrestrial—did I say extraterrestrial? [Laughter.] I realise why everyone is looking at me as though I am a bizarre person. The wider

“extraterritorial impact of material consumption”

is an important consideration. The Scottish Government is already required to annually publish carbon footprint statistics, which include statistics on embedded carbon from imported goods and experimental statistics that outline the embedded material requirements by country of origin in 2019 that were associated with final consumption in Scotland. Zero Waste Scotland also publishes material flow accounts, which consider imported goods.

Monica Lennon mentioned the impact of waste that is exported to other countries, but I am afraid that the policy on that is reserved to the UK Government. We need to be clear about what we can and cannot influence. Exports are a matter that is reserved to the UK Government, and the carbon footprint is based on broad trade and is heavily dependent on emissions from other countries, over which Scotland has no control. However, I am happy to reflect on what we can reasonably and feasibly do ahead of stage 3. I cannot support amendment 132 as it stands, but we will take it away and have a look at what we can include that recognises the wider impacts that Monica Lennon mentioned.

Given the changes in ministerial responsibility, there has been very little time for me to have meetings with members, but there will be time to do that ahead of stage 3.

I turn to Sarah Boyack’s amendments 181 and 213. Although the principle of “do no harm” is a worthy aspiration, the principle, as it is defined in amendment 213, would be impossible for the Scottish ministers to comply with in developing the circular economy strategy. Given the global nature of trade in products and materials, it would simply not be possible to identify and alleviate all adverse consequences in affected populations in other countries. For those reasons, the Government cannot support amendments 181 and 213.

I turn to amendments 182 and 186, on transition minerals. I am grateful to Mr Ruskell for raising the important issue of the resources that are required for the transition to a circular economy. Minerals, some of which are rare, are critical for that transition, including materials that are involved in the production of batteries in wind turbines, which have been mentioned by Mr Ruskell, and in electric vehicles.

Amendment 182 refers to “transition minerals”, and amendment 186 provides a definition of them. They are often called “critical minerals”. I must argue against the inclusion of the proposed requirement in the bill. The bill needs to be future proofed, and what is critical for the energy sector in the 2020s may no longer be critical in the 2040s or 2050s. There is already a great deal of innovation happening across the world, and even just in Scotland, on the materials that are being used for batteries, for example. New technologies may later be developed that do not need the same minerals, or improved processes for recycling and recovery of minerals from existing uses may have greatly increased their supply. For that reason, I am afraid that I cannot support amendments 182 and 186.

I agree, however, that the issue is an important one. Zero Waste Scotland has published energy infrastructure materials mapping research, which outlines material requirements up to 2050, including for critical materials such as lithium, and that research will be taken into account as part of on-going policy development.

Thank you.

Amendment 183, from Mark Ruskell, refers to

“giving priority to materials which are most harmful or polluting across the material’s life cycle”.

That is a worthy aim, but such materials are difficult to define in law. Some materials that are harmful are also necessary—for example, pesticides and certain other chemicals that are controlled and managed through other regimes, such as the registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals regulations, or REACH. For that reason, I cannot support amendment 183.

The Scottish Government cannot support amendment 133, from Maurice Golden, or amendment 184, from Sarah Boyack. I agree that having regard to the waste hierarchy is crucial and I noted earlier that the description of the waste hierarchy that is set out in the Government’s amendment 136 derives from article 4 of the waste framework directive. Amendment 136 will ensure that ministers take into account the use of resources in a circular economy, in line with the established legal framework of the waste hierarchy.

It will also ensure consistent application of the waste hierarchy across waste-related legislation in Scotland. For that reason, I cannot support amendment 184, in the name of Sarah Boyack, nor can I support amendment 133, which I believe is unnecessary. My view is that, in the interests of seeking continued EU alignment, we should continue to use the definition of “waste hierarchy” that is enshrined in the EU waste framework directive.

Monica Lennon’s amendments 134 and 185 would introduce the concept of “due diligence” with regard to environmental protection and human rights. Due diligence with regard to procurement is important, and our national procurement legislation, the Procurement Reform (Scotland) Act 2014, has already established a national legislative framework for public procurement that supports sustainable economic growth by delivering economic, social and environmental benefits.

The sustainable procurement duty in the 2014 act requires contracting authorities to “consider” and “act” on opportunities to

“improve ... economic, social, and environmental wellbeing”.

Contracting authorities with a procurement spend of £5 million or more in any financial year must set out, in an organisational procurement strategy, how they intend to comply with the sustainable procurement duty and their

“policy on ... the procurement of fairly and ethically traded goods and services”.

They must also report on compliance with that strategy in their annual procurement reports and, in the interests of transparency, both procurement strategies and annual procurement reports must be published.

In addition, a significant body of rights that derives from the European convention on human rights is already hard-wired into the devolution settlement. In fact, it is already unlawful for Scottish public authorities to act in a way that is incompatible with those rights. Further rights—in particular, economic, social, cultural and environmental rights—and non-discrimination will be the subject of a Scottish human rights bill.

I recognise that reflecting those duties in a circular economy strategy may be helpful, and I acknowledge the value of an approach that is founded on a commitment to the on-going improvement and enhancement of due diligence processes. While I cannot support amendments 134 and 185, for the reasons that I have set out, I am, again, happy to work with the member ahead of stage 3 to establish what more we can do to usefully embed those duties in existing frameworks.

I am afraid that I cannot support amendment 135, in the name of Maurice Golden. Although a circular economy may provide significant opportunities for communities, for example in repair and reuse, it is not always the case, given the logistical and economic realities—for instance, in our many island communities—that all waste material should be treated “as locally as possible”. However, I take on board Maurice Golden’s points about having more repair and reuse take place in Scotland in general.

Similarly, amendment 137A, in the name of Maurice Golden, refers to

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

but that will not always be viable, logistically or economically. The amendment also refers to

“the prevention of harmful goods, products and materials”.

As I said with regard to amendment 183, however, some goods, products and materials that could be classified as harmful are also necessary, and are managed under other regimes such as the REACH regime. Amendment 137A also refers to “just transition” and “due diligence”, to which I have already spoken. For those reasons, I cannot support the amendment.

Amendment 211, in the name of Clare Adamson, refers to the Scottish ministers having

“regard to safety considerations that may arise as a result of the circular economy strategy, including electrical safety considerations.”

Health and safety are clearly valid concerns, but they are subject to their own regimes, which means that it is unnecessary to provide such detail in the strategy. I cannot, therefore, support amendment 211; I note that Clare Adamson has not yet spoken to it.

In response to Clare Adamson, I recognise, as always, her long-standing work on health and safety. Obviously, she will know that health and safety is a reserved matter and that all electrical items should comply with the legislation on that.

She made mention of the handling of materials that are used in electrical items as part of the circular economy strategy. I assure her that safety concerns will be referred to in the strategy. In saying what is expected on those items, it will make reference to a lot of reserved areas. That is an important discussion to have.

To give Ben Macpherson even more assurance, I can say that construction will be prioritised in the waste route map, for obvious reasons. Waste in construction is still a real concern. A specific just transition plan will be associated with the built environment, in which the circular economy and the waste associated with the sector will be mentioned in great detail. The sector is also taken account of in the forthcoming climate change plans. It is important that Ben Macpherson raised the fact that we still have to have serious action in the construction sector, in order to reduce the waste that is associated with it. I thank him for raising that.

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.