Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

Yes. I would like to briefly outline what has been done to date.

The order under consideration is a minor amendment to the Renewables Obligation (Scotland) Order 2009. The renewables obligation scheme provides revenue to generators of renewable energy through the trading of renewables obligation certificates, or ROCs. Suppliers purchase ROCs, either directly or through traders, from generators. The generators are awarded ROCs by the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets in proportion to their electricity output. The cost of the scheme is recouped by suppliers through energy bills. The number of ROCs that suppliers must provide to Ofgem for the electricity that they supply is referred to as the obligation level. That level must be published by the Scottish ministers before 1 October each year, giving at least six months’ notice to suppliers before the obligation year begins.

The amendment to the 2009 order is necessary to allow the 2024-25 obligation level to be altered to reflect changes in United Kingdom Government legislation that introduce a new 100 per cent energy intensive industries exemption. It ensures that the ROS obligation level aligns with the UK legislation and the new 100 per cent energy intensive industries level. It also ensures alignment with the scheme in England and Wales, with a parallel amendment being made by the UK Government.

I believe that the amendment order is necessary and proportionate. I will, of course, be happy to take any questions that members have.

Yes. The most important thing is that we provide certainty. As I outlined in my opening remarks, we want to work in tandem with the UK Government to provide that certainty and also to do joint consultation.

There is concern that, if we do not make the exemption for energy intensive industries, particularly in the high fuel price situation that we have at the moment, they could find that they are not profitable any more and they may have to consider things such as job losses—that is everything that we want to avoid. The large manufacturing sector is particularly affected—it obviously consumes a great deal of energy—so the policy protects them to a certain extent and protects those jobs. [Gillian Martin has corrected this contribution. See end of report.]

There are about 43 in Scotland.

Obviously, everything around the decarbonisation of energy is devolved to Scotland and our economic department is looking particularly at high-energy sectors such as manufacturing.

I am not sure that this particular instrument is about incentivising anything. I think it is about protecting jobs. We have large manufacturing, such as food production and feed-stock production. The original point behind the renewables obligation was to get a subsidy for renewables, but this particular exemption is about large manufacturers that are particularly affected by inflation and high fuel costs. There are thousands of jobs associated with those manufacturers and this is about protecting them in the face of a number of pressures. [Gillian Martin has corrected this contribution. See end of report.]