Scottish Parliament, 25 June 2024

416 contributions from 44 members. The official report.

Time for Reflection

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Good afternoon. The first item of business is time for reflection, and our time for reflection leader today is the Rev Margaret McArthur, the minister of Cardross parish church.

The Rev Margaret McArthur (Cardross Parish Church)

Good afternoon.

“But you must not forget this one thing, dear friends: One day is like a thousand years to the Lord, and a thousand years is like one day.”

Those words of Scripture certainly put time into perspective. This time for reflection is but a brief moment for all of you, and I hope that it provides that most precious of things: time—time to set aside the business of politics to find some peace and perspective.

Recently, debates have been scrutinised by commentators who have spoken in terms of sides, opponents, winners and losers and who have said how fierce or feeble the debate might have been. However, you are, first and foremost, human beings. You have lives outwith politics, families to care for, interests to pursue and the company of friends to enjoy.

Take time to reflect on the good things that you have achieved. Take time to reflect that, when labouring a point too much, you might lose a friend as a result. Take time to reflect that there is much that can be achieved together in the common fight against want and the social problems that are faced by those in our communities, who look to you for help to better their lives. That is a heavy responsibility, and having enemies just adds to the burden.

Much more can be achieved when personal feelings and ambitions give way to the common weal and when we treat others with respect—when we talk not about “this side” and “that side” or “them and us” but about just “us”.

My parish of Cardross, which has connections to Robert the Bruce, is, I am sure, well known, but let me share the story of a humbler resident from the past. Her story is one that spans time, and it highlights the divide that still exists between rich and poor. A girl named Jean Watson took meat from the laird’s store to feed her family. Fearing retribution, she fled. Facing a burn in stormy spate, she swore that, if she were ever able to, she would have a bridge built there. Life turned out well, and she was, indeed, able to provide the bridge, which still to this day bears the inscription, “Not we, but God.”

Time rolls on. People come and go. Empires rise and fall,

“But you must not forget this one thing, dear friends: One day is like a thousand years to the Lord, and a thousand years is like one day.”

In all the deliberations, the debates and the demands of politics, take time to reflect that what is done in this Parliament or in any other will be but a moment in millennia, so it must count.

Bless you today and every day.

Business Motion

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

The next item of business is consideration of business motion S6M-13779, in the name of Jamie Hepburn, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, on changes to business. Any member who wishes to speak to the motion should press their request-to-speak button now.

Motion moved,

That the Parliament agrees to the following revisions to the programme of business for—

(a) Tuesday 25 June 2024—

delete

9.00 pm Decision Time

and insert

10.10 pm Decision Time

(b) Wednesday 26 June 2024—

after

2.00 pm Portfolio Questions: Constitution, External Affairs and Culture, and Parliamentary Business; Justice and Home Affairs; Education and Skills

insert

followed by Ministerial Statement: European Structural and Investment Funds

(c) Thursday 27 June 2024—

after

12.00 pm First Minister’s Questions

insert

followed by Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee Debate: Standing Order Rule Changes - Procedures on Consent in Relation to UK Parliament Bills

followed by Appointment of Scottish Minister and Junior Scottish Minister

delete

2.15 pm Decision Time

and insert

2.30 pm Decision Time—[Jamie Hepburn]

Motion agreed to.

Topical Question Time

Jamie Greene (Conservative, West Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on the delivery of the MV Glen Sannox and MV Glen Rosa, in light of reports that a senior programme director has been removed from the project. (S6T-02059)

Kate Forbes (Scottish National Party, Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch)

The Scottish Government was informed on 19 June by Ferguson Marine that the ship delivery director’s contract had been terminated as a result of a breakdown in trust. That is wholly a decision for Ferguson Marine. I can, however, confirm that the interim chief executive officer of Ferguson Marine provided his most recent update on MV Glen Sannox in a letter to the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee on 31 May 2024, in which he states that the yard is working

“to achieve the handover date of 31st July 2024.”

Jamie Greene (Conservative, West Scotland)

The phrase “breakdown in trust” is interesting. There has been an awful lot of trust broken between our island communities and the Government, unfortunately. This latest loss of expertise, right at the very top of the yard, comes just three months after Ferguson’s well-respected chief executive was also unceremoniously sacked from his position. Why are the relationships breaking down in the yard? That is helping nobody, not least the workers in the yard.

David Tydeman was apparently sacked on the grounds of poor performance, but I think that everybody knows the truth: it is more likely that he was sacked from his position because he was simply speaking uncomfortable truth to power about this whole sorry saga. What our islanders and the workers at the Ferguson Marine yard deserve is some straight-talking truth from ministers and not bad news that is going to be snuck out after recess.

Let me ask specifically, in case it was not clear the first time round, will the MV Glen Sannox be delivered to Caledonian Maritime Assets Ltd by the end of July—yes or no?

Kate Forbes (Scottish National Party, Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch)

In the past few weeks, I have met the chair and the chief executive. I have made my expectations very clear to them, and both of them have confirmed to me that they see no change to the commitment to deliver the vessel by the end of July. Obviously, the chief executive will continue to keep the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee informed but, certainly, face to face in those conversations and publicly in the written letters that he has issued to the relevant committee, he has made clear the commitment to meet the 31 July deadline.

Jamie Greene (Conservative, West Scotland)

I am sorry to say this to the cabinet secretary but, knowing that this topical question was coming up in the chamber today, should she not have picked up the phone and spoken to the chief executive to get an update on the status of the ships today, rather than basing her answer on a letter from weeks ago? The situation is not good enough for our island communities. The vessels are nearly six years late and they are approaching £0.5 billion in cost, with the figure still rising. All the while, the yard has no certainty over its long-term future. The phrase that is being used by workers at the yard is that time is running out. They are absolutely right: time is running out for the yard.

When will the Government make a decision on the small vessel replacement programme? When on earth will the Government finally get a grip of the endless disruption that our islands face as a result of this whole sorry saga?

Kate Forbes (Scottish National Party, Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch)

The member will know that I said just a matter of days after coming into office that we expected that decision to be announced imminently. A few days later, the member’s boss—the Prime Minister—called an election and we have since been tied up with purdah, unable to make public announcements. We hope to be in a position to make a public announcement as soon as we are permitted to do so.

Stuart McMillan (Scottish National Party, Greenock and Inverclyde)

It is important to remember that the key reason why the Scottish Government stepped in to save Ferguson Marine was to protect jobs in an area of high deprivation and unemployment. Can the cabinet secretary give details on how many people have been employed since then? How have local businesses benefited? How many young people have secured apprenticeships at the yard?

Kate Forbes (Scottish National Party, Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch)

Stuart McMillan has been a long-standing advocate for the yard and for the local community, both of which are a priority for the Government. Currently, 288 staff are employed at the shipyard. Since the shipyard became publicly owned, 72 apprentices have been employed, with two thirds of those remaining with the yard after completing their apprenticeships. Recently, one of the yard’s young female apprentices won the Scottish engineering graduate apprentice of the year award, which is a fantastic achievement that highlights the commitment of the business to developing future talent.

Katy (Labour, West Scotland)

The Deputy First Minister will be aware of the anger and distress on Arran and other islands, given the delays and the unreliability of the ferry service. Workers at Ferguson Marine are in a similar position. Last year, the then chief executive officer warned that urgent investment was needed by last Christmas to enable essential reconfiguration at the site. We are very much aware that the Deputy First Minister took part in a summit, but can she give an update, given that the investment is both urgent and essential?

Kate Forbes (Scottish National Party, Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch)

There was a lot in Katy Clark’s question—including islanders, future investment and workers at the yard. Let me take them one at a time.

First, we recognise the impact on Arran residents. The Cabinet Secretary for Transport has stressed to CalMac that everything must be done to address capacity and provide assurances for the community as we approach the peak summer season.

We have been progressing work in relation to the request for investment at the yard. When I met representatives of the unions at the beginning of May, we said that the outcome of that due diligence work was due in a matter of days, and that was true at the time. I am very keen to be in a position to publicly announce what we will be able to do next, and I look forward to being out of purdah in order to do that.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

The Deputy First Minister talks about trust. She seems to be trusting the board and the chief executive an awful lot in this circumstance. Those are the people who got rid of the two widely respected individuals who were brought in to rescue the project when it fell apart some years ago. How does the Deputy First Minister have that confidence? What steps has she taken to get the expertise, from outside the Government and beyond, to know that those are the right steps—especially as Mr Crossan has returned to CMAL? He is not discredited; he still has his job. Why has that happened, and what is the Deputy First Minister going to do about it?

Kate Forbes (Scottish National Party, Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch)

There are a number of different points here. On the matter of getting the expertise, we have taken steps to ensure that we have as much expertise as possible when it comes to informing our decision. For example, in my answer to Katy Clark, I was talking about getting the right due diligence on the investment work that is required. CMAL has indicated that it will continue to lend full support to Ferguson Marine Port Glasgow to deliver the MV Glen Sannox. It will utilise other members of the technical team where appropriate, as we are all committed to delivering the Glen Sannox according to schedule.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

I am keen to take further supplementary questions from members, but I would be grateful if questions were concise.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

I was in Arran on Sunday, and there are real concerns there about vessel capacity. Arran is struggling with the capacity constraints that have been caused by repairs to the MV Caledonian Isles, which are taking it out of service. Can the cabinet secretary give an update on on-going work to bring that vessel back into service urgently? With the Arran farmers show and Brodick highland games taking place in early August, how will CalMac ensure that the island has adequate capacity as summer progresses?

Kate Forbes (Scottish National Party, Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch)

The member is right to raise that. We see the significant impact on Arran residents, communities and businesses of the reduced capacity of the ferry to Arran following the outage of the MV Caledonian Isles for essential steelwork repairs. The Cabinet Secretary for Transport has been communicating with CalMac to try to get everything done as quickly as possible so as to address capacity and provide assurances. She is getting regular updates on when the vessel will return to service, and we understand from CalMac that that is currently expected in August. Interim arrangements are currently in place to help with capacity, with MV Alfred operating on the Arran route and additional crew being available to maximise the vessel’s passenger capacity throughout this period.

Graham Simpson (Conservative, Central Scotland)

What led to the breakdown in trust between the board and the programme director?

Kate Forbes (Scottish National Party, Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch)

The decision was taken entirely by Ferguson Marine and its board. In terms of moving forward, CMAL has committed to continue to work with Ferguson Marine to ensure that both vessels are delivered as quickly as possible. As the decision was taken by the board, it would be appropriate for the board, rather than Scottish ministers, to speak to the situation.

Paul Sweeney (Labour, Glasgow)

Is it not the case that this chairman, who has no shipbuilding experience, is repeatedly sacking those who do have it for telling him uncomfortable truths about the operational realities of delivering a highly complex programme that is on track—as it has been for months—for handover this summer? That has not changed. All that has changed is that the chairman seems to be carrying out a face-saving exercise on the operational workforce, which is leading the project as best it can.

Kate Forbes (Scottish National Party, Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch)

I have confidence in the chair of Ferguson Marine and in the chief executive to deliver the work that has been set out. Having met them individually very recently, as well as the chief financial officer, I have made my expectations clear and they have provided me with assurances. The chief executive is also aware that he is under parliamentary scrutiny and answerable to the Scottish Parliament committee. He will provide his next quarterly update to that committee.

Neil Bibby (Labour, West Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to the reported public safety and environmental concerns arising from the fire at Linwood industrial estate on 23 June. (S6T-02058)

Siobhian Brown (Scottish National Party, Ayr)

I thank the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service crews, along with all our emergency services, for their sterling efforts in tackling the large and complex fire that broke out at the Enva recycling facility on Sunday. At its height, 10 appliances and 50 firefighters were at the scene. Thankfully, there were no casualties and, as of this morning, the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service has confirmed that one fire appliance and one height appliance remain in attendance, with firefighters working to eliminate any remaining hot spots and dampen down.

As a precaution, early yesterday morning local residents were advised to remain indoors with windows and doors shut. That advice was lifted later yesterday morning. As part of a multi-agency response, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency is actively engaged in the situation and is working closely with public sector partners, including Public Health Scotland and Greater Glasgow and Clyde Health Board, to mitigate any potential impact on the surrounding community and environment.

I am pleased to say that there is no on-going risk to public safety and that the cause of the fire will be the subject of an immediate and thorough investigation, as would normally happen.

Neil Bibby (Labour, West Scotland)

I thank the minister for that answer, and I join her in extending my thanks to the 55 firefighters who attended for their bravery and professionalism in tackling the fire, and to the police, SEPA and council officials who have also responded. The scale of the fire at the waste recycling plant was significant—it could be seen for many miles across Renfrewshire, Glasgow and beyond.

There has also been significant concern about the fire’s environmental impact. As the minister mentioned, local residents were urged to close windows and doors to avoid toxic smoke. Debris and ash have been reported landing on people’s properties many miles away. What advice has been or will be given on what people should do if they have battery debris or any other debris from the fire, for example, in their gardens or on their cars?

Siobhian Brown (Scottish National Party, Ayr)

SEPA has confirmed that there were no compliance issues around the site that it was aware of. The site was deemed to be low risk, with no impact on amenity, and it is well managed. It deals only with waste electrical and electronic equipment.

Any constituents in the area who have any residue from the fire in their gardens should contact the local authority. I know that SEPA has a working group, and it will be liaising with the local authority and the SFRS.

Neil Bibby (Labour, West Scotland)

I hope that the authorities will make that advice publicly available rather than just asking constituents to seek it. That would be helpful.

The recycling of electric batteries is only going to become more prevalent, and given that there was another fire at the industrial estate in 2022, will the minister work with the industry to ask the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service and SEPA to publish a full report not just on what happened, but on what the risks were, what they could be in the future and what mitigations can be put in place in order to maintain public confidence in the future?

Siobhian Brown (Scottish National Party, Ayr)

I think that we will have to wait for the thorough investigation to be concluded before we make any commitments in that regard. For the member’s information, he might like to know that, along with other United Kingdom nations, the Scottish Government is reviewing the UK-wide batteries regulation, which applies to placing batteries on the market and to waste battery issues, including recycling.

We are considering the changes that are needed to provide an appropriate framework for the increasing number of electric vehicle batteries that are arising as waste and how they can best be managed in the UK market. That will include looking at opportunities for better regulation.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

If we have concise questions and responses, I can take a few more questions from members.

Clare Adamson (Scottish National Party, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I, too, thank the emergency services for their response.

The Scottish Fire and Rescue Service has presented to the cross-party group on accident prevention and safety awareness on so-called zombie batteries. Although investigations are on-going on this particular situation, I note that lithium-ion batteries must be appropriately disposed of and contained as they are recycled. Consumer action is vital in that respect. What action can the Scottish Government take to raise consumer awareness of the safe and appropriate disposal of rechargeable batteries, in particular in goods such as vapes, toothbrushes and USB-charged devices?

Siobhian Brown (Scottish National Party, Ayr)

Clare Adamson might be aware that the SFRS has in place a bespoke working group that focuses on the risks of lithium-ion batteries. Its findings will bolster our community safety messaging. The working group has been expanded to include a number of stakeholders and to assist in a number of workstreams, including the planning and consultation process for battery energy storage systems, which I hope will raise awareness of the issue among the public.

Maurice Golden (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I, too, thank the fire service for its efforts. Fortunately, no one was hurt. Although the exact cause of the fire has yet to be established, we must recognise that waste facilities, especially battery recycling facilities, are at risk of incidents. That is why I have repeatedly raised safety concerns, such as those around the handling of lithium-ion batteries and gas canisters. Back in 2022, the Scottish Government told me that discussions were on-going with the waste sector. Will the minister tell us what action has been taken since then?

Siobhian Brown (Scottish National Party, Ayr)

As I have said previously, there is a bespoke working group, and the UK Government is currently reviewing the UK-wide batteries regulation. The Scottish Government is clear that battery energy storage is an essential component of the decarbonised electricity grid, and that we need bold action to tackle the climate emergency. Scotland has extensive renewable generation capabilities with which to accelerate our just transition to net zero.

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The scenes that we saw were absolutely horrific, and I pay tribute to the emergency services. We never want to see such scenes again, but we have seen such fires repeatedly across Scotland, particularly at Friarton in Perth, where one incident led to a tragic loss of life.

Does the minister agree that those who manufacture and sell disposable electronic devices need to take more producer responsibility for their products, including through take-back schemes in which they can invest in proper health and safety requirements that will keep them safe and enable those products to be recycled?

Siobhian Brown (Scottish National Party, Ayr)

I share Mark Ruskell’s concerns. Since 2023, there have been 1,200 fires across the UK, which is an increase of 71 per cent from 2022; we have had four such fires in Scotland. I am in agreement with Mark Ruskell.

Paul O'Kane (Labour, West Scotland)

I join colleagues in offering thanks to all the emergency services that attended the fire. As we have heard, the plume of smoke could be seen from some miles away, and it drifted several miles northwards. Concern was raised with me locally that it took several hours for the public health information that people should close their windows and stay indoors to be forthcoming, and there was a sense of fear and alarm in the surrounding area. What learning will be done with civil contingency partners to understand how events unfolded that evening? How will the minister ensure that local residents are kept informed of the investigations?

Siobhian Brown (Scottish National Party, Ayr)

As I said to Paul O’Kane’s colleague Neil Bibby earlier, we will ensure that there is consultation and that information is put out in the public domain. Lessons can be learned. A working group was set up immediately with SEPA, the local health service and the SFRS, and we will continue to engage and let the community know what is happening.

Business Motion

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

The next item of business is consideration of business motion S6M-13760, in the name of Jamie Hepburn, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, setting out a timetable for the stage 3 consideration of the Circular Economy (Scotland) Bill. Any member who wishes to speak to the motion should press their request-to-speak button now.

Motion moved,

That the Parliament agrees that, during stage 3 of the Circular Economy (Scotland) Bill, debate on groups of amendments shall, subject to Rule 9.8.4A, be brought to a conclusion by the time limits indicated, those time limits being calculated from when the stage begins and excluding any periods when other business is under consideration or when a meeting of the Parliament is suspended (other than a suspension following the first division in the stage being called) or otherwise not in progress:

Groups 1 to 3: 1 hour 45 minutes

Groups 4 and 5: 2 hours 30 minutes

Groups 6 and 7: 3 hours 35 minutes

Groups 8 to 10: 5 hours

Groups 11 to 13: 7 hours

Groups 14 and 15: 7 hours 30 minutes.—[Jamie Hepburn]

Motion agreed to.

Circular Economy (Scotland) Bill: Stage 3

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

The next item of business is stage 3 proceedings on the Circular Economy (Scotland) Bill. In dealing with the amendments, members should have the bill as amended at stage 2—Scottish Parliament bill 31A—the marshalled list and the groupings of amendments.

The division bell will sound and proceedings will be suspended for around five minutes for the first division of the stage 3 proceedings. The period of voting for the first division will be 45 seconds. Thereafter, I will allow a voting period of one minute for the first division after a debate.

Members who wish to speak in the debate on any group of amendments should press their request-to-speak buttons or enter RTS in the chat box as soon as possible after I call the first amendment in that group. Members should now refer to the marshalled list of amendments.

Before section 1

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Group 1 is on the purpose of circular economy. Amendment 38, in the name of Maurice Golden, is the only amendment in the group.

Maurice Golden (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Amendment 38 reduces confusion and greenwashing by creating a single definition of the circular economy for all stakeholders.

It is important that we define what the circular economy is, and that is what the purpose provision would do. Clarification is particularly important, not least because we have before us a circular economy bill that, as drafted, will not deliver a circular economy. It is currently a waste and littering bill, although I think that amendment 38, and others to be considered today, can improve the bill and bring it closer to achieving a circular economy in Scotland.

I move amendment 38.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Lothian)

I very much welcome amendment 38, in the name of Maurice Golden, which is similar to one that I lodged at stage 2 that did not receive enough support at that point.

I also welcome the amendment’s language about “goods, products and materials” because I pushed that issue at stage 2. Having a section on purpose in the bill would help to provide clarity about what we want a circular economy in Scotland to look like. That would help to ensure that the strategy and targets that will be created as a result of the bill are coherent. It would also send out a signal to industry and consumers, so that everyone can consider their actions and behaviour and what they can change to ensure that “goods, products and materials” are kept in use for longer. It will mean not just talking about the waste hierarchy but getting on with managing our waste in line with that.

A section on purpose would also send a signal to the wider public sector. Local authorities take decisions every day about managing their waste services, so setting out the purpose of a circular economy here in Scotland will help them to make the right, focused decisions and will ensure that we progress towards a circular economy for the long term.

The bill is called the Circular Economy (Scotland) Bill, so we must ensure that it is not just a recycling bill. This purpose amendment would be incredibly helpful in delivering on the title of the bill and I therefore encourage members across the chamber to support amendment 38.

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

As I said during stage 2 consideration of the bill, although I very much understand the sentiment behind amendment 38, I cannot support it.

In the first place, the amendment claims to set out a purpose for the whole of the bill but, in reality, it attempts to describe a circular economy. As a result, its legal effect is limited and uncertain.

Specifically, amendment 38 refers to “just transition principles” under section 35 of the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009, a reference to which was included in the bill as amended at stage 2 as one of the many issues that ministers “must have regard to” in preparing the circular economy strategy. The majority of the other issues in Mr Golden’s purpose provision are already included in section 1(3) of the bill, or will be discussed later today as part of consideration of amendments relating to the circular economy strategy. That discussion will include additions to section 1(3) to recognise

“due diligence in relation to environmental protection and human rights”,

managing waste within Scotland, and amendments to section 1(4) regarding

“the wider environmental impact of particular sectors and systems”,

which I will be happy to support. Those changes to the bill will have direct legal effect and will allow Parliament to hold ministers to account for the content of the strategy, which will provide the overall framework for wider policy in the area.

In contrast, amendment 38 is not linked to the substantive sections of the bill and would not impose any duties or obligations, so it would have no legal effect. It would be unhelpful to have in the bill a purpose provision that did not reflect the legal effect of the sections on the strategy and targets, as they will be amended. The term “circular economy” appears only in sections 1 to 7, and the remaining sections mostly amend other legislation.

Graham Simpson (Conservative, Central Scotland)

I am somewhat confused by the minister’s approach. Does she not accept that, given that we have a circular economy bill, we at least ought to know what is meant by “circular economy”? That is what amendment 38 sets out. Is the minister against having a purpose in the bill or is she just against Maurice Golden’s version of a purpose?

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

There is no international definition of “circular economy” and, if we included one in the bill, we would risk the terminology becoming outdated. Knowing Maurice Golden as I do, I think that there is a chance that he might end up creating an international definition of “circular economy” but, for the moment, there is no recognised definition of that.

Douglas Lumsden (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Will the minister take an intervention?

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

No—I want to get to the end of my comments on the amendment.

In short, the Scottish Government’s view is that amendment 38 does not work legally and would not add value to what is already in the bill. On that basis, I cannot support it.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

I call Maurice Golden to wind up and to press or withdraw amendment 38.

Maurice Golden (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I am conscious that we have many amendments to dispose of today, so I simply press my amendment.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

The question is, that amendment 38 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members:

No.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

There will be a division. As this is the first division at stage 3 of the bill, I will suspend the meeting for about five minutes to allow members to access the voting system.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

We come to the vote on amendment 38. Members should cast their votes now.

The vote is closed.

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Unfortunately, the app was not working. I would have voted no for myself and no as a proxy vote on behalf of Richard Lochhead.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Thank you, Mr Hepburn. We will ensure that those are recorded.

Michelle Thomson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk East)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Inexplicably, my application closed suddenly, and I was unable to vote. I would have voted no.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Thank you, Ms Thomson. We will ensure that that is recorded.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

The result of the division on amendment 38 is: For 48, Against 64, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 38 disagreed to.

Section 1—Circular economy strategy

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Group 2 is on the circular economy strategy. Amendment 31, in the name of Mark Ruskell, is grouped with amendments 93, 94, 39 to 41, 95, 42, 65, 72, 96, 97, 43, 98, 44, 44A, 45, 73, 74, 66, 33, 75 and 76.

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

This is a large group of amendments, so I will try to be as succinct as Maurice Golden was.

Amendments 31 and 33 set out a requirement for ministers to

“set out improvement plans for ... Minerals”

that are critical to the green energy transition. The minerals include copper, lithium, nickel and iron, which are vital for renewables and for the battery technologies that we will use in the decades to come.

Members will be aware that mining those materials has serious social and environmental consequences, and that demand for them is going to grow rapidly. Given their importance, it is vital that the Government considers how reuse and recycling of those materials across the energy sector can be developed. We are already seeing focus on the onshore wind sector and on repowering turbines, and there are great supply chain and economic opportunities around that. However, planning and leadership from the Government are needed.

I lodged similar amendments at stage 2: I thank the minister for discussing the issue again ahead of stage 3. I recognise that primary legislation might not be the most appropriate place for this complex issue, but I seek assurances from the minister that those critical matters will be addressed in the Scottish Government’s work on energy policy—particularly the energy strategy and the just transition plan.

Development of a circular economy is key to tackling the twin crises of climate change and biodiversity loss. Throughout the passage of the bill and in evidence, we have heard about the importance not only of reducing the amount of resources that we consume but of reducing the carbon emissions that are associated with the goods, products and services that we all need and use.

We should always be focused on having an economy in which we not only reduce the amount of materials that we consume but reduce their carbon impacts. I am grateful to the minister for the constructive discussions that we have had on that.

Following those discussions, I lodged amendments 40, 41 and 42, to ensure that the characteristics of a desirable economy that are set out in section 1(3) of the bill include not only reducing consumption of products and materials but reducing their whole-life-cycle carbon emissions. That will help to lay the foundations for the deep transformations in the economy that we need to happen during the next 20 years, as we start to head towards net zero. I urge members, across parties, to support the amendments.

On amendment 43, during discussions with many stakeholders I heard about the importance of education and skills. In its stage 1 report, the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee highlighted the importance of behaviour change. I was pleased that, at stage 2, the Scottish Government lodged an amendment to ensure that that will be taken into account when developing a circular economy strategy.

Amendment 43 expands on that to ensure that education and skills are also specifically taken into account by ministers in the development of the strategy. The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development estimates that, globally, we will have 18 million new jobs in the circular economy by 2040. Our young people need the skills to access those new jobs. There is a precedent for that; in the Irish Circular Economy and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2022, there is a strong focus on education. I ask members to support amendment 43.

Another issue that has been raised regularly with me by stakeholders is the importance of action to move up the waste hierarchy—in particular, strengthening of the commitment to reuse schemes such as refill and take-back. Amendment 44 would insert in section 1 a requirement that

“In preparing the circular economy strategy, the Scottish Ministers must have regard to the role that reuse, refill and take-back schemes have in contributing to the development of a circular economy.”

I again thank the minister for our discussions on the matter. I am sure that, during our proceedings this afternoon, she will receive many thanks for the positive cross-party discussions that have taken place throughout stages 2 and 3.

I welcome the minister’s commitment to developing a product stewardship plan as part of the draft waste and circular economy route map, which will take those issues fully into account.

I believe that my amendment 44 would ensure that those issues would be actively considered. I note, though, that Maurice Golden has lodged amendment 44A, which is an amendment to my amendment 44, to add detail to how such schemes

“will prioritise products and packaging”.

It is important to ensure that there is flexibility in how all manner of potential reuse, refill and take-back schemes are developed. It is therefore important that the Government has flexibility, so I urge members to support amendment 44 as it stands, without Mr Golden’s amendment to my amendment.

Given that I am opening the debate on this group, I will offer some brief remarks on other amendments in the group. Clare Adamson’s amendment 45 and Bob Doris’s amendment 73 would add important requirements for ministers to

“have regard to ... workplace safety”

and “international impacts” when preparing the strategy. I will be happy to support those.

I will also support Monica Lennon’s amendment 95, which would require that reusable items be prioritised over single-use items in the strategy wherever possible. I know that it will not be possible to do so in every case, but it is important to have that aim. Amendment 95 is supported by many non-governmental organisations, and I hope that the minister will consider supporting it, too.

I will also support Maurice Golden’s amendment 98, which requires ministers to “have regard to” critical sectors that have come up in evidence, “including construction”, when preparing the strategy.

Finally, I have sympathy with the thinking behind Maurice Golden’s amendment 65 and Sarah Boyack’s amendment 93, on ensuring that waste is “managed in Scotland” rather than being shipped overseas, but I will listen to the minister’s arguments before I make up my mind on those.

I move amendment 31.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Lothian)

Amendment 93, which is in my name, would require the circular economy strategy to set out how offshoring of waste would be reduced. During our discussions at stage 2, there was considerable support for attempts to ensure that the offshoring of Scotland’s waste is reduced through the bill’s provisions.

Statistics that were published last year by the Scottish Environment Protection Agency revealed that 6,500 tonnes of waste had been shipped overseas from Scotland between 2018 and 2022. If the bill is to achieve a truly circular economy, that needs to stop. That is why it is essential that the strategy sets out steps to reduce offshoring of waste. I have seen the impact of rubbish littering coastlines abroad. We need to ensure that we do the right thing here.

Amendment 96, in my name, would strengthen the requirements that the Scottish ministers must take into account when devising the circular economy strategy. A number of them reflect the purposes of a circular economy. It is my expectation that amendment 96 would ensure that the strategy would take those factors into account.

There is a raft of really positive amendments in the group. Those from Mark Ruskell, Maurice Golden and Ben Macpherson cover important issues including critical materials and the

“whole life-cycle carbon emissions of goods”.

Maurice Golden’s amendment 98 highlights the need to ensure that key sectors of the economy are involved in the creation of a strategy that reduces the impact of waste. Reduction of

“construction materials, steel, plastics and textiles”

is good not only for our waste economy but for our climate.

Paul Sweeney (Labour, Glasgow)

Sarah Boyack has made excellent points in support of her amendment 98. Does she share my frustration at the Government’s lack of a joined-up strategy on those aspects—in particular, on green steel? We export enough steel to be self-sufficient in steel manufacturing, but there is no link to initiatives such as the development of electric arc furnaces to ensure proper circular use of steel in our country.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Lothian)

I clarify that amendment 98 is not in my name but in Maurice Golden’s; I am simply indicating my support for it. However, I very much agree with Paul Sweeney’s point.

Ben Macpherson’s amendment 66 highlights several issues that we need to address. Clare Adamson’s amendment 45, on the importance of consumer and workplace safety, also mentions critical factors and needs to be supported. My colleague Monica Lennon has lodged a series of excellent amendments, which I hope members will support.

I am conscious that this will be a long debate, so I will not make a mini-speech on every amendment.

Monica Lennon (Labour, Central Scotland)

I agree with Sarah Boyack—there are some important amendments in the group. I will not speak to them all, but I think that Mark Ruskell, in opening consideration of the group, got off to a good start—in particular, with regard to his amendment on “critical minerals”.

As many people have pointed out during scrutiny of the bill, it is a framework bill, which means that the main effects of the legislation will become apparent later, after publication of the secondary legislation and strategy. It is important, therefore—indeed, it is crucial—that we get things right at this stage. That includes ensuring that the right requirements for the strategy are in the text of the bill. The amendments in the group are therefore important, as we have heard.

My amendments 94 and 97 seek to strengthen the bill’s alignment with the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009. At stage 2, the Scottish Government lodged an amendment requiring ministers to

“have regard to the just transition principles set out in ... the Climate Change ... Act”.

However, that amendment did not include all the subsections in section 35 of the 2009 act, which contain specific requirements for the climate change plan in relation to employment, the regions, and support for the workforce, businesses and communities.

Key stakeholders, including the Just Transition Partnership and Friends of the Earth Scotland, agree with Scottish Labour that the definition of “just transition” that we have seen at stage 2 is too narrow. Amendments 94 and 97 would implement subsections (20) and (21) of section 35 of the 2009 act. That is important, because it would require the Scottish Government to consider

“how any proposals and policies”

will

“affect different sectors ... and ... regions”

of the economy; to support sectoral and regional developments; and to

“set out ... costs and benefits”

of policies. I ask colleagues to back amendments 94 and 97 in order to draw from the best practice in the 2009 act and to ensure that our transition towards a circular economy is a just transition.

Amendment 72 would require the strategy to consider human rights and environment impacts in supply chains. I thank Friends of the Earth Scotland and Scottish Environment LINK for supporting amendment 72, and I thank the Minister for Climate Action for engaging constructively with me and with Scottish Labour on the amendment following stage 2.

During stage 2, we discussed at length the impact of policy in Scotland on other countries, in particular with regard to how resource demand here can impact on other parts of the world, especially in the global south, in both an environmental context and a human rights context. The importance of due diligence in supply chains was highlighted many times. Amendment 72 would strengthen the strategy’s commitment to

“due diligence ... in supply chains”,

thereby ensuring that we maximise the environmental and social benefits in Scotland and internationally.

I am grateful to Mark Ruskell for his support for amendment 95, which aims to strengthen the strategy with regard to promoting reuse. At stage 1, we heard concerns that the bill was too recycling focused; some people called it “a recycling bill”. People were looking for more on other aspects of the waste hierarchy—in particular, reuse.

I am pleased, therefore, that the Scottish Government has sought to address that further at stage 2 and to provide more reassurance. Scottish Labour would, however, like the bill to go further and to strengthen the provision in relation to the waste hierarchy. My amendment 95, which would require that

“reusable items are given priority over single-use items wherever possible”,

is backed by key stakeholders, including Scottish Environment LINK’s sustainable economy group, which has provided valuable expertise in scrutiny of the matter.

Amendment 74 relates to how ministers prepare the circular economy strategy, and states that they

“must have regard to ... encouraging equal opportunities ... and ... furthering the reduction of inequalities of outcome which result from socio-economic disadvantage.”

The minister and I had some good discussions in which we agreed that we need to take a gender-sensitive approach when we are thinking about transitioning towards a circular economy. I will not talk about nappies too much just now, because that will come in a later group, but it was through our discussion of how an item—I see that Douglas Lumsden is giggling. I am sure that he will have a lot to say on that later.

That is partly the point; there is a wee bit of embarrassment about items such as nappies. That led us into a discussion about stigma and the gendered aspects of the issue, which is perhaps why we have noticed that there is not enough policy development in that regard.

Douglas Lumsden (Conservative, North East Scotland)

There is certainly not any embarrassment about nappies; I am just surprised that Monica Lennon did not raise the issue sooner.

Monica Lennon (Labour, Central Scotland)

I aim to surprise. We will talk about the issue later.

Amendment 74 speaks for itself, and I hope that members will support it. I am pleased to have worked closely with the minister on it.

I will make a final comment on amendment 45, which is in the name of Clare Adamson. It is an important amendment, as others have said. I know from my work chairing the cross-party group on construction that there is a lot of support for what the amendment proposes. In the interests of time, I will leave it there. I hope that colleagues will also support amendment 45.

Maurice Golden (Conservative, North East Scotland)

My amendment 39 is about a refillables promotion plan; such plans have proven environmental benefits. It links to amendments 44 and 44A, which I will come to shortly. Amendment 65 is on managing waste locally—I raised that issue during stage 2—which limits the impact of our waste on other countries, creates economic opportunities and reduces environmental impacts, such as from the transport of waste. Section 1(3) sets out the desirable characteristics of a circular economy that Scottish ministers must have regard to. Amendment 65 would insert into that section wording such that those characteristics would include an economy in which

“waste is managed in Scotland if it is appropriate to do so.”

There are, of course, always logistical and economic implications to take into account when managing waste. I thank the minister for his constructive engagement in developing an amendment that recognises the importance of managing waste in Scotland if it is appropriate to do so.

Amendment 98 is important in that it highlights the sectors of the Scottish economy that are material based. It does not exclude other sectors, and I think that a case can be made for others. It highlights the construction sector, given that 40 per cent of emissions come from construction in our built environment. On steel, the Scottish “Draft Energy Strategy and Just Transition Plan” does not consider the material demand from the policies in it, and that needs to change. On plastics, the Ellen MacArthur Foundation has said that there could be more plastic in the ocean by weight than fish by 2050. Clearly, there is action to be taken there.

My favourite sector is perhaps textiles, because it is very much forgotten. The zero waste programme for Scotland has been cancelled, reinstated and cancelled again before being reinstated, so it is clear that there is not a comprehensive action plan. The Scottish Government has consulted on parts of it, but there is nothing in the bill that represents a comprehensive action plan on textiles. When we consider that around 30 per cent of clothing in our wardrobes has not been worn for at least a year, and that £140 million-worth of clothing is sent to landfill each year in the United Kingdom, it is clear that things need to change. That is why I believe that, in relation to textiles, we should be designing for circularity, implementing circular economy business models, closing the loop on materials and, finally, encouraging consumer behaviour change.

I turn to Mark Ruskell’s amendment 44, which I think is positive but perhaps lacks teeth. My amendment 44A seeks to rectify that by detailing how reuse, refill and take-back schemes would be rolled out. That would create a deep understanding of those products and packaging options.

There are a number of amendments in the group that I will not cover individually other than to say that I am generally positive about them and will listen to the case that members make.

Clare Adamson (Scottish National Party, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I will limit my comments to amendment 45.

At stage 2, I lodged a probing amendment on the challenges of electrical safety in the workplace and for consumers. I put on record my thanks to Electrical Safety First, the Royal Society of Chemistry and other members of the cross-party group on accident prevention and safety awareness for raising those concerns. I was also heartened by the cross-party interest in the probing amendment.

Amendment 45 has timely relevance, given recent fires in the waste industry. I thank the minister for working with me to ensure that safety considerations for consumers and workplaces will be taken into account in the development of the strategy.

I ask members to support amendment 45.

Bob Doris (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn)

During stage 2, there was an important discussion about the impacts of policy in Scotland on other parts of the world—in particular, the impact on the global south. Resource use here can have negative impacts on communities and environments elsewhere.

I acknowledge the role of the Scottish Catholic International Aid Fund in particular in highlighting those concerns. I also recognise the input of several members across the chamber in doing likewise. I note that Monica Lennon and Sarah Boyack have raised those matters, at stage 2 in particular, and we have heard some of that again this afternoon. I thank the minister for her positive and constructive discussions following stage 2.

Amendment 73 would insert the requirement for the Scottish ministers to

“have regard to the potential international impacts of their circular economy policies”

in preparing the circular economy strategy. We have a proud track record in Scotland of listening to those who are impacted directly by climate change internationally. The 26th United Nations climate change conference of the parties—COP26—established a Glasgow dialogue between parties, relevant organisations and stakeholders to address loss and damage associated with the adverse impacts of climate change.

Graham Simpson (Conservative, Central Scotland)

I am curious to know how Bob Doris thinks that we could measure the potential international impacts of circular economy policies in Scotland. How does he think that could be done?

Bob Doris (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn)

I am not sure how that could be done. That is why the amendment does not call for us to measure those impacts in any particular way. The Scottish ministers would “have regard” to them. The precision in the amendment is important to allow Mr Simpson to support it.

I mentioned COP26 and the Glasgow dialogue because they gave visibility to front-line communities and those who are most vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change. Indeed, the Glasgow dialogue continued in Bonn earlier this month.

My amendment 73, which would mean that the Scottish ministers would “have regard to” the international impacts of our circular economy policies in Scotland, would embed in our domestic policy landscape the visibility that we saw at COP26. Together with the minister’s amendments 75 and 76, which will extend consultation requirements to persons whom ministers consider to have an interest in the strategy, including international organisations, my amendment will ensure that policies that are made in Scotland take account of impacts overseas, and will ensure a just and fair approach to developing a more circular economy.

I urge members to support amendment 73.

Ben Macpherson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Northern and Leith)

During the stage 1 process, the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee heard significant evidence about particular sectors of our economy and waste-producing aspects of our society that will need to be considered and which need to change in order for a more circular economy to be realised, as well as individuals and communities taking action.

At stage 2, I raised the issue of including in the bill priority sectors—specifically, construction, food waste and household waste. As other members have noted, construction accounts for around half of Scotland’s waste, so it is an important sector for us to focus on. I am grateful for the collaboration with the Built Environment Forum Scotland, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors and the Chartered Institute of Building in Scotland in considering those issues.

However, having listened carefully to the feedback from the minister at stage 2, I appreciate the Scottish Government’s argument that highlighting specific sectors in the bill might limit future flexibility. I have also been assured that, in developing and delivering its strategy, the Scottish Government is committed to making sure that those key sectors are addressed. Therefore, I do not think that Maurice Golden’s amendment 98 is appropriate, in the same way that my amendment at stage 2 was not appropriate—there needs to be flexibility in the strategy to address all the main sectors.

I am also concerned that the sectors that are named in amendment 98 are not defined, as I sought to define them or to reference other legislation in my amendment at stage 2. The lack of definitions could create difficulties.

I am grateful to the minister for engaging constructively on those points and on the issue of the major sectors at stage 2 and since, and for working with me to put forward an alternative approach, in amendment 66, of setting out criteria that should be used when identifying priority sectors and systems for the circular economy strategy. Amendment 66 introduces such criteria. In particular, it links priority sectors to climate change targets, to the

“life-cycle carbon emissions of goods, products and materials,”

to maximisation of

“the value of the circular economy”

and to

“wider environmental impact”.

That also takes into account some of the issues raised by Mark Ruskell at stage 2.

Amendment 66 would strengthen and future-proof the strategy in its development and delivery, and I urge members to support it.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I call the minister to speak to amendment 75 and the other amendments in the group.

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

This has been a really good discussion, and there was a good discussion at stage 2 as well.

I will start with amendment 66 from Ben Macpherson, because it provides a useful framework for some of my later points. At stage 2, there was a detailed discussion on the merits, or otherwise, of including specific sectors or systems in the bill. I understand the temptation to put them in the bill, but it remains my firm view that the circular economy strategy must be future-proofed and allow for flexibility, given that what is a priority now might not be a priority in the future, and new sectors and technologies could emerge that would not be captured by the legislation.

Ben Macpherson has set out eloquently today the case for providing a set of criteria that should be used when identifying those systems and sectors for our priority action. That allows for a consistency of approach without hindering the ability to adapt and react.

Maurice Golden (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I appreciate the minister’s comments regarding the mentioning of specific sectors, but will she outline to the chamber what work has been conducted to create more circularity in the textile sector?

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I will start with the fact that I have a charity shop suit on today. I hope that Mr Golden is wearing a second-hand piece of clothing as well.

Textiles have been mentioned throughout the debate, and that sector is a priority for us. I do not think that people realise how polluting fast fashion is, including how much from it gets into our water courses. Later, we will come on to amendments that concern our international responsibility, given that a lot of fast fashion is produced outwith the UK and imported. We should have better visibility of what we are buying. That communications piece is important, as well.

I hope that providing a set of criteria to be used in identifying priority systems and sectors allows a consistency of approach to sectors that we need to prioritise and enables us to tackle them.

Amendment 66 also addresses some of the issues that Mark Ruskell highlighted at stage 2 around environmental harm. I appreciate the engagement that I have had with Mr Ruskell and Mr Macpherson on this issue, and I am happy to support the amendment.

However, I cannot accept amendment 98 from Maurice Golden. As Ben Macpherson said, it takes the opposite approach by locking in certain sectors and materials. That does not mean that those sectors will not be prioritised, because Ben Macpherson’s amendment 66 strengthens the bill by giving the criteria for how we identify priority sectors.

At stage 2, Mr Ruskell raised the important issue of the resources that are required for the transition to a circular economy, and I am grateful to him for doing so. Amendment 31 refers to “critical minerals”, and amendment 33 provides a definition of those minerals. The same minerals are often called transition minerals.

At stage 2, Mr Ruskell asked whether it would be appropriate to put such a provision in the bill or whether there was another way for the Scottish Government to work with industry to ensure that the aspiration to deal with critical minerals is addressed in a sustainable way that can be reflected elsewhere in policy. He specifically mentioned the energy strategy. I have reflected on that and we have spoken outwith the formal proceedings. I have given a commitment to Mr Ruskell in relation to finding appropriate wording on that for the energy strategy. That important issue must be expanded on in the energy strategy. I am happy to continue to do that, as I am in relation to other sectors and minerals. However, I still do not believe that that aspect should be in the bill. For that reason, I hope that Mr Ruskell will not press amendment 31 and will instead continue to work with me. It has been worth while getting the issue on the record. I hope that he will work with me on the wording in relation to what we will do to tackle that in the energy strategy, which we will publish after the general election.

A lot of the other amendments in the group bring back and refine issues from stage 2. Monica Lennon and Bob Doris followed up on the concerns that they expressed at stage 2 and, for the record, that were also expressed by Sarah Boyack and Maurice Golden, about the environmental and international impact that any actions that are taken in Scotland as a result of a circular economy strategy might have.

I was really pleased to work with members on that. We had a lengthy discussion and were able to agree wording on Monica Lennon’s amendment 72, on due diligence and supply chains, which I am very happy to support, and on Bob Doris’s amendment 73, on international impacts, which is an issue that speaks to our climate justice responsibilities. Whatever the material impact is, we have a moral responsibility, so I appreciate members highlighting the matter.

During stage 2, Monica Lennon highlighted the importance of taking account of the equality aspect. I agree with her that we should use a gendered lens not just on this policy but on every policy. I welcome the constructive conversations that we had. I am happy to support her amendment 74.

Similarly, following discussions with stakeholders and with Mark Ruskell, who highlighted the importance of carbon emissions in circular economy policy, I will support his amendments 40 to 42. In discussions with stakeholders, the issue of education and skills was raised, and I am happy to support his amendment 43.

Maurice Golden previously raised the issue of managing waste locally, which I thought was laudable. Although at the time, in stage 2, I could not agree with the wording, I definitely agree with the intent. There might always be logistical, economic or social reasons why that might not happen within a specific local authority area, for example. After we had a discussion on that, we both agreed that we did not really mean a local authority area. The principle, which I agree with, is that waste should be managed as close to where it is produced as is possible in a domestic setting. I am really happy to support his amendment 65.

At stage 2, Clare Adamson raised concerns about the safety of second-hand electrical goods and the dangers of battery fires. I was happy to engage in further conversations with her on the issue. Events at the weekend in Linwood have shown how important that consideration is. We have cross-party agreement on the importance of that. Although I recognise that many of the legislative levers in this area on health and safety and on product safety are reserved, I am very happy to support her amendment 45. I also give my reassurance that safety matters in relation to the recycling of all materials—not just electrical items, but electrical items in particular—are being looked at.

Together, those amendments will strengthen the circular economy strategy and the bill as a whole.

Amendment 96, from Sarah Boyack, replicates a number of issues that are dealt with by the other amendments that I have just spoken to or that were addressed at stage 2. I understand her intention, but I cannot support the amendment as written.

I adopt a similar approach to amendment 35 from Monica Lennon. I very much agree that reuse is preferable to single use, but I believe that that is already captured in the strategy’s adherence to the waste hierarchy. Reuse is also referred to in other amendments. Therefore, I do not believe that amendment 35 is necessary, despite the fact that I understand the intent behind it.

The costs and benefits of our policy proposals will be developed as part of a suite of impact assessments that will have to accompany the strategies, so I do not consider amendment 94 to be necessary.

Amendment 97, in the name of Monica Lennon, would expand the requirements relating to the just transition. I agree that the just transition is central to the development of a circular economy, and I lodged an amendment at stage 2 to ensure that, in preparing for a circular economy, ministers must have regard to those principles. However, the level of detail that amendment 97 would require to be included in the strategy would be unduly burdensome. Such details will be dealt with in other ways, so, sad to say, I cannot support amendment 97.

Our approach to just transition planning is guided by our just transition planning framework and our national just transition outcomes. As I outlined at stage 2, we are committed to producing just transition plans for high-emitting sectors, sites and regions, and I have already said that our energy strategy and just transition plan will be published after the general election. We have sectoral plans for agriculture and land use, the built environment, construction and transport, and work is already under way on a site plan for Grangemouth.

On amendment 93, a large majority of Scotland’s waste is managed in Scotland, but Sarah Boyack is right to point out that it is not all managed in Scotland. About 15 per cent is processed elsewhere—that is 15 per cent too much, because it represents a lost economic opportunity as well as an environmental cost. However, policy on international waste exports is reserved.

Maurice Golden (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Could the minister highlight how much of the plastic that is collected in Scotland for recycling is recycled here?

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I do not have the figures in front of me, but I suspect that Mr Golden does or that he at least has them lodged in his brain.

As I was saying with reference to Sarah Boyack’s amendment 93, policy on international waste exports is reserved, but that does not mean that we do not do anything about the issue. However, I cannot support amendment 93, and I ask members not to do so, either.

I assure members that the Scottish Government is pressing the UK Government to deliver on its existing commitments to ban plastic waste exports to non-OECD countries and to introduce further measures to influence global markets and reduce imported and exported emissions, given the constraints of devolution. Sarah Boyack’s intentions are laudable, but they require work across the Governments in the UK to ensure that the incoming UK Government delivers on the existing commitments.

We will continue to actively discuss waste shipment regulations. The UK Government must respond positively to the Climate Change Committee’s calls for us to step up in that regard. I hope that that will mean that the four UK nations will be able to move forward in delivering on the intention behind Sarah Boyack’s amendment 93, but I cannot support its inclusion in the bill, for the reasons that I have outlined.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I call Mark Ruskell to wind up and to press or withdraw amendment 31.

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I will not try to summarise all that has been said, given that so many different issues have been raised, but I will make a couple of points that are relevant to the bill.

In relation to amendment 66, Ben Macpherson made the point about including in the bill the right criteria and the right framework to prioritise action in certain sectors. There is a temptation to put everything in a bill—I am often tempted to do that—but that does not always work and is not always consistent with decisions needing to be made at a later time, often through co-production with councils, businesses and other stakeholders. The approach that Ben Macpherson has taken with amendment 66 is the right way to set out the criteria.

However, that emphasises the importance of parliamentary scrutiny after the bill becomes an act and of the choices that the Government makes on the back of that. I very much welcome the minister’s commitment to addressing the issue of critical minerals in the energy strategy rather than in the bill, but we will wait to see what is in that strategy, which will no doubt be robustly scrutinised by the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee.

Douglas Lumsden (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Does Mr Ruskell feel that we should be looking at all critical minerals, not just those for the energy sector? By moving the issue to the energy strategy, we might not do it justice.

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

That is a reasonable point. I will make the point that the renewables sector is already really engaged in looking critically at how it develops more ethical supply chains and how it engages in the reuse and refurbishing of wind turbines. However, it is a fair enough point, and it shows that the Government, through its on-going work and strategies, needs to look across the piece at critical sectors and take action in relation to that.

I have a couple of other points. Sarah Boyack spoke about the huge impact of offshoring our waste and the huge impact on the global south, and Bob Doris reflected on the excellent evidence that we had from SCIAF on that. To answer Graham Simpson’s question to Mr Doris, yes, we need to look at how we measure that stuff, but we have had sustainable development goals in place for decades, and we should be building really strong indicators to ensure that we are not punishing the global south for our profligacy in the north.

Sarah Boyack’s amendment 93 refers to offshoring but, on balance, we prefer the approach in Maurice Golden’s amendment 65. However, I recognise that the associated amendment that Monica Lennon has lodged—amendment 72, which is on environmental and human rights due diligence in relation to the supply chain—is a really important matching element. The bill needs belt and braces. We could say that we are implementing human rights legislation, so the issues are already embedded, but it is worth picking that out and making absolutely sure that due diligence is put in place in relation to supply chains.

I will address one final issue, which relates to amendment 44A. I kind of agree with Maurice Golden on the strong set of criteria that are set out in that amendment for what we would want to prioritise for reuse and take-back schemes, but there may be exceptions. I point to plastic bags as an area where reuse and recycling probably does not have the biggest carbon impact of a reuse, take-back or deposit scheme, but where the measures have nevertheless been useful in driving public debate and behaviour change. Therefore, I do not want to be too restrictive on the Government, which needs to make decisions about what it prioritises. In that case, amendment 44 stands on its own.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Will you confirm whether you want to press amendment 31, Mr Ruskell?

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I do not wish to press amendment 31.

Amendment 31, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendment 93 moved—[Sarah Boyack].

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The question is, that amendment 93 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members:

No.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

There will be a division.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The result of the division is: For 48, Against 64, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 93 disagreed to.

Amendment 94 moved—[Monica Lennon].

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The question is, that amendment 94 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members:

No.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

There will be a division.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The result of the division is: For 50, Against 61, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 94 disagreed to.

Amendment 39 not moved.

Amendments 40 and 41 moved—[Mark Ruskell]—and agreed to.

Amendment 95 moved—[Monica Lennon].

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The question is, that amendment 95 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members:

No.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

There will be a division.

The vote is closed.

Michael Marra (Labour, North East Scotland)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. My app did not connect. I would have voted yes.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Thank you.

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. My app was slow, and I had no connection. I would have voted no.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Thank you, Ms Constance. I will ensure that that vote is recorded.

Brian Whittle (Conservative, South Scotland)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. My app was frozen. I would have abstained.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Thank you, Mr Whittle. I will ensure that that is recorded.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The result of the division is: For 29, Against 57, Abstentions 29.

Amendment 95 disagreed to.

Amendment 42 moved—[Mark Ruskell]—and agreed to.

Amendment 65 moved—[Maurice Golden]—and agreed to.

Amendment 72 moved—[Monica Lennon]—and agreed to.

Amendment 96 moved—[Sarah Boyack].

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The question is, that amendment 96 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members:

No.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

There will be a division.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The result of the division is: For 48, Against 67, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 96 disagreed to.

Amendment 97 moved—[Monica Lennon].

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The question is, that amendment 97 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members:

No.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

There will be a division.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The result of the division is: For 47, Against 66, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 97 disagreed to.

Amendment 43 moved—[Mark Ruskell]—and agreed to.

Amendment 98 not moved.

Amendment 44 moved—[Mark Ruskell].

Amendment 44A moved—[Maurice Golden].

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The question is, that amendment 44A be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members:

No.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

There will be a division.

The vote is closed.

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I could not connect. I would have voted no.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Thank you, Mr Brown. I will make sure that that is recorded.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The result of the division is: For 50, Against 64, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 44A disagreed to.

Amendment 44 moved—[Mark Ruskell].

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The question is, that amendment 44 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members:

No.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

There will be a division.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The result of the division is: For 96, Against 19, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 44 agreed to.

Amendment 45 moved—[Clare Adamson]—and agreed to.

Amendment 73 moved—[Bob Doris]—and agreed to.

Amendment 74 moved—[Monica Lennon]—and agreed to.

Amendment 66 moved—[Ben Macpherson]—and agreed to.

Amendment 33 not moved.

Section 2—Consultation on strategy

Amendment 75 moved—[Gillian Martin]—and agreed to.

Amendment 76 moved—[Gillian Martin]—and agreed to.

After section 5

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Group 3 is on duties on public bodies and those in receipt of public funds. Amendment 99, in the name of Maurice Golden, is grouped with amendments 53 and 80.

Maurice Golden (Conservative, North East Scotland)

The amendments would enhance the requirement on public bodies to install due diligence measures, which are required because public procurement, in particular, is still not circular enough. The weakness of the sustainable procurement legislation has been exposed in its not delivering public procurement that can pump prime the circular economy, but these amendments would support that to happen. In addition, thinking in particular about amendment 53, I note that, if this work is adhered to already, codification should not be an issue.

I am broadly in sympathy with amendment 80 in this group but fear that it may place too much of a burden on those in receipt of public funds. I am certainly happy to be convinced and hope that the current voting pattern, in which the circular economy is defined by indyref 2, will change, because the constitutional question is not, in my view, pertinent to this bill, which is far more important than that.

I move amendment 99.

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Amendment 80 brings back an issue that I raised at stage 2. It would require businesses and organisations in receipt of public funding to report on their contribution to the circular economy.

That matters because of the substantial amount of money that is allocated by Scotland’s three enterprise agencies. The total enterprise training and support budget for 2023-24 was £423 million, which is a considerable investment, with considerable power to transform the economy.

The proposal does not set rigid targets for companies in receipt of public money but merely adds a requirement to assess how circular their existing practices are and to set out the ways in which they intend to improve on that, if possible, during the period that is covered by any grant or loan. It is a light-touch way of embedding thinking about circularity in the operations of businesses across the country and it takes a very similar approach to that in Maurice Golden’s amendment 99. I therefore hope that he will put the constitutional divide to one side and back my amendment 80.

At stage 2, some members raised concerns about proportionality and the need to ensure that the amendment does not place an undue burden on smaller organisations, which might put off potential recipients of public funding. I have listened carefully to those concerns and have considered them in this revised amendment. Rather than making a stand-alone report on their contributions to the circular economy, organisations could make a statement on the extent to which their activities contribute to reducing, reusing and recycling materials as part of their annual report.

Funding bodies would also be able to exempt organisations from reporting requirements on the basis of the sector that they operate in, the annual turnover of the company or the total value of the grant or loan that is being offered. That would reduce the burden because a public agency could decide that it would not add the reporting requirement when making small funding awards or, particularly, when making awards to small businesses. It will be up to the agencies to do that. That gives flexibility to funding bodies, such as Highlands and Islands Enterprise, to apply their judgment on a case-by-case basis.

This is an important mechanism. If we are serious about embedding circular practices across the economy, we must recognise the power of the public pound and should create conditionality for grant making. That was referred to in the Scottish Government’s 2016 strategy “Making Things Last”, which recognised the need for enterprise agencies to more seriously integrate circular economy thinking. The minister will remember from her previous role as convener of the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee that that was mentioned in the committee’s green recovery report in 2020, as we came out of Covid, when we spoke about embedding the circular economy in our grant-making processes.

This mechanism would also keep us in line with the European Union’s 2020 economy action plan. It is hugely important that we stay aligned with the EU so that we can rejoin when Scotland is independent.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Lothian)

Procurement is a key issue here. I am keen to support amendment 53 because it will raise awareness of the circular economy across the public sector. It will be critical for the implementation of the bill that that happens. Amendment 53 also links well with Monica Lennon’s amendment 72, which she moved earlier and which requires a strategy to exercise

“due diligence in relation to environmental protection and human rights ... in supply chains”.

It will be important to take a joined-up approach and to use the Scottish Government’s ability to produce regulations to make this happen.

The other issue is that giving a duty, as is set out in amendment 99, to every public sector body would make this a day-to-day issue. It would mean that public bodies would think strategically about their impact, their supply chains, their procurement and what difference they will make. That is critical given the huge impact that it could have in the public sector in making the circular economy principles part of everyday public spending.

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I apologise, Presiding Officer, but I have quite a lot to say about group 3. It is important that I set out why we do not support any of the amendments in the group, even though I understand why they were lodged, so I want to spend a bit of time on them.

On Maurice Golden’s amendment 99, I agree that public bodies have a hugely significant role to play in delivering Scotland’s circular economy. The amendment highlights the role of procurement in particular, as Sarah Boyack outlined. As I said at stage 2, however, the sustainable procurement duty that was introduced by the Procurement Reform (Scotland) Act 2014 already requires public bodies to consider how they can improve economic, social and environmental wellbeing and secure improvements.

We are also taking action through policy. Public bodies should outline in their annual procurement strategies how they will use procurement to contribute to the response to the global climate emergency, and they should report progress in their annual procurement reports. That is already required explicitly to address climate change and circular economy obligations. Our latest annual report on procurement activity shows that, in 2021-22, 71 per cent of reporting bodies provided evidence of how they were addressing environmental wellbeing and climate change through procurement.

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 the climate change duties under the Climate Change (Duties of Public Bodies: Reporting Requirements) (Scotland) Order 2015, which includes, where applicable, targets on reducing indirect emissions and reporting on waste.

Douglas Lumsden (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I hear what the minister says about public bodies having all those plans in place. If that is the case, however, putting a circular economy plan on top of that should not be overly burdensome for local authorities or other public bodies. I am struggling to see why the minister is so against public bodies having their own plans. If the Scottish Government is going to have a plan, I think that public bodies need to have plans as well.

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

With respect, what is proposed would be burdensome. Amendment 99 would tie the definition of a public body to section 3(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002, which could capture several thousand bodies, including all primary care providers that deliver national health service services in Scotland, as well as other small and medium-sized organisations such as registered social landlords and independent special schools. All of those would be required to comply. That is my issue. It would be overly burdensome for those smaller organisations, it would be disproportionate for many of those bodies and it would be unworkable for all those plans to be approved by ministers.

I believe that continuing to develop and improve existing reporting requirements is the most appropriate way of ensuring that public bodies deliver on the circular economy, rather than creating potentially burdensome additional duties on public bodies at a time when public funds and resources are constrained.

Monica Lennon (Labour, Central Scotland)

I am not sure that I agree that what is proposed has to be a burden. Surely it is an opportunity. If Scotland is going to aspire to be a more circular nation, surely we need to encourage all our public bodies, regardless of their size, to play their part, and having a plan is really the start of that process.

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

Encouraging is fine, but requiring small organisations, such as those that I outlined, to have a plan and to report would be overly burdensome.

As well as procurement obligations, I will look to incorporate further circular economy requirements in further revisions of the climate change reporting guidance. That comes back to the encouragement piece and the fact that things are already in train. I therefore cannot support amendment 99. However, I will keep the matter under review. As with so many of the amendments, I understand the intention; I just do not want them to lead to unintended consequences.

Amendment 53 was also lodged by Maurice Golden. As I set out to the committee when we discussed the issue at stage 2, I whole-heartedly agree that preventing human rights harm and ensuring environmental due diligence are values that should be upheld. Our national performance framework has a very clear commitment to a Scotland in which rights are respected, protected and fulfilled.

A significant body of rights that is derived from the European convention on human rights is already hard-wired into the devolution settlement, and it is already unlawful for Scottish public authorities to act in a way that is incompatible with those rights. As I have mentioned, our national procurement legislation—the Procurement Reform (Scotland) Act 2014—includes a sustainable procurement duty, which requires contracting authorities to “consider” and “act” on opportunities to improve

“economic, social and environmental wellbeing”.

Contracting authorities that have a procurement spend of £5 million or more in any financial year must set out and report on how they comply with the sustainable procurement duty. That is proportionate. My issue is with disproportionate burdens on smaller organisations.

Although we can exclude suppliers for breaches of environmental and human rights, we cannot exclude companies from public procurement on the basis of universal, adequate due diligence. Rather than introducing burdensome requirements that would discourage Scottish small and medium-sized enterprises and third sector organisations—the very people that we are keen should win public contracts—we take a proportionate approach to addressing environmental and human rights risks in the supply chain.

In addition, we expect UK regulations to be made in due course, in line with schedule 17 to the UK Environment Act 2021. Those regulations will prevent the use of forest risk commodities that are derived from illegally deforested land in the UK supply chain. That will introduce an element of environmental due diligence. Given the range of legislation that is already in place, our view is that a new duty on public bodies is unnecessary.

If amendment 53 were to be passed, the additional burden would fall not just on the public bodies but on the businesses in the supply chains, through our commitment to the new deal for business.

Excuse me, I have to take a drink. Tonsillitis has reared its ugly head this week of all weeks.

Asking for a duty on public bodies is laudable, but getting that information would have a cascade effect on the small businesses that supply public bodies.

I support the motivation behind amendment 53. I supported amendments 72 and 77, in the name of Monica Lennon, which refer to “due diligence” and deal with the issue in a more strategic and less burdensome way.

I turn to amendment 80 from Mark Ruskell. [ Interruption .]

Kate Forbes (Scottish National Party, Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch)

Will the minister take an intervention?

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

Yes, I will.

Kate Forbes (Scottish National Party, Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch)

That will allow her to take a glass of water. Does she agree that all these amendments are making for an interesting debate?

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I thought that the Deputy First Minister was going to offer to go out to the chemist to get me some lozenges.

On amendment 80 from Mark Ruskell, I recognise the importance of encouraging businesses to play their part. I have written to the chief executives of the enterprise agencies to better understand what they are already doing on that, and I am challenging them on what more can be done. Highlands and Islands Enterprise has already come back to me and is talking about bringing forward net zero conditionality from quarter 3, to support organisations to transition.

I understand that the intention of amendment 80 is not to place extra burdens on businesses, but it runs the risk of doing so. I therefore want to take the issue under review and scrutinise what the enterprise agencies are doing in that space. If they are not encouraging in the same way as on net zero obligations and conditionalities, we will have to have a stronger conversation.

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Those are warm words. [ Interruption .] I will give the minister a moment to get a lozenge. I am on the lozenges as well. When do we go beyond warm words, and the writing of letters, to actual plans from the enterprise agencies? In the debate, there has been a lot of talk about burdens but, ultimately, this is about businesses and organisations becoming much more resource efficient and much leaner. That is a good thing for productivity and business.

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I broadly agree with Mark Ruskell. I believe that the focus should be on targeted action rather than on broad reporting requirements. It should be on supporting businesses to make changes in their everyday lives. I do not agree that a legislative requirement that is focused on reporting is appropriate, so I cannot support the amendment. However, the general intent of Mark Ruskell’s amendment, which is for businesses that receive public support to be cognisant of their duties with regard to reaching net zero in the circular economy, is laudable. I just cannot support the amendment. Also, I thank him for the intervention, which allowed me time to have a cough sweet.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

I call Maurice Golden to wind up and to press or withdraw amendment 99.

Maurice Golden (Conservative, North East Scotland)

The fundamental point of the amendments in this group is that, if Parliament and the Scottish Government believe in a climate emergency, we need to change things. Existing reporting requirements are not working, and assurances do not cut it. Where are the circular economy business models being procured? There are very few.

The Government has been in power since 2007, yet it is framing the obligations as burdens. In fact, there are opportunities to make savings and, yes, changes—perhaps there could be requirements in moving from capital to revenue budgets.

Nonetheless, there is a big problem. I will give one example, given the time constraints. The NHS in Scotland has purchased 129.7 million disposable cups since 2019, yet it has purchased a little more than 200,000 reusable cups. That is not an example of a circular economy business model but a very basic example of public bodies not applying the waste hierarchy. Therefore, we require things to change.

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

Will the member take an intervention?

Maurice Golden (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I am happy to.

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I thank the member for raising that point. That is why it is important that we have a debate on the issue. The member pointed to an area in which public bodies can do an awful lot more. This is an opportunity for public bodies to reflect on some of the evidence, such as the evidence that the member gave, and to see how they can do better in that regard. I applaud that.

Maurice Golden (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I appreciate those comments. My frustration is that this is a climate emergency and, unfortunately, there is no time for reflection; we need action now. There has been plenty of time to make slow, progressional change in that area, but it is not happening. We are sitting here, in 2024, facing a daunting task relating to what is required not just from public bodies but from individuals, the third sector and the private sector.

On that note, I press amendment 99.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

The question is, that amendment 99 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members:

No.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

There will be a division.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

The result of the division is: For 52, Against 60, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 99 disagreed to.

Section 6—Circular economy targets

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Group 4 is entitled “Deadline for and expiry of regulation-making powers under the bill”. Amendment 1, in the name of Graham Simpson, is grouped with amendments 2 to 9, 12 to 20 and 22 to 30.

Graham Simpson (Conservative, Central Scotland)

I have 27 amendments in this group, all of which relate to deadlines for expiry of regulation-making powers under the law. I do not intend to give chapter and verse on them individually. Given the minister’s current state of health, I invite her to follow the same approach.

At stage 2, I lodged similar amendments that offered the committee an opportunity to reduce timescales to either six months, one year or two years. I thought that those were reasonable amendments. None of them required a particularly quick turnaround, because if we are serious about delivering a circular economy, we need an ambitious pace of working. Like my previous attempts at stage 2, my current amendments would set a timetable for the making of various regulations under the bill and would give the Government of the day a deadline. At stage 2, I invited the committee to

“turbo-boost the bill under the dynamism of Gillian Martin”—[Official Report, Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee, 7 May 2024; c 47.],

but the committee and the minister rejected my invitation. In fact, the minister told me that she was not “about the fast lane” and cautioned me against rushing things “at our peril”. She did not want to be tied to a timeline that would require the Government to deliver regulations within two years, but she recognised

“the need to make swift progress ... and that timelines are important.”—[Official Report, Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee, 14 May 2024; c 30.]

I was disappointed by what I saw as a lack of ambition. We want the Government of the day, whoever that is, to deliver a circular economy properly, but also at pace. I did think that giving the Government three years was far too long. However, in the light of how things progressed at stage 2, I am opting for that now. Three years should give any Government more than ample time to make regulations, including the meaningful consultation to which the minister referred at stage 2.

In this group, I also have a series of sunset clauses that say that if the Government has not made regulations under those sections within three years, those provisions will expire. That should focus the minds of any minister, I would have thought.

I am grateful to have the support of Friends of the Earth on amendments 1 and 2 in this group. Amendment 1 says that ministers must make regulation-setting targets within three years. Friends of the Earth agrees that such regulations should be introduced as soon as possible. Amendment 2 says that if ministers do not hit that target, they should make a statement to Parliament to explain themselves.

Members will be pleased to hear that I am about to sit down. I will decide how to proceed with my other amendments after I have heard other members’ views on them.

I move amendment 1.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

No other member has indicated that they wish to speak on the amendments, so I call the minister to wind up.

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

Not that I have much of a choice, but I will have to keep my comments brief in order to save my voice. I am in danger of rehearsing some of the arguments that I made at stage 2. I will not go over them again, because they are on the record. Many of the amendments relate to regulation powers that are subject to the affirmative procedure, such as those for circular economy targets or for households recycling targets, and others, such as regulations to impose charges for single-use items, are even subject to the super-affirmative procedure. Such regulations would depend on the securing of parliamentary approval and the scheduling of parliamentary business, so they are at risk of being unworkable. Neither do I want to constrain the important work that would come first to ensure that we take an informed approach.

I will leave it there, Presiding Officer. I have had conversations with Mr Simpson. He knows my position: I am unable to support any of his amendments in this group.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

I call Graham Simpson to wind up and to press or withdraw amendment 1.

Graham Simpson (Conservative, Central Scotland)

I have nothing to add. I press amendment 1. We will see how that goes.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

The question is, that amendment 1 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members:

No.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

There will be a division.

The vote is closed.

Clare Adamson (Scottish National Party, Motherwell and Wishaw)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. My app would not connect. I would have voted no.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Thank you, Ms Adamson. Your vote will be recorded.

Michael Marra (Labour, North East Scotland)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Apologies—I would have voted no.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Thank you, Mr Marra. Your vote will be recorded.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

The result of the division is: For 29, Against 83, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 1 disagreed to.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Group 5 is on circular economy targets. Amendment 46, in the name of Mark Ruskell, is grouped with amendments 47, 48, 67, 77, 49, 100, 68, 78 and 79.

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

During group 2, we discussed the desirability of an economy in which the consumption of material goods and products that we use is reduced, together with their carbon life-cycle emissions. Amendments 46 to 48 mirror my earlier amendments 40 to 42, as they would insert similar provisions into section 6 relating to targets. I ask that members support those amendments.

I turn briefly to other amendments in the group. Scottish Greens support Maurice Golden’s amendment 67, which is in line with his earlier amendment on managing waste within Scotland, as discussed in group 2. We also support amendment 77, from Monica Lennon. As I said previously, it is right to take human rights and environmental due diligence into account when setting circular economy targets. Related to that is Sarah Boyack’s amendment 100, which would take into account the “carbon emissions associated with” the consumption of materials.

I move amendment 46.

Maurice Golden (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Amendment 67 mirrors my earlier amendment 65, in seeking to ensure that the importance of managing waste

“in Scotland if it is appropriate to do so”

is taken into account as a desirable characteristic of a circular economy that

“Scottish ministers must have regard to”

in setting circular economy targets. That would provide consistency between sections 1(3) and 6(2). For the same reasons that I outlined previously, I urge members to support the amendment.

Amendment 49 is a weakened version of amendments that were lodged at stage 2 with regard to setting overall circular economy targets. Circle Economy Foundation’s publication “The Circularity Gap Report Scotland” estimates that circular economy policies could result in our emissions dropping by 43 per cent and resource consumption almost halving. The UK economy is 7.2 per cent circular, which is above the global average. However, Scotland is trailing far behind, with a circular economy score of just 1.3 per cent—in other words, 98.7 per cent of the resources that we use are from virgin sources.

I would like to change that. Although my amendment 49 does not specify a target—as I did in my amendment at stage 2—it would allow for one to be set by regulation, however weak or lacking in ambition that may be; that would be the decision of Scottish Government ministers.

All the amendments in group 5 are positive, and I look forward to hearing more about them.

Monica Lennon (Labour, Central Scotland)

There is a lot of agreement on this group, and we certainly support all the amendments in it. My amendment 77 seeks to mirror my earlier amendment 72, which was already debated in group 2 and agreed to. Amendment 77 is about ensuring that the application of due diligence in relation to environmental protection and human rights is exercised in supply chains. That would ensure that those issues are taken into account when ministers produce secondary legislation, and it would provide consistency between sections 1(3) and 6(2), for the same reasons that I set out earlier.

I thank members for their comments, and I ask them to support Sarah Boyack’s amendment 100. As I said, we support all the amendments in the group.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Lothian)

My amendment 100 would ensure that targets that are introduced via regulations include targets for cutting “carbon emissions associated with” consumption. That is absolutely critical if we in Scotland are to bring down our CO 2 emissions and to meet our global aspirations and our commitments.

There was a lot of debate at stage 2 on what the targets will look like. Although the minister has given us some understanding of that, I am concerned that we still do not have a full grasp of what the targets will look like and what level they will be set at. We need to move to a circular economy to ensure that Scotland is responsible and that we cut our carbon emissions to net zero. Amendment 100 is essential to ensure that circular economy targets that include cutting carbon emissions are at the heart of the targets that are produced and set as a result of the bill.

One thing that is striking about the amendments in this group is the extent to which members have reflected on the discussion at stage 2. The amendments show that members listened to what colleagues said in those discussions.

Mark Ruskell’s amendments are important. They are about linking the consumption of goods, products and materials to carbon emissions.

Maurice Golden’s amendment about the overall target is key, as is making sure that

“waste is managed in Scotland if it is appropriate to do so.”

We should try to encourage that. It is not an absolute must, but it is critical that we get people to think about that and that we push it up the agenda.

Monica Lennon’s comments about human rights and supply chains fit in with that, and the comments that Ben Macpherson made on his amendment are also important. We need to think about how to develop a circular economy in which all the different sectors play a key role.

All the amendments in this group are really important. We support the minister’s amendments in the group, and we think that approving all the amendments in the group would really strengthen the bill.

Ben Macpherson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Northern and Leith)

At stage 2, we agreed my amendment that prioritised adding key sectors and systems identified in the development of the circular economy strategy to a list of examples of provision that may be made in regulations for circular economy targets. My amendment 66, which we discussed earlier this afternoon in group 2—I am grateful to members for supporting it—sets out criteria for identifying those priority sectors for the strategy, as colleagues will recall. Amendment 68 is a consequential amendment that makes it clear that the same criteria apply to identifying the sectors and systems in the targets regulations as apply to identifying them for the purpose of the circular economy strategy.

For clarity and completeness, I ask members to support amendment 68.

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I agree very much with Sarah Boyack’s comments about the fact that members have reflected on the debate that we had in this area at stage 2. For the most part, the revised amendments in this important group reflect the fact that members listened to one another and came back with workable amendments.

I will start with Mark Ruskell’s amendments 46 to 48, Maurice Golden’s amendment 67 and Monica Lennon’s amendment 77, which mirror amendments that were discussed in relation to section 1, and which I am happy to support, for the same reasons that I outlined earlier.

My amendments 78 and 79 seek to expand the consultation requirements for targets in line with those that were discussed earlier in relation to section 2 on the circular economy strategy, and I urge members to support them.

On Sarah Boyack’s amendment 100, I appreciate that there is a strong interest in that area from stakeholders who wish to see the importance of carbon emissions recognised. I absolutely agree with that sentiment. Section 6(3) contains a non-exhaustive list of possible targets. Although I recognise that the detail of those targets will be subject to further analysis and consultation, I am happy to support amendment 100.

Unfortunately, amendment 49 breaks the trend. Again, I understand why Maurice Golden has lodged it, but I note that, in its stage 1 report, the committee said:

“The Committee understands the need for a robust approach to setting targets and supports rigour.”

I agree with that assessment, as any targets will have significant implications and will require further detailed consultation.

There are no official statistics to measure overall circularity. Although the circularity gap report provides an estimated figure, it is based on different data sets compared with other measures, such as the material flow accounts produced by Zero Waste Scotland. The circularity gap report also highlights the fact that significant elements, such as extraction rates, are driven by areas that are outside Scotland’s control, such as fossil fuel extraction. I have set out an approach to setting targets that is based on the development of a monitoring and indicator framework to ensure consistency and certainty of data on which targets can be based. Unfortunately, amendment 49 pre-empts that process, so I cannot support it.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

I call Mark Ruskell to wind up and to press or withdraw amendment 46.

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I have no more comments to add. I press amendment 46.

Amendment 46 agreed to.

Amendments 47 and 48 moved—[Mark Ruskell]—and agreed to.

Amendment 67 moved—[Maurice Golden]—and agreed to.

Amendment 77 moved—[Monica Lennon]—and agreed to.

Amendment 49 moved—[Maurice Golden].

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

The question is, that amendment 49 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members:

No.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

There will be a division.

The vote is closed.

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I had difficulty reconnecting to my system. I would have voted no.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Thank you, Ms Robison. Your vote will be recorded.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

The result of the division is: For 47, Against 67, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 49 disagreed to.

Amendment 100 moved—[Sarah Boyack]—and agreed to.

Amendment 68 moved—[Ben Macpherson]—and agreed to.

Amendments 78 and 79 moved—[Gillian Martin]—and agreed to.

Amendments 2 and 3 not moved.

After section 7

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Group 6 is on recycling targets. Amendment 50, in the name of Maurice Golden, is grouped with amendments 69, 52, 51, 70, 10, 36, 62, 104 and 91.

Maurice Golden (Conservative, North East Scotland)

A number of amendments in this group are really easy for the Scottish Government to support. Many of them simply codify the Scottish Government’s own targets but give them years extra—sometimes more than a decade—to achieve them. I am convinced that, given the years of extra time to deliver them, almost anyone in this chamber would be able to do that. We will see whether the Scottish Government is up to that very low bar.

Amendment 50 is on the overall recycling target. The Scottish Government has said that it could reach the 70 per cent target by 2025; amendment 50 moves that date to 2026. Progress toward that is actually very good and strong, and I am confident that Scotland will achieve it in any case. That is a very easy one as a starter for 10.

The recycling target for 2030 in amendment 69 is in line with the UK Climate Change Committee’s recommendations for more stretching targets in this area. It is definitively ambitious, and in that regard, I would expect the Scottish Government not to support it. However, I am ambitious, and I believe in the climate emergency, so that is why I have proposed it.

Amendment 52 is on a target for the household recycling rate of at least 50 per cent. Household recycling rates have flatlined for a decade and are currently at 43 per cent, but they are very easy to fix. The amendment allows the Scottish Government 13 years’ extra time to achieve the target that it set. I did not come up with this: the Scottish Government said that it would reach that rate by 2013, and the amendment says 2026. Being given 13 years extra to reach a very easy target should be something that the Scottish Government is able to support; otherwise, there are massive problems to address.

Next up is amendment 51, on the target for households for 2028. In this amendment, I have not been quite so generous. In it, I ask the Scottish Government to deliver a household recycling rate of 60 per cent eight years later than the year that it set for that target—so it would have only an extra eight years to attain that very easy recycling rate.

Amendment 70 is on the target for the household recycling rate being 78 per cent by 2030, which I appreciate is one step further. It is minorly ambitious, and in that regard, if members in this chamber lack ambition, they might not want to support it.

Amendment 62 seeks to ensure that reports on progress are made annually. We cannot have failure after failure, year after year, without some form of reporting. Such reporting is incredibly important, given the current Scottish Government’s proven track record of failure.

I am supportive of the other amendments in the group, and I hope that all members who believe in tackling a climate emergency will support my amendments.

I move amendment 50.

Graham Simpson (Conservative, Central Scotland)

I have a couple of amendments in the group: amendments 10 and 36. The bill will increase recycling rates in Scotland only if it introduces dedicated recycling targets for household waste and core materials, which I will discuss later. Those targets should be aligned with those that are set under the UK-wide extended producer responsibility scheme. Without targets, waste management companies here have no incentive to properly sort and recycle all materials. Introducing targets means that they would need to demonstrate proper treatment of all materials in order to receive EPR fees. That would drive improved recycling in Scotland.

Amendment 10 says that there should be targets for each core material, including drinks cartons, while amendment 36 is slightly less prescriptive. I am grateful to Monica Lennon for supporting amendment 36.

Monica Lennon (Labour, Central Scotland)

This group of amendments is important. It follows on from an important debate that we had at stage 2. We believe that the targets that Maurice Golden and Graham Simpson have lodged are critical to driving up action to increase recycling. We also agree that targets are essential, but, as we have seen in relation to climate targets, action is crucial. Given that this is a framework bill, it is critical that we set the right ambitions now, so that we can steer the right action to meet those ambitions in the future.

I have one amendment in this group. Amendment 104 is to

“make further provision for the promotion of reuse to assist local authorities to achieve their targets”.

That is connected to Scottish Labour’s concerns that, initially, the bill had a lot of focus on recycling but not enough on other important parts of the waste hierarchy, particularly reuse. Section 13 deals with targets for household waste recycling specifically. However, ultimately, it is important that we include provisions for the promotion of reuse wherever possible.

I thank Scottish Environment LINK for supporting amendment 104. The amendment recognises the crucial role of local authorities. Increasing reuse through the targets will help our local authorities to drive down the amount of waste that is ending up in landfill and will help to ease the transition to a more circular economy.

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I understand Maurice Golden’s intentions with amendments 50, 69, 52, 51 and 70, but I cannot support them. I said at stage 2 and in response to recent parliamentary questions that we intend to consider targets for separate waste streams and carbon-based metrics, which we believe will accelerate the reduction of household waste more effectively than the previous targets. That approach is based on the Climate Change Committee’s recommendations. Those amendments would pre-empt the detailed consideration and consultation that will be required before any future national statutory targets are set.

Maurice Golden (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Will the minister give way?

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I will finish my point first.

I reiterate that sections 6 and 7 already enable the Scottish ministers to set targets by regulations. Such regulations would provide for targets in relation to increasing recycling, reducing waste and increasing reuse. Although the powers in the bill do not require the Scottish ministers to specifically set national targets for recycling, the aims of the amendments could be achieved by the existing provisions once appropriate targets are developed and agreed through the co-design process.

Maurice Golden (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I appreciate what the minister has said, but I will make two points. First, if the intention is to go down a material and carbon metric route, why did the Scottish Government abandon doing that in 2012? Secondly, in response to a written question from me, Màiri McAllan said that the Scottish Government’s recycling targets are still valid—it is still attempting to achieve them—so why would the Scottish Government not accept codification of its own targets?

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

Mr Golden is right to point out that the original targets were set in 2012. We have now received advice from the Climate Change Committee that the best way forward involves using carbon metrics and identifying waste streams, which is why we are now taking the view that I have set out. After all, 2012 was a long time ago, so we are adhering to up-to-date advice.

We have set out our intention to co-design appropriate recycling targets for individual local authorities, using powers in section 13 of the bill, to help to drive continued improvements in local recycling. The development of local targets could inform and have an impact on future national household recycling rates. I reassure members that the development of appropriate statutory circular economy targets, including consideration of the potential for future recycling targets, will be a key priority for the Scottish Government as part of the implementation of the bill’s measures and the circular economy strategy.

For similar reasons, I cannot support amendments 10 and 36, in the name of Graham Simpson. The wording of the amendments presents some legal issues, because it appears to attempt to provide new definitions of dry recyclable waste streams. In doing so, the amendments would undermine the definitions that are set out in the Environmental Protection Act 1990. The existing definitions inform local authority and commercial waste collection, the transport of waste, sorting and reprocessing, as well as associated obligations such as the duty of care, permitting and licensing obligations and producer responsibilities. The existing definitions will also inform packaging and the EPR when it is introduced in 2025.

Amendments 10 and 36 imply that a target must be set “for each core material” in the code of practice. I understand why Graham Simpson has lodged the amendments, because we have discussed the matter. As we discussed, we send a signal to the market when we identify and prioritise particular waste streams, and I understand the desire to signal priority waste streams for the market view, which might encourage certain businesses to set things up relating to those waste streams. However, that is what the co-design process will do. I feel very confident that the co-design process will send such signals without any of the targets being in the bill.

On amendment 62, sections 5, 6 and 7 of the bill already provide for reporting on progress on the circular economy strategy and for monitoring of and reporting on the circular economy targets and any recycling targets that are set out by ministers as part of those targets. As I have mentioned, work is under way to establish an agreed monitoring and indicating framework that can be used to track different aspects of the circular economy and can form the basis of future targets. The framework will inform stakeholder input and engagement over the coming year. The aim of amendment 62 could be achieved by existing provisions, so I am unable to support it.

I very much welcome the intention behind Monica Lennon’s amendment 104, and I understand why she has lodged it. It is important to encourage the reuse of items, because that diverts materials away from waste streams. However, having deliberated on and assessed the amendments that have been lodged at stage 3, we believe that amendment 104 would allow for provision in regulations regarding recycling targets for local authorities that would be outwith the scope of their existing statutory responsibilities as waste authorities. Local authorities recycle waste, but reuse prevents things from becoming waste, so reuse cannot be a statutory waste function of local authorities. That is the difficulty with amendment 104.

For the amendment to work, we would need new statutory functions relating to reuse to be imposed on local authorities. The proposed addition to the recycling targets provision would not achieve the aims of the amendment. As I said at stage 2, local authority statutory waste collection and waste management obligations do not include reuse, so the regulation-making power in section 13 relates solely to the setting of recycling targets.

Monica Lennon (Labour, Central Scotland)

I hope that there will be a break soon so that the minister’s voice gets a little bit of respite.

I think that I understand the minister’s point about the statutory duties, but people in the chamber and outwith it will be wondering how the bill will encourage more activity in the local authority space to work with our third sector partners and others so that we can shift towards more reuse, which is really important. If we cannot support such a simple amendment, how else can we give effect to that?

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

There have already been a number of amendments that have embedded reuse into the bill as amended at stage 3. Local authorities’ recycling obligations include preparation for reuse—that is the avenue that we will take. In other words, preparation for reuse means activities through which products and parts of products that have become waste are made suitable for reuse. Local authorities also have obligations to manage waste with regard to the waste hierarchy, with reuse being further up that hierarchy than recycling.

The bill already makes provision for the code to address preparation for reuse but, as a result of some of the amendments that have been agreed to, we are embedding reuse into what we might call the prompts that we have for the co-design process. We do not think that it would be appropriate to prescribe mandatory requirements in relation to the provision of wider reuse and repair services, simply because that does not fall under the statutory duties of local authorities. There is a difficulty in that from a legal point of view. Therefore, with regret, I cannot support amendment 104 but, if it helps, I support what Ms Lennon is trying to achieve with the amendment—it is just a little bit difficult in legal terms.

Finally, I lodged amendment 91 to correct a minor error in section 13. The amendment does not change the purpose or intent of the bill, though.

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

We will not support Maurice Golden’s amendments in this group, with the exception of amendment 62. At stage 2, we discussed at length the drawbacks of setting fixed targets in the bill. Setting a recycling target for 2026 would give very little time for co-design with local authorities to take place and for them to prepare a detailed plan to meet their targets. We recognise that some local authorities are further ahead on that than others and might be able to meet a target of 2026, but others will not be able to do that. We need to ensure that everybody gets the support that they need to move together.

I am, however, convinced about amendment 62, which will require the Scottish Government to report annually on councils’ progress on meeting their targets. It would be helpful to have that additional information. I listened to the minister’s point that there will be reporting on the strategy alongside that, but a report coming to Parliament would be very useful, as it would bring additional scrutiny. That builds on the amendment that I lodged at stage 2 that requires ministers to report to Parliament if a target is missed, which is similar to a provision in the climate change legislation.

Douglas Lumsden (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I am struggling to understand Mark Ruskell’s argument. How can ministers come back with a report on where they are with targets if there are no targets? I am confused.

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

There will be targets, which will be co-produced and developed with local authorities. I am not interested in sticking any old target in the bill and then seeing whether it works. This needs careful co-production. I listened carefully to the evidence that we had at stage 1 from the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and from the previous minister. That is why we have reached the position that we are in. However, Mr Lumsden should take heart, because we will back amendment 62.

I am really tempted to back Monica Lennon’s amendment 104, because I am not seeing enough action on reuse. On Friday last week, I met Circular Communities Scotland and a lot of reuse charities in Stirling. Some fantastic work is happening, but it is not happening everywhere, and I am frustrated by that.

I listened to what the minister said—that reuse cannot be a statutory function and does not fit with the statutory duties—but, like Monica Lennon, I am at a loss to see how we then take things forward in this area in a way that is meaningful. I do not want there to be good practice in only one or two local authorities, while other local authorities are not following it—with reuse and repair, in particular, not being an option for people when they go to their waste management site.

Monica Lennon (Labour, Central Scotland)

Will the member take an intervention?

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Yes: I will take Ms Lennon’s guidance on what she now wants to do with amendment 104.

Monica Lennon (Labour, Central Scotland)

This is a really important contribution from Mark Ruskell. For clarity, I take this opportunity to say that amendment 104 seeks to place a duty on the minister when creating secondary legislation under section 13. It is not about putting that duty on to local authorities directly. Throughout the scrutiny of the bill, we have heard that there is a real appetite for more activity on reuse, and our local authorities are certainly looking for more guidance and support on that. Mark Ruskell says that he feels a bit frustrated; I would say that that is putting it politely. I have to say, in the gentlest possible way, that the minister’s explanation seemed a little bit on the weak side. I take the point about the importance of co-production, in the spirit of the Verity house agreement, but the issue is not one of directly imposing a duty on to local authorities.

It is important to embed reuse into the bill as much as we can. Amendment 104 simply adds that we should

“make further provision for the promotion of reuse to assist local authorities to achieve their targets”.

I am seeking to be helpful here, and I think that there is cross-party support for the intention behind the amendment. I hope that the Government can give it full consideration.

I am grateful to Mark Ruskell for giving way.

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

That was a useful intervention. Those of us who are frustrated at the lack of focus on reuse want to see it highlighted in the bill. I hope that amendment 104 is an elegant amendment to sit within the bill, so that it can work to drive progress from local authorities—notwithstanding what the minister has already said.

I do not know whether the minister wishes to reflect further on what she has heard from Monica Lennon.

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I would just point to the difficulties given the statutory obligations that are already on local authorities. It is all very well for us to promote and prompt reuse as part of the strategy but, for me, that is for the co-design process, and it is for local authorities to share good practice within that process, prioritising reuse—as they should be doing, given the waste hierarchy. I do not think that putting that in the bill will have much of an effect. I do not think, given the statutory limitations, that the proposal would be problematic, but I do not think that it will achieve what Ms Lennon wants it to achieve. I hope that local authorities are hearing us loud and clear on the prioritisation that we want them to place on reuse, and the co-design process represents their opportunity to prove to us that they can carry that forward and do the things that we want to see happening.

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I appreciate those thoughts.

At this point I will close and hand back to Mr Golden to wind up.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

I indeed call Maurice Golden to wind up on this group.

Maurice Golden (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I must admit to being a little bit perplexed at the Scottish Government setting targets but now being on record as wanting to vote against its own targets, despite it being more than a decade after they should have been met.

To be clear, there is no surprise to local authorities, which would have been expecting to meet the recycling targets in 2013, so 2026 is not a rush—it is a very long time afterwards. Many local authorities do a fantastic job and are surpassing those targets.

On the carbon metric that, around a decade ago, the Scottish Government promised to introduce, one of the main drawbacks, from the perspective of local authorities at the time, was that it would encourage textiles to be collected, but probably not glass at kerbside. That has unintended consequences for third sector access, and that, I believe, is why the Scottish Government dropped it then. It had nothing to do with any other advancement, but it appears as though, even though it was the wrong move a decade ago, it is suddenly the right move, and the other targets that were the right move then are now the wrong move. The new strategy is exactly the same as the old strategy.

For the past almost 20 years, the Scottish Government and local authorities have used a co-design process for recycling. That has delivered a very average recycling rate that mirrors that of England, to be honest, and is a complete contrast to that of Wales, which did not use that co-design process that the Scottish Government deployed, has now dressed up and is now going to redeploy and expect different results, even though year after year it fails to meet its own targets.

We are where we are. It seems that there is no climate emergency because, to put it bluntly, if we cannot collect household waste effectively at kerbside, there is no chance of achieving the transformational behaviour change that is required to meet net zero targets. We might as well forget all those debates about net zero. If we cannot do the basics, we should pack our bags, get in a gas guzzler and drive home.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Mr Golden, can you clarify whether you are pressing amendment 50?

Maurice Golden (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I will press.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

The question is, that amendment 50 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members:

No.