���˿���

May I comment on that point?

Thanks very much. The question is really just to push a bit further. You have talked about the strategy. Would the strategy potentially have elements that would focus on different types of products, to raise issues up the agenda even if they are not in the bill?

I mistakenly included amendment 150 in my remarks on this group. That was because when I was looking at amendments 149 and 150 I noted that I would support them both. The key point is that we must raise the profile of the issue. Unless the bill is made stronger, it will not do that.

You talked about the practical experience in North Ayrshire. Do you want to say a bit about parents’ awareness? The statistic that 160 million disposable nappies are thrown away in Scotland every year—5,000 per child—is striking. Will you also say a bit about the costs? Consumer attitudes are important, but so is the work of the councillors who put the scheme in place and are keeping it going.

First, I apologise for being late. That was not my intention.

As with previous sections, I propose through amendments 100 to 103 that the word “things” be replaced with “goods, products and materials” in order to provide clarity. I hope that the minister will be keen to support those amendments.

On scrutinising section 6 in advance of the debate on this group, I still had a fundamental question, and it remains unanswered. What will the targets look like? When I met the former minister and asked that exact question, I did not get an answer. We are being asked through the bill to provide ministers with powers to set circular economy targets, but we do not have clarity on what those targets will look like or at what level they will be set.

I missed the opening comments by Maurice Golden, but I know that he has been pushing on that issue as well. This morning, I would very much welcome an outline of the minister’s thoughts and an answer to the fundamental question of what the targets will look like, because that is critical to ���˿��� being satisfied that the right targets will be set, that they will be supported by industry and civic society, that there will be a clear route to achieving them and that there will be clear routes to monitoring the targets and holding the Government to account.

I am under no illusion that all my amendments to section 6 will be agreed to, but I lodged them to test what the targets will look like. I would be happy to work with the Government, other parties and members round the table to develop those ideas further.

Amendment 192 would require ministers to have regard to the waste hierarchy and amendment 193 would require targets to be set in line with achieving the waste hierarchy. To create a circular economy, we need people to see more value in what they put into recycling or straight into their refuse bin. We have to raise awareness of the waste hierarchy and get people to think about it. For example, instead of throwing out a punctured bike tyre, could a person repair it, or is there somewhere locally where they could go and get it repaired? If a pair of trainers that they ordered from a website do not fit but they have worn them a couple of times, what other opportunities are available to sell them or gift them? We also need to rethink and redesign goods and products so that they can be used for multiple purposes. That requires manufacturers to change their designs and users to change their habits.

My strong view is that having targets would place an emphasis on all stages of the waste hierarchy; send a signal to producers, manufacturers and voluntary organisations, who already do a great deal of work in our communities, that the Scottish Government and Parliament are serious about creating a circular economy; and push towards that step change.

Amendment 104, in my name, would make it clear in the bill that the regulations in section 8 would not cover food products.

There are some great initiatives in which unsold food products are given to local charities or organisations for onward distribution. FareShare is an excellent example of such work that is already on-going. Also, there is a financial incentive to sell products before their use-by date, and a number of retailers place discounts on food products to make sure that they are sold. That reduces the volume of products that would be captured under regulations in that sector.

The regulations could also be challenging for the hospitality sector, which already has a financial incentive to ensure that food waste is kept to a minimum in order to increase profit margins. I am aware that restaurants already employ smart ordering and preparation to anticipate demand and ensure that waste is kept to a minimum.

Retailers, in particular, are concerned about the section 8 provisions and feel that measures affecting unsold food waste, in addition to a number of other regulations that will be placed on them over a short period of time, could prove challenging. I hope that my amendment can help to remove those concerns.

Amendment 198 would enable ministers to publish guidance on how the section 8 regulations would work in practice for industry. To support scrutiny of the regulations, the guidance would be published before, or at the same time as, the regulations are published. The guidance would be helpful because it would make clear to businesses the scope of the unsold goods that would be affected. Given that a number of businesses are already trying to repurpose unsold goods and/or divert them away from landfill, that would be helpful. It is also worth saying that there are circumstances, such as when a good is damaged or contaminated, in which it would be unsafe to put it to another use. In crafting amendment 198, I tried to address the committee’s recommendation that guidance should be drafted in consultation with stakeholders.

I hope that that will kick off a debate on section 8.

I move amendment 104.

You have managed to get in at almost my last line.

Part of this is about Governments working together, giving each other a heads-up on what they are doing and doing proper intergovernmental work. There are also lessons to be learned from the deposit return scheme—somebody is going to mention that in today’s discussion.

This is doable if we take the right constructive approach, which is what the businesses that lobbied us all in the past couple of years want. They are not against innovation; the issue is having early information and working collaboratively and constructively with the Government.

Convener, you will be delighted to hear that I am coming to the end. Important amendments to section 1—from Mark Ruskell, Maurice Golden, Monica Lennon, Lorna Slater, Clare Adamson and Ben Macpherson—would also strengthen the bill, and I am very much looking forward to the discussion. It is unusual to support so many amendments that colleagues have lodged, but there is a raft of constructive amendments to the section. In different ways, they would all strengthen the bill, make it more effective and genuinely promote the delivery of a circular economy.

I hope that colleagues will be constructive and keen to support my amendments to section 1. I move amendment 93.

There are rather a lot of amendments in the group. A number of my amendments would enhance the circular economy elements of the bill, with a focus on strategy.

The first couple of amendments in my name seek to strengthen the presence of the just transition principles. Amendment 93 would require the Scottish ministers to

“set out how the just transition principles are applied in the ... strategy”.

That is backed up by amendment 98, which would require the Scottish ministers to have regard to the just transition principles in preparing the strategy.

Amendment 99, in my name, makes it clear that, where the just transition principles are referenced in section 1, they have the same meaning as under the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009. Those principles concern the importance of reducing emissions in Scotland in a way that

“supports environmentally and socially sustainable jobs ... supports low-carbon investment and infrastructure ... develops and maintains social consensus through engagement with workers, trade unions, communities, non-governmental organisations, representatives of the interests of business and industry and such other persons as the Scottish Ministers consider appropriate ... creates decent, fair and high-value work in a way which does not negatively affect the current workforce and overall economy”

and

“contributes to resource efficient and sustainable economic approaches which help to address inequality and poverty.”

The Just Transition Partnership is keen to see those principles in the bill, and the committee’s report referred to that. The committee took a lot of evidence, and I know that a lot of reflection went into its recommendations.

Amendment 181, in my name, would require ministers to act in accordance with the “do no harm” principle in the circular economy strategy, and amendment 213 would clarify the definition of that principle that was to be used in the bill.

Amendments 94 to 97, in my name, would strengthen the terminology in the bill. That was a particular ask of Friends of the Earth Scotland, which the committee report referred to. The dictionary definition of the word “thing” says that it refers to an object that cannot be precisely described. Retaining the word “things” in the bill would leave us in a precarious position in using the eventual act to help us achieve the circular economy, particularly in ensuring that materials—not just objects—were captured in the scope of the legislation. I have a strong preference for the phrase “goods, products and materials”, which is so much better than “things”. That would really help stakeholders and those who will be implementing the bill on a day-to-day basis.

Amendment 184, in my name, would set out in the bill the waste hierarchy, which contains the seven Rs of waste management. The amendment would require ministers to have regard to the waste hierarchy when developing the circular economy strategy.

I appreciate that, through amendment 136, the Scottish Government would look to adopt the hierarchy that is set out in the European Union waste directive framework. However, I feel that the waste hierarchy that I have proposed is gaining traction globally. It helps producers and consumers to rethink their behaviour when it comes to the goods, products and materials that they use every day so that, when products reach the end of their life or the end of their use, people do not just automatically put them in the bin—instead, they consider whether there is a further use for them. I hope that, in relation to the circular economy, that will get people to think further up the waste stream and to think about how products are designed in the first place, so that products can be reused.

I return to the point that I made in my opening comments—I am concerned that we are not being ambitious enough. The Scottish Government’s proposed hierarchy refers to “disposal” and “other recovery”. It would be useful to get clarity from the minister on whether that covers incineration and whether that sits with, or in opposition to, the Scottish Government’s actions to move away from incineration in the long term.

Amendment 212, in my name, builds on the commitment on product stewardship, as detailed in the circular economy route map, and it comes on the back of suggestions from the APRS, which I very much thank for help with drafting. I hope that I have captured its comments in my remarks.

Producer responsibility and product stewardship are key areas where we can take concrete action in line with the waste hierarchy to redesign products so that they are designed from scratch to be kept in use for as long as possible. That encourages better product design, especially for durability and efficient recovery, and it inverts the current incentive structures, which favour producers who externalise their costs on to the environment more than their competitors do.

Amendment 212 would put product stewardship on a statutory footing and ensure that a plan is developed, so that producers are aware of the Scottish Government’s clear intentions. With extended producer responsibility—EPR—many businesses are already working on that, and having a product stewardship plan would help to further that work.

Thank you for that strategic intervention, convener. Yes. The point here is that lower standards mean cheaper goods, but that, whether we are talking about fashion or electrical goods, that is not good in a number of ways. Graham Simpson’s point was well made.