���˿���

As a further intervention, is there an opportunity to reconfigure Zero Waste Scotland so that it is able to use the expertise that it clearly has and which is of huge benefit, while at the same time ensuring that it has independence on this issue? We have to be thoughtful in setting up new organisations. I totally understand the ambition behind Mr Golden’s amendment 141, but I want to tease out its implications and understand whether there might be other ways of delivering its aim.

Will the member take an intervention?

Your point about leadership is critical. I very much agree with you that, at COP26, Scotland put itself on the world stage in terms of best practice. Through the bill, we have an opportunity to follow up that best practice by embedding in legislation not just leadership, but an obligation on the current and future Governments to have conversations to make sure that we are not offshoring our emissions and our waste. I hope that you will consider supporting my amendment on the basis of that principle, which would deliver on the very issues that you have just raised.

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.

I will not move amendment 99, but I would like to discuss the matter with the minister in advance of stage 3.

Amendment 99 not moved.

Amendments 123, 186 and 213 not moved.

Section 1, as amended, agreed to.

Amendment 188, in my name, would ensure that the Scottish Government sought representations and views from international organisations that work in international development both on the strategy and on achieving the United Nations sustainable development goals in Scotland and around the globe.

It is important to pass the amendment, because our actions in Scotland can have an impact on populations around the globe. We know that waste is often sent offshore and that we outsource our waste problem to developing countries. That not only impacts on the environment there; it also incurs significant carbon emissions. I have seen for myself the impact in Bangladesh of waste from western countries—it is literally dumped on the foreshore, and it is absolutely horrific.

My amendment would ensure that stakeholders with views on those issues were consulted on the strategy that comes forward, and that Scotland takes steps now and in the future to ensure that we reduce the level of offshored waste and the carbon emissions that are associated with that waste.

I turn to amendment 187, in the name of Bob Doris. He spoke positively about the need to address the issue in question. I think that the amendment is trying to achieve a similar aim to my own. However, in crafting my amendment, I tried to anticipate and reflect the fact that things change and relevant stakeholders change. I have tried to provide flexibility in my amendment to reflect that, and it is not overburdensome on ministers to prove that they have consulted relevant stakeholders that represent the global impact.

I hope that that addresses Douglas Lumsden’s question about what the global south is. It would be up to ministers to engage in those conversations and to talk to companies that export waste from Scotland. I hope that members will think about supporting my amendment 188.

Among other amendments in the group, I very much support Maurice Golden’s amendment 1 on co-design and the suggestion that SEPA should review its waste guidance to ensure that it is in line with the circular economy strategy. That is fundamental, because SEPA is hugely influential and it is important that, as a key stakeholder in the Government, it is ahead of the game in ensuring that the bill is maximising its impact.

I have spotted that Graham Simpson has a couple of amendments in the group that give us a choice. If it was up to me and I had a vote, I would say that his proposal for requiring publication of the strategy within one year, rather than within six months, is probably better and more pragmatic. However, if the minister wanted to override my view and say that she was ready to publish the strategy tomorrow, I would be more than happy to see what happened.

On those remarks, convener, I shall conclude.

It is really striking that the first circular economy strategy was produced in 2016. There has been a huge amount of consultation on the bill. Are we not, therefore, at a point at which ministers could just crack on? It has been observed already that two years—not from now, but from when the bill is approved and adopted—is quite a long time off and we will be into the next session of Parliament. Again, there is something to say about leadership and getting moving on that critical agenda.