���˿���

I am quite happy to withdraw amendment 1.

Overall, in relation to Bob Doris’s amendment 187, an enhanced duty of care by SEPA might help to improve traceability of waste, perhaps with reference to global supply chains rather than to the global south.

On timescales, we should be aware—particularly given that the purpose provisions were withdrawn—that the circular economy strategy, as it is defined by the bill at this moment, is essentially a waste and litter strategy. It is therefore not going to be transformational; it is, unfortunately, very much a rehash of existing strategies, branded as a circular economy strategy. That is where we are. As far as I can tell, that is the scope at the moment.

The bill has been eight years in the making and we have a climate emergency on our hands. Taking all that into account, I imagine the strategy is very nearly drafted and, therefore, that it could be done very quickly. I appreciate the minister’s points about consultation periods around said strategy, which could undoubtedly delay things. For a starter for 10, however, I note that with eight years of work and dozens of people working on it, the bill is pretty much good to go—subject to amendments, which might or might not change things.

On the SEPA guidance, if the circular economy strategy is already embedded, it will be a really quick process to review it. If it is already there, there is very little to be done. I therefore urge that we do that.

I gently point out that the whisky industry does not produce waste; it produces by-products. If SEPA applied that approach to other sectors—again, with the mitigations that it has to have regarding health and safety and pollutants—and if there was a general approach that we do produce not waste, but by-products, that would help to fulfil the desire for a circular economy. I might come back at stage 3 with more examples—AstroTurf is a good one and wind turbine blades are another. My interpretation is that SEPA has a little bit more to do, but the minister has made it clear that it is already there. If it is already there, the amendment will not change anything.

I turn to the purpose of the other amendments in the group. As we have touched on, amendment 133 seeks to ensure that products are

“managed in line with the waste hierarchy”,

and amendment 135 seeks to provide that the circular economy strategy must, where possible, ensure that waste is managed locally. For example, only 2 per cent of the plastics that are collected for recycling in Scotland are recycled in Scotland. Amendment 135 does not mandate that plastic be recycled in Scotland, because it might not be possible to have a plastic-recycling facility in Scotland. I would like there to be one, but if that is not possible, there we are. That is an indication of where I was going with that amendment.

Amendment 137A says that, in preparing the circular economy strategy, ministers must have regard to

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

They must also ensure that

“the prevention of harmful goods, products and materials”

is considered, along with

“global just transition principles”

and

“due diligence in supply chains”.

I will link amendment 140 to amendment 122. I considered naming specific sectors in the bill, but I felt that, in mirroring the climate change plan, amendment 140 provides the flexibility to include the relevant sectors that are mentioned in the plan and in the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009.

If we deviate from that approach, it becomes quite tricky to highlight a specific sector. As we have discussed, there are sectors that are at the forefront now as regards our thinking on the circular economy, but which might drop down the agenda. For example, food waste, which is referred to in amendment 122, is partly a subset of household waste. The construction sector is incredibly important, but if we highlight one sector over another—as amendment 122 seeks to do—we quickly go down a rabbit hole, especially given the technological advances that are made.

However, Ben Macpherson’s other amendment in the group is interesting and could potentially be beneficial, and it could be worked on, because we might want to have some sector-specific analysis. Again, it would be helpful for the minister and the Scottish Government to provide us with information on sector targeting, what might be achieved, what is possible and what lies within the parameters of the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament to do in that area. I am conscious of how important the construction sector is, and it should be part of the circular economy.

Would the Scottish Government consider rebanding different types of incineration? For example, pyrolysis, as defined by the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, is included in incineration. Further, an energy from waste system is different from a pure incinerator and could, therefore, be rebanded. Would the Scottish Government consider working with SEPA to delimit the different types of incineration?

In lodging my amendments, I was intending not to create an advisory body, but to achieve consistent scrutiny and application of Government policy. As I know from first-hand experience from the stopping of the textiles programme, people become worried about their jobs. That, in itself, is a waste of money. Has the minister any thoughts on how we could achieve consistency in application, which was the intention behind my amendments?

No, I have not, but it would be worth while to have a joint UK-wide funding model, if possible. However, the body that takes on the role might be required to be funded by the Scottish Government, as there will be no one else to fund it. There might be other sources of funding, but that will depend on whether the amendments progress.

The short answer is yes. That is why amendment 151 makes it clear that it could be a public body—that is the only thing that I would say. Zero Waste Scotland is on the journey towards that end, but it is not currently a public body. There could be an opportunity to reconfigure it to fulfil that task; for example, it is not uncommon in lawyers’ offices to have Chinese walls to ensure that, even within the same office, there is an ability to scrutinise actions. That might be another opportunity for Zero Waste Scotland.

For the record, are you confident that there have been no examples across Scotland of, for example, bits of kit from the oil and gas sector being landed in Aberdeen and defined by SEPA as waste, but for which it could be argued, from a circular economy perspective, that they are products—indeed, valuable products—that could be resold? Because of interpretation by SEPA or a different interpretation from another environment agency, such things could be, and often are, not defined as waste. Is it on the record that that just never occurs in Scotland?

Will the minister take an intervention?

Yes. The number of incinerators in planning throughout Scotland far exceeds what could be required for Scotland, even if we miss a variety of targets. I gently point out that we need to be cautious about our language. I would appreciate the minister’s comments about incinerators and the application of the waste hierarchy, which is a general theme throughout the amendments in this group and others.

Amendment 210 is an encouragement to the Scottish Government to ensure that we have a refillables promotion plan. Refillables are becoming increasingly common in the European Union, with some really interesting projects. I would like Scotland to lead the way. Having a refillables promotion plan would be helpful—particularly and crucially for smaller businesses or third sector organisations that might struggle to develop an entire system around, in this case, refillables. That is important. The Government could have a role in supporting them in that.

I will make some general points as a result of the debate on the amendments.

First, replacing “things” with “goods, products and materials” is useful. Secondly, it is important that just transition be embedded in the bill. Thirdly, although we should have regard to global supply chains, the committee has to be confident that, where the amendment suggests such, we are able to monitor and audit those materials. That is a general comment, because I think that we will come to that point again later.

I would appreciate the minister’s comments on incineration. We need to be cautious about using terms such as “a ban” on new incinerators. For example, a new incinerator opened in Aberdeen last month, which suggests to me that there is not a ban—or nothing in that form—on them. My understanding from Colin Church’s excellent report on the subject is that, from 2027 onwards, incinerators will be at “overcapacity”, to the extent that it is highly unlikely that finance would be available or that companies would be looking to go through the planning and construction of a new incinerator.