���˿���

The committee might have wanted one purpose amendment, but it has two to choose from, which is beneficial.

It is important that we have an indication of the purpose of the bill in the bill itself so that we have accountability for the Scottish Government. There are many similarities between Sarah Boyack’s amendment and mine. If either is chosen, there would be a subsequent opportunity to tighten up the amendment at stage 3, which would be useful for the bill.

As set out in proposed subsection (a) of the section that amendment 131 would insert, it is important that the

“goods, products and materials are circulated in as high a value state for as long as possible in order to extract the maximum economic, social and environmental value from them.”

That would be beneficial. Ultimately, it is for the committee to decide which of those purpose clauses can aid our movement towards a circular economy and improve the bill.

I gently point out that we do not need a circular economy strategy to be legislated on either, but that is a key part of the bill. The Scottish Government has already done it without legislation and could do so again. However, we are where we are, and we can play only with what is in front of us. If we remove anything that is not strictly required, I suggest that there will not be much for us to talk about.

What is key is that a circular economy strategy is defined in the legislation. I thank Bob Doris for supporting my amendment 210, which would be the logical conclusion of the argument: that the refillables promotion plan could also be moulded by the Parliament. That is really useful.

I have been waiting eight years for the bill, so I am delighted to be able to contribute to the circular economy strategy as a parliamentary process—rather than a Government process through which I would just find out about the strategy. That is great news. My point was that legislation is not required in order to make a circular economy strategy. However, I am delighted to be part of that process.

Yes.

Amendment 1, by agreement, withdrawn.

Essentially, the motivation behind the two amendments in this little group is, in some way, shape or form, to recreate the UK Climate Change Committee for the circular economy. That impartial body has worked wonders in holding the Scottish and UK Governments to account on net zero. There is a role for such a body in Scotland with regard to the circular economy, and, based on my experience in the sector over a number of years, I struggle to see how other bodies could fulfil it.

For example, the funding through Waste Aware Scotland, the Waste and Resources Action Programme and Zero Waste Scotland has essentially fulfilled similar but drastically changeable functions over the years, even though the Scottish Government has been consistent and in control since 2007. Construction has been mentioned a lot today. Members might be surprised to learn that Zero Waste Scotland’s construction support programme has, to my recollection, been cancelled twice. It was started; the Scottish Government took a different view and ditched it; it was restarted; and then it was ditched again. I am not aware of its current status—it might well be back. It is a similar situation with textiles.

The role of the proposed advisory body, which I think would be particularly helpful for the committee, would be to scrutinise Government policy and, critically, its application. We might assume that, if the same Government was in charge, there would be consistency in the application of policy.

Definitively, in this space, another major change—

I am happy to work with the Government on those points. Zero Waste Scotland is a private not-for-profit company, so we need to be cautious; my understanding is that it is largely reliant on the Scottish Government for funding and, as a result, you can imagine that, in order to manage its risks, it has to do what the Scottish Government asks it to do, given that the Scottish Government is paying it. I would see the advisory body utilising the excellent reports and analysis that Zero Waste Scotland produces, which members will have seen at first hand. Zero Waste Scotland could be useful to that function and that body, but I appreciate that there is more work to be done to put flesh on the bones of the proposal.

It would be useful if the body were brand new and, therefore, independent. I appreciate Mark Ruskell’s point about considering whether this could be a UK-wide function—that might make more sense—but in that case we would also need a UK-wide circular economy strategy.

One alternative could be to make the advisory role a function of the UK CCC, which is an existing body. My reticence about Zero Waste Scotland having the role is that, in essence, the Government would be funding itself to tell itself how it is doing with delivering policy. That would indeed be circular, but it is not the sort of circularity that we want.

Will Mark Ruskell take an intervention?

We have had a really useful discussion. It must be noted that the designated body could be an existing body, as suggested in amendment 141, and I think that there is more to consider in the proposals with regard to consistency in application of funding, policy direction and sector plans. Ultimately, I think that an advisory body would be useful, but, given the comments, I will seek to withdraw amendment 141.

Amendment 141, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendments 187 and 188 not moved.

Section 2 agreed to.

Section 3—Publication and laying of strategy

Amendment 2 not moved.

Amendment 3 moved—[Graham Simpson].

Yes.