���˿���

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.

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.