The next item of business is stage 3 proceedings on the Circular Economy (Scotland) Bill. In dealing with the amendments, members should have the bill as amended at stage 2—Scottish Parliament bill 31A—the marshalled list and the groupings of amendments.

The division bell will sound and proceedings will be suspended for around five minutes for the first division of the stage 3 proceedings. The period of voting for the first division will be 45 seconds. Thereafter, I will allow a voting period of one minute for the first division after a debate.

Members who wish to speak in the debate on any group of amendments should press their request-to-speak buttons or enter RTS in the chat box as soon as possible after I call the first amendment in that group. Members should now refer to the marshalled list of amendments.

Before section 1

Group 1 is on the purpose of circular economy. Amendment 38, in the name of Maurice Golden, is the only amendment in the group.

Amendment 38 reduces confusion and greenwashing by creating a single definition of the circular economy for all stakeholders.

It is important that we define what the circular economy is, and that is what the purpose provision would do. Clarification is particularly important, not least because we have before us a circular economy bill that, as drafted, will not deliver a circular economy. It is currently a waste and littering bill, although I think that amendment 38, and others to be considered today, can improve the bill and bring it closer to achieving a circular economy in Scotland.

I move amendment 38.

I very much welcome amendment 38, in the name of Maurice Golden, which is similar to one that I lodged at stage 2 that did not receive enough support at that point.

I also welcome the amendment’s language about “goods, products and materials” because I pushed that issue at stage 2. Having a section on purpose in the bill would help to provide clarity about what we want a circular economy in Scotland to look like. That would help to ensure that the strategy and targets that will be created as a result of the bill are coherent. It would also send out a signal to industry and consumers, so that everyone can consider their actions and behaviour and what they can change to ensure that “goods, products and materials” are kept in use for longer. It will mean not just talking about the waste hierarchy but getting on with managing our waste in line with that.

A section on purpose would also send a signal to the wider public sector. Local authorities take decisions every day about managing their waste services, so setting out the purpose of a circular economy here in Scotland will help them to make the right, focused decisions and will ensure that we progress towards a circular economy for the long term.

The bill is called the Circular Economy (Scotland) Bill, so we must ensure that it is not just a recycling bill. This purpose amendment would be incredibly helpful in delivering on the title of the bill and I therefore encourage members across the chamber to support amendment 38.

As I said during stage 2 consideration of the bill, although I very much understand the sentiment behind amendment 38, I cannot support it.

In the first place, the amendment claims to set out a purpose for the whole of the bill but, in reality, it attempts to describe a circular economy. As a result, its legal effect is limited and uncertain.

Specifically, amendment 38 refers to “just transition principles” under section 35 of the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009, a reference to which was included in the bill as amended at stage 2 as one of the many issues that ministers “must have regard to” in preparing the circular economy strategy. The majority of the other issues in Mr Golden’s purpose provision are already included in section 1(3) of the bill, or will be discussed later today as part of consideration of amendments relating to the circular economy strategy. That discussion will include additions to section 1(3) to recognise

“due diligence in relation to environmental protection and human rights”,

managing waste within Scotland, and amendments to section 1(4) regarding

“the wider environmental impact of particular sectors and systems”,

which I will be happy to support. Those changes to the bill will have direct legal effect and will allow Parliament to hold ministers to account for the content of the strategy, which will provide the overall framework for wider policy in the area.

In contrast, amendment 38 is not linked to the substantive sections of the bill and would not impose any duties or obligations, so it would have no legal effect. It would be unhelpful to have in the bill a purpose provision that did not reflect the legal effect of the sections on the strategy and targets, as they will be amended. The term “circular economy” appears only in sections 1 to 7, and the remaining sections mostly amend other legislation.

I am somewhat confused by the minister’s approach. Does she not accept that, given that we have a circular economy bill, we at least ought to know what is meant by “circular economy”? That is what amendment 38 sets out. Is the minister against having a purpose in the bill or is she just against Maurice Golden’s version of a purpose?

There is no international definition of “circular economy” and, if we included one in the bill, we would risk the terminology becoming outdated. Knowing Maurice Golden as I do, I think that there is a chance that he might end up creating an international definition of “circular economy” but, for the moment, there is no recognised definition of that.

Will the minister take an intervention?

No—I want to get to the end of my comments on the amendment.

In short, the Scottish Government’s view is that amendment 38 does not work legally and would not add value to what is already in the bill. On that basis, I cannot support it.

I call Maurice Golden to wind up and to press or withdraw amendment 38.

I am conscious that we have many amendments to dispose of today, so I simply press my amendment.

The question is, that amendment 38 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members::

No.

There will be a division. As this is the first division at stage 3 of the bill, I will suspend the meeting for about five minutes to allow members to access the voting system.

Meeting suspended.

On resuming—

We come to the vote on amendment 38. Members should cast their votes now.

The vote is closed.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Unfortunately, the app was not working. I would have voted no for myself and no as a proxy vote on behalf of Richard Lochhead.

Thank you, Mr Hepburn. We will ensure that those are recorded.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Inexplicably, my application closed suddenly, and I was unable to vote. I would have voted no.

Thank you, Ms Thomson. We will ensure that that is recorded.

The result of the division on amendment 38 is: For 48, Against 64, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 38 disagreed to.

Section 1—Circular economy strategy

Group 2 is on the circular economy strategy. Amendment 31, in the name of Mark Ruskell, is grouped with amendments 93, 94, 39 to 41, 95, 42, 65, 72, 96, 97, 43, 98, 44, 44A, 45, 73, 74, 66, 33, 75 and 76.

This is a large group of amendments, so I will try to be as succinct as Maurice Golden was.

Amendments 31 and 33 set out a requirement for ministers to

“set out improvement plans for ... Minerals”

that are critical to the green energy transition. The minerals include copper, lithium, nickel and iron, which are vital for renewables and for the battery technologies that we will use in the decades to come.

Members will be aware that mining those materials has serious social and environmental consequences, and that demand for them is going to grow rapidly. Given their importance, it is vital that the Government considers how reuse and recycling of those materials across the energy sector can be developed. We are already seeing focus on the onshore wind sector and on repowering turbines, and there are great supply chain and economic opportunities around that. However, planning and leadership from the Government are needed.

I lodged similar amendments at stage 2: I thank the minister for discussing the issue again ahead of stage 3. I recognise that primary legislation might not be the most appropriate place for this complex issue, but I seek assurances from the minister that those critical matters will be addressed in the Scottish Government’s work on energy policy—particularly the energy strategy and the just transition plan.

Development of a circular economy is key to tackling the twin crises of climate change and biodiversity loss. Throughout the passage of the bill and in evidence, we have heard about the importance not only of reducing the amount of resources that we consume but of reducing the carbon emissions that are associated with the goods, products and services that we all need and use.

We should always be focused on having an economy in which we not only reduce the amount of materials that we consume but reduce their carbon impacts. I am grateful to the minister for the constructive discussions that we have had on that.

Following those discussions, I lodged amendments 40, 41 and 42, to ensure that the characteristics of a desirable economy that are set out in section 1(3) of the bill include not only reducing consumption of products and materials but reducing their whole-life-cycle carbon emissions. That will help to lay the foundations for the deep transformations in the economy that we need to happen during the next 20 years, as we start to head towards net zero. I urge members, across parties, to support the amendments.

On amendment 43, during discussions with many stakeholders I heard about the importance of education and skills. In its stage 1 report, the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee highlighted the importance of behaviour change. I was pleased that, at stage 2, the Scottish Government lodged an amendment to ensure that that will be taken into account when developing a circular economy strategy.

Amendment 43 expands on that to ensure that education and skills are also specifically taken into account by ministers in the development of the strategy. The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development estimates that, globally, we will have 18 million new jobs in the circular economy by 2040. Our young people need the skills to access those new jobs. There is a precedent for that; in the Irish Circular Economy and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2022, there is a strong focus on education. I ask members to support amendment 43.

Another issue that has been raised regularly with me by stakeholders is the importance of action to move up the waste hierarchy—in particular, strengthening of the commitment to reuse schemes such as refill and take-back. Amendment 44 would insert in section 1 a requirement that

“In preparing the circular economy strategy, the Scottish Ministers must have regard to the role that reuse, refill and take-back schemes have in contributing to the development of a circular economy.”

I again thank the minister for our discussions on the matter. I am sure that, during our proceedings this afternoon, she will receive many thanks for the positive cross-party discussions that have taken place throughout stages 2 and 3.

I welcome the minister’s commitment to developing a product stewardship plan as part of the draft waste and circular economy route map, which will take those issues fully into account.

I believe that my amendment 44 would ensure that those issues would be actively considered. I note, though, that Maurice Golden has lodged amendment 44A, which is an amendment to my amendment 44, to add detail to how such schemes

“will prioritise products and packaging”.

It is important to ensure that there is flexibility in how all manner of potential reuse, refill and take-back schemes are developed. It is therefore important that the Government has flexibility, so I urge members to support amendment 44 as it stands, without Mr Golden’s amendment to my amendment.

Given that I am opening the debate on this group, I will offer some brief remarks on other amendments in the group. Clare Adamson’s amendment 45 and Bob Doris’s amendment 73 would add important requirements for ministers to

“have regard to ... workplace safety”

and “international impacts” when preparing the strategy. I will be happy to support those.

I will also support Monica Lennon’s amendment 95, which would require that reusable items be prioritised over single-use items in the strategy wherever possible. I know that it will not be possible to do so in every case, but it is important to have that aim. Amendment 95 is supported by many non-governmental organisations, and I hope that the minister will consider supporting it, too.

I will also support Maurice Golden’s amendment 98, which requires ministers to “have regard to” critical sectors that have come up in evidence, “including construction”, when preparing the strategy.

Finally, I have sympathy with the thinking behind Maurice Golden’s amendment 65 and Sarah Boyack’s amendment 93, on ensuring that waste is “managed in Scotland” rather than being shipped overseas, but I will listen to the minister’s arguments before I make up my mind on those.

I move amendment 31.

Amendment 93, which is in my name, would require the circular economy strategy to set out how offshoring of waste would be reduced. During our discussions at stage 2, there was considerable support for attempts to ensure that the offshoring of Scotland’s waste is reduced through the bill’s provisions.

Statistics that were published last year by the Scottish Environment Protection Agency revealed that 6,500 tonnes of waste had been shipped overseas from Scotland between 2018 and 2022. If the bill is to achieve a truly circular economy, that needs to stop. That is why it is essential that the strategy sets out steps to reduce offshoring of waste. I have seen the impact of rubbish littering coastlines abroad. We need to ensure that we do the right thing here.

Amendment 96, in my name, would strengthen the requirements that the Scottish ministers must take into account when devising the circular economy strategy. A number of them reflect the purposes of a circular economy. It is my expectation that amendment 96 would ensure that the strategy would take those factors into account.

There is a raft of really positive amendments in the group. Those from Mark Ruskell, Maurice Golden and Ben Macpherson cover important issues including critical materials and the

“whole life-cycle carbon emissions of goods”.

Maurice Golden’s amendment 98 highlights the need to ensure that key sectors of the economy are involved in the creation of a strategy that reduces the impact of waste. Reduction of

“construction materials, steel, plastics and textiles”

is good not only for our waste economy but for our climate.

Sarah Boyack has made excellent points in support of her amendment 98. Does she share my frustration at the Government’s lack of a joined-up strategy on those aspects—in particular, on green steel? We export enough steel to be self-sufficient in steel manufacturing, but there is no link to initiatives such as the development of electric arc furnaces to ensure proper circular use of steel in our country.

I clarify that amendment 98 is not in my name but in Maurice Golden’s; I am simply indicating my support for it. However, I very much agree with Paul Sweeney’s point.

Ben Macpherson’s amendment 66 highlights several issues that we need to address. Clare Adamson’s amendment 45, on the importance of consumer and workplace safety, also mentions critical factors and needs to be supported. My colleague Monica Lennon has lodged a series of excellent amendments, which I hope members will support.

I am conscious that this will be a long debate, so I will not make a mini-speech on every amendment.

I agree with Sarah Boyack—there are some important amendments in the group. I will not speak to them all, but I think that Mark Ruskell, in opening consideration of the group, got off to a good start—in particular, with regard to his amendment on “critical minerals”.

As many people have pointed out during scrutiny of the bill, it is a framework bill, which means that the main effects of the legislation will become apparent later, after publication of the secondary legislation and strategy. It is important, therefore—indeed, it is crucial—that we get things right at this stage. That includes ensuring that the right requirements for the strategy are in the text of the bill. The amendments in the group are therefore important, as we have heard.

My amendments 94 and 97 seek to strengthen the bill’s alignment with the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009. At stage 2, the Scottish Government lodged an amendment requiring ministers to

“have regard to the just transition principles set out in ... the Climate Change ... Act”.

However, that amendment did not include all the subsections in section 35 of the 2009 act, which contain specific requirements for the climate change plan in relation to employment, the regions, and support for the workforce, businesses and communities.

Key stakeholders, including the Just Transition Partnership and Friends of the Earth Scotland, agree with Scottish Labour that the definition of “just transition” that we have seen at stage 2 is too narrow. Amendments 94 and 97 would implement subsections (20) and (21) of section 35 of the 2009 act. That is important, because it would require the Scottish Government to consider

“how any proposals and policies”

will

“affect different sectors ... and ... regions”

of the economy; to support sectoral and regional developments; and to

“set out ... costs and benefits”

of policies. I ask colleagues to back amendments 94 and 97 in order to draw from the best practice in the 2009 act and to ensure that our transition towards a circular economy is a just transition.

Amendment 72 would require the strategy to consider human rights and environment impacts in supply chains. I thank Friends of the Earth Scotland and Scottish Environment LINK for supporting amendment 72, and I thank the Minister for Climate Action for engaging constructively with me and with Scottish Labour on the amendment following stage 2.

During stage 2, we discussed at length the impact of policy in Scotland on other countries, in particular with regard to how resource demand here can impact on other parts of the world, especially in the global south, in both an environmental context and a human rights context. The importance of due diligence in supply chains was highlighted many times. Amendment 72 would strengthen the strategy’s commitment to

“due diligence ... in supply chains”,

thereby ensuring that we maximise the environmental and social benefits in Scotland and internationally.

I am grateful to Mark Ruskell for his support for amendment 95, which aims to strengthen the strategy with regard to promoting reuse. At stage 1, we heard concerns that the bill was too recycling focused; some people called it “a recycling bill”. People were looking for more on other aspects of the waste hierarchy—in particular, reuse.

I am pleased, therefore, that the Scottish Government has sought to address that further at stage 2 and to provide more reassurance. Scottish Labour would, however, like the bill to go further and to strengthen the provision in relation to the waste hierarchy. My amendment 95, which would require that

“reusable items are given priority over single-use items wherever possible”,

is backed by key stakeholders, including Scottish Environment LINK’s sustainable economy group, which has provided valuable expertise in scrutiny of the matter.

Amendment 74 relates to how ministers prepare the circular economy strategy, and states that they

“must have regard to ... encouraging equal opportunities ... and ... furthering the reduction of inequalities of outcome which result from socio-economic disadvantage.”

The minister and I had some good discussions in which we agreed that we need to take a gender-sensitive approach when we are thinking about transitioning towards a circular economy. I will not talk about nappies too much just now, because that will come in a later group, but it was through our discussion of how an item—I see that Douglas Lumsden is giggling. I am sure that he will have a lot to say on that later.

That is partly the point; there is a wee bit of embarrassment about items such as nappies. That led us into a discussion about stigma and the gendered aspects of the issue, which is perhaps why we have noticed that there is not enough policy development in that regard.

There is certainly not any embarrassment about nappies; I am just surprised that Monica Lennon did not raise the issue sooner.

I aim to surprise. We will talk about the issue later.

Amendment 74 speaks for itself, and I hope that members will support it. I am pleased to have worked closely with the minister on it.

I will make a final comment on amendment 45, which is in the name of Clare Adamson. It is an important amendment, as others have said. I know from my work chairing the cross-party group on construction that there is a lot of support for what the amendment proposes. In the interests of time, I will leave it there. I hope that colleagues will also support amendment 45.

My amendment 39 is about a refillables promotion plan; such plans have proven environmental benefits. It links to amendments 44 and 44A, which I will come to shortly. Amendment 65 is on managing waste locally—I raised that issue during stage 2—which limits the impact of our waste on other countries, creates economic opportunities and reduces environmental impacts, such as from the transport of waste. Section 1(3) sets out the desirable characteristics of a circular economy that Scottish ministers must have regard to. Amendment 65 would insert into that section wording such that those characteristics would include an economy in which

“waste is managed in Scotland if it is appropriate to do so.”

There are, of course, always logistical and economic implications to take into account when managing waste. I thank the minister for his constructive engagement in developing an amendment that recognises the importance of managing waste in Scotland if it is appropriate to do so.

Amendment 98 is important in that it highlights the sectors of the Scottish economy that are material based. It does not exclude other sectors, and I think that a case can be made for others. It highlights the construction sector, given that 40 per cent of emissions come from construction in our built environment. On steel, the Scottish “Draft Energy Strategy and Just Transition Plan” does not consider the material demand from the policies in it, and that needs to change. On plastics, the Ellen MacArthur Foundation has said that there could be more plastic in the ocean by weight than fish by 2050. Clearly, there is action to be taken there.

My favourite sector is perhaps textiles, because it is very much forgotten. The zero waste programme for Scotland has been cancelled, reinstated and cancelled again before being reinstated, so it is clear that there is not a comprehensive action plan. The Scottish Government has consulted on parts of it, but there is nothing in the bill that represents a comprehensive action plan on textiles. When we consider that around 30 per cent of clothing in our wardrobes has not been worn for at least a year, and that £140 million-worth of clothing is sent to landfill each year in the United Kingdom, it is clear that things need to change. That is why I believe that, in relation to textiles, we should be designing for circularity, implementing circular economy business models, closing the loop on materials and, finally, encouraging consumer behaviour change.

I turn to Mark Ruskell’s amendment 44, which I think is positive but perhaps lacks teeth. My amendment 44A seeks to rectify that by detailing how reuse, refill and take-back schemes would be rolled out. That would create a deep understanding of those products and packaging options.

There are a number of amendments in the group that I will not cover individually other than to say that I am generally positive about them and will listen to the case that members make.

I will limit my comments to amendment 45.

At stage 2, I lodged a probing amendment on the challenges of electrical safety in the workplace and for consumers. I put on record my thanks to Electrical Safety First, the Royal Society of Chemistry and other members of the cross-party group on accident prevention and safety awareness for raising those concerns. I was also heartened by the cross-party interest in the probing amendment.

Amendment 45 has timely relevance, given recent fires in the waste industry. I thank the minister for working with me to ensure that safety considerations for consumers and workplaces will be taken into account in the development of the strategy.

I ask members to support amendment 45.

During stage 2, there was an important discussion about the impacts of policy in Scotland on other parts of the world—in particular, the impact on the global south. Resource use here can have negative impacts on communities and environments elsewhere.

I acknowledge the role of the Scottish Catholic International Aid Fund in particular in highlighting those concerns. I also recognise the input of several members across the chamber in doing likewise. I note that Monica Lennon and Sarah Boyack have raised those matters, at stage 2 in particular, and we have heard some of that again this afternoon. I thank the minister for her positive and constructive discussions following stage 2.

Amendment 73 would insert the requirement for the Scottish ministers to

“have regard to the potential international impacts of their circular economy policies”

in preparing the circular economy strategy. We have a proud track record in Scotland of listening to those who are impacted directly by climate change internationally. The 26th United Nations climate change conference of the parties—COP26—established a Glasgow dialogue between parties, relevant organisations and stakeholders to address loss and damage associated with the adverse impacts of climate change.

I am curious to know how Bob Doris thinks that we could measure the potential international impacts of circular economy policies in Scotland. How does he think that could be done?

I am not sure how that could be done. That is why the amendment does not call for us to measure those impacts in any particular way. The Scottish ministers would “have regard” to them. The precision in the amendment is important to allow Mr Simpson to support it.

I mentioned COP26 and the Glasgow dialogue because they gave visibility to front-line communities and those who are most vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change. Indeed, the Glasgow dialogue continued in Bonn earlier this month.

My amendment 73, which would mean that the Scottish ministers would “have regard to” the international impacts of our circular economy policies in Scotland, would embed in our domestic policy landscape the visibility that we saw at COP26. Together with the minister’s amendments 75 and 76, which will extend consultation requirements to persons whom ministers consider to have an interest in the strategy, including international organisations, my amendment will ensure that policies that are made in Scotland take account of impacts overseas, and will ensure a just and fair approach to developing a more circular economy.

I urge members to support amendment 73.

During the stage 1 process, the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee heard significant evidence about particular sectors of our economy and waste-producing aspects of our society that will need to be considered and which need to change in order for a more circular economy to be realised, as well as individuals and communities taking action.

At stage 2, I raised the issue of including in the bill priority sectors—specifically, construction, food waste and household waste. As other members have noted, construction accounts for around half of Scotland’s waste, so it is an important sector for us to focus on. I am grateful for the collaboration with the Built Environment Forum Scotland, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors and the Chartered Institute of Building in Scotland in considering those issues.

However, having listened carefully to the feedback from the minister at stage 2, I appreciate the Scottish Government’s argument that highlighting specific sectors in the bill might limit future flexibility. I have also been assured that, in developing and delivering its strategy, the Scottish Government is committed to making sure that those key sectors are addressed. Therefore, I do not think that Maurice Golden’s amendment 98 is appropriate, in the same way that my amendment at stage 2 was not appropriate—there needs to be flexibility in the strategy to address all the main sectors.

I am also concerned that the sectors that are named in amendment 98 are not defined, as I sought to define them or to reference other legislation in my amendment at stage 2. The lack of definitions could create difficulties.

I am grateful to the minister for engaging constructively on those points and on the issue of the major sectors at stage 2 and since, and for working with me to put forward an alternative approach, in amendment 66, of setting out criteria that should be used when identifying priority sectors and systems for the circular economy strategy. Amendment 66 introduces such criteria. In particular, it links priority sectors to climate change targets, to the

“life-cycle carbon emissions of goods, products and materials,”

to maximisation of

“the value of the circular economy”

and to

“wider environmental impact”.

That also takes into account some of the issues raised by Mark Ruskell at stage 2.

Amendment 66 would strengthen and future-proof the strategy in its development and delivery, and I urge members to support it.

I call the minister to speak to amendment 75 and the other amendments in the group.

This has been a really good discussion, and there was a good discussion at stage 2 as well.

I will start with amendment 66 from Ben Macpherson, because it provides a useful framework for some of my later points. At stage 2, there was a detailed discussion on the merits, or otherwise, of including specific sectors or systems in the bill. I understand the temptation to put them in the bill, but it remains my firm view that the circular economy strategy must be future-proofed and allow for flexibility, given that what is a priority now might not be a priority in the future, and new sectors and technologies could emerge that would not be captured by the legislation.

Ben Macpherson has set out eloquently today the case for providing a set of criteria that should be used when identifying those systems and sectors for our priority action. That allows for a consistency of approach without hindering the ability to adapt and react.

I appreciate the minister’s comments regarding the mentioning of specific sectors, but will she outline to the chamber what work has been conducted to create more circularity in the textile sector?

I will start with the fact that I have a charity shop suit on today. I hope that Mr Golden is wearing a second-hand piece of clothing as well.

Textiles have been mentioned throughout the debate, and that sector is a priority for us. I do not think that people realise how polluting fast fashion is, including how much from it gets into our water courses. Later, we will come on to amendments that concern our international responsibility, given that a lot of fast fashion is produced outwith the UK and imported. We should have better visibility of what we are buying. That communications piece is important, as well.

I hope that providing a set of criteria to be used in identifying priority systems and sectors allows a consistency of approach to sectors that we need to prioritise and enables us to tackle them.

Amendment 66 also addresses some of the issues that Mark Ruskell highlighted at stage 2 around environmental harm. I appreciate the engagement that I have had with Mr Ruskell and Mr Macpherson on this issue, and I am happy to support the amendment.

However, I cannot accept amendment 98 from Maurice Golden. As Ben Macpherson said, it takes the opposite approach by locking in certain sectors and materials. That does not mean that those sectors will not be prioritised, because Ben Macpherson’s amendment 66 strengthens the bill by giving the criteria for how we identify priority sectors.

At stage 2, Mr Ruskell raised the important issue of the resources that are required for the transition to a circular economy, and I am grateful to him for doing so. Amendment 31 refers to “critical minerals”, and amendment 33 provides a definition of those minerals. The same minerals are often called transition minerals.

At stage 2, Mr Ruskell asked whether it would be appropriate to put such a provision in the bill or whether there was another way for the Scottish Government to work with industry to ensure that the aspiration to deal with critical minerals is addressed in a sustainable way that can be reflected elsewhere in policy. He specifically mentioned the energy strategy. I have reflected on that and we have spoken outwith the formal proceedings. I have given a commitment to Mr Ruskell in relation to finding appropriate wording on that for the energy strategy. That important issue must be expanded on in the energy strategy. I am happy to continue to do that, as I am in relation to other sectors and minerals. However, I still do not believe that that aspect should be in the bill. For that reason, I hope that Mr Ruskell will not press amendment 31 and will instead continue to work with me. It has been worth while getting the issue on the record. I hope that he will work with me on the wording in relation to what we will do to tackle that in the energy strategy, which we will publish after the general election.

A lot of the other amendments in the group bring back and refine issues from stage 2. Monica Lennon and Bob Doris followed up on the concerns that they expressed at stage 2 and, for the record, that were also expressed by Sarah Boyack and Maurice Golden, about the environmental and international impact that any actions that are taken in Scotland as a result of a circular economy strategy might have.

I was really pleased to work with members on that. We had a lengthy discussion and were able to agree wording on Monica Lennon’s amendment 72, on due diligence and supply chains, which I am very happy to support, and on Bob Doris’s amendment 73, on international impacts, which is an issue that speaks to our climate justice responsibilities. Whatever the material impact is, we have a moral responsibility, so I appreciate members highlighting the matter.

During stage 2, Monica Lennon highlighted the importance of taking account of the equality aspect. I agree with her that we should use a gendered lens not just on this policy but on every policy. I welcome the constructive conversations that we had. I am happy to support her amendment 74.

Similarly, following discussions with stakeholders and with Mark Ruskell, who highlighted the importance of carbon emissions in circular economy policy, I will support his amendments 40 to 42. In discussions with stakeholders, the issue of education and skills was raised, and I am happy to support his amendment 43.

Maurice Golden previously raised the issue of managing waste locally, which I thought was laudable. Although at the time, in stage 2, I could not agree with the wording, I definitely agree with the intent. There might always be logistical, economic or social reasons why that might not happen within a specific local authority area, for example. After we had a discussion on that, we both agreed that we did not really mean a local authority area. The principle, which I agree with, is that waste should be managed as close to where it is produced as is possible in a domestic setting. I am really happy to support his amendment 65.

At stage 2, Clare Adamson raised concerns about the safety of second-hand electrical goods and the dangers of battery fires. I was happy to engage in further conversations with her on the issue. Events at the weekend in Linwood have shown how important that consideration is. We have cross-party agreement on the importance of that. Although I recognise that many of the legislative levers in this area on health and safety and on product safety are reserved, I am very happy to support her amendment 45. I also give my reassurance that safety matters in relation to the recycling of all materials—not just electrical items, but electrical items in particular—are being looked at.

Together, those amendments will strengthen the circular economy strategy and the bill as a whole.

Amendment 96, from Sarah Boyack, replicates a number of issues that are dealt with by the other amendments that I have just spoken to or that were addressed at stage 2. I understand her intention, but I cannot support the amendment as written.

I adopt a similar approach to amendment 35 from Monica Lennon. I very much agree that reuse is preferable to single use, but I believe that that is already captured in the strategy’s adherence to the waste hierarchy. Reuse is also referred to in other amendments. Therefore, I do not believe that amendment 35 is necessary, despite the fact that I understand the intent behind it.

The costs and benefits of our policy proposals will be developed as part of a suite of impact assessments that will have to accompany the strategies, so I do not consider amendment 94 to be necessary.

Amendment 97, in the name of Monica Lennon, would expand the requirements relating to the just transition. I agree that the just transition is central to the development of a circular economy, and I lodged an amendment at stage 2 to ensure that, in preparing for a circular economy, ministers must have regard to those principles. However, the level of detail that amendment 97 would require to be included in the strategy would be unduly burdensome. Such details will be dealt with in other ways, so, sad to say, I cannot support amendment 97.

Our approach to just transition planning is guided by our just transition planning framework and our national just transition outcomes. As I outlined at stage 2, we are committed to producing just transition plans for high-emitting sectors, sites and regions, and I have already said that our energy strategy and just transition plan will be published after the general election. We have sectoral plans for agriculture and land use, the built environment, construction and transport, and work is already under way on a site plan for Grangemouth.

On amendment 93, a large majority of Scotland’s waste is managed in Scotland, but Sarah Boyack is right to point out that it is not all managed in Scotland. About 15 per cent is processed elsewhere—that is 15 per cent too much, because it represents a lost economic opportunity as well as an environmental cost. However, policy on international waste exports is reserved.

Could the minister highlight how much of the plastic that is collected in Scotland for recycling is recycled here?

I do not have the figures in front of me, but I suspect that Mr Golden does or that he at least has them lodged in his brain.

As I was saying with reference to Sarah Boyack’s amendment 93, policy on international waste exports is reserved, but that does not mean that we do not do anything about the issue. However, I cannot support amendment 93, and I ask members not to do so, either.

I assure members that the Scottish Government is pressing the UK Government to deliver on its existing commitments to ban plastic waste exports to non-OECD countries and to introduce further measures to influence global markets and reduce imported and exported emissions, given the constraints of devolution. Sarah Boyack’s intentions are laudable, but they require work across the Governments in the UK to ensure that the incoming UK Government delivers on the existing commitments.

We will continue to actively discuss waste shipment regulations. The UK Government must respond positively to the Climate Change Committee’s calls for us to step up in that regard. I hope that that will mean that the four UK nations will be able to move forward in delivering on the intention behind Sarah Boyack’s amendment 93, but I cannot support its inclusion in the bill, for the reasons that I have outlined.

I call Mark Ruskell to wind up and to press or withdraw amendment 31.

I will not try to summarise all that has been said, given that so many different issues have been raised, but I will make a couple of points that are relevant to the bill.

In relation to amendment 66, Ben Macpherson made the point about including in the bill the right criteria and the right framework to prioritise action in certain sectors. There is a temptation to put everything in a bill—I am often tempted to do that—but that does not always work and is not always consistent with decisions needing to be made at a later time, often through co-production with councils, businesses and other stakeholders. The approach that Ben Macpherson has taken with amendment 66 is the right way to set out the criteria.

However, that emphasises the importance of parliamentary scrutiny after the bill becomes an act and of the choices that the Government makes on the back of that. I very much welcome the minister’s commitment to addressing the issue of critical minerals in the energy strategy rather than in the bill, but we will wait to see what is in that strategy, which will no doubt be robustly scrutinised by the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee.

Does Mr Ruskell feel that we should be looking at all critical minerals, not just those for the energy sector? By moving the issue to the energy strategy, we might not do it justice.

That is a reasonable point. I will make the point that the renewables sector is already really engaged in looking critically at how it develops more ethical supply chains and how it engages in the reuse and refurbishing of wind turbines. However, it is a fair enough point, and it shows that the Government, through its on-going work and strategies, needs to look across the piece at critical sectors and take action in relation to that.

I have a couple of other points. Sarah Boyack spoke about the huge impact of offshoring our waste and the huge impact on the global south, and Bob Doris reflected on the excellent evidence that we had from SCIAF on that. To answer Graham Simpson’s question to Mr Doris, yes, we need to look at how we measure that stuff, but we have had sustainable development goals in place for decades, and we should be building really strong indicators to ensure that we are not punishing the global south for our profligacy in the north.

Sarah Boyack’s amendment 93 refers to offshoring but, on balance, we prefer the approach in Maurice Golden’s amendment 65. However, I recognise that the associated amendment that Monica Lennon has lodged—amendment 72, which is on environmental and human rights due diligence in relation to the supply chain—is a really important matching element. The bill needs belt and braces. We could say that we are implementing human rights legislation, so the issues are already embedded, but it is worth picking that out and making absolutely sure that due diligence is put in place in relation to supply chains.

I will address one final issue, which relates to amendment 44A. I kind of agree with Maurice Golden on the strong set of criteria that are set out in that amendment for what we would want to prioritise for reuse and take-back schemes, but there may be exceptions. I point to plastic bags as an area where reuse and recycling probably does not have the biggest carbon impact of a reuse, take-back or deposit scheme, but where the measures have nevertheless been useful in driving public debate and behaviour change. Therefore, I do not want to be too restrictive on the Government, which needs to make decisions about what it prioritises. In that case, amendment 44 stands on its own.

Will you confirm whether you want to press amendment 31, Mr Ruskell?

I do not wish to press amendment 31.

Amendment 31, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendment 93 moved—[Sarah Boyack].

The question is, that amendment 93 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members::

No.

There will be a division.

The result of the division is: For 48, Against 64, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 93 disagreed to.

Amendment 94 moved—[Monica Lennon].

The question is, that amendment 94 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members::

No.

There will be a division.

The result of the division is: For 50, Against 61, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 94 disagreed to.

Amendment 39 not moved.

Amendments 40 and 41 moved—[Mark Ruskell]—and agreed to.

Amendment 95 moved—[Monica Lennon].

The question is, that amendment 95 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members::

No.

There will be a division.

The vote is closed.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. My app did not connect. I would have voted yes.

Thank you.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. My app was slow, and I had no connection. I would have voted no.

Thank you, Ms Constance. I will ensure that that vote is recorded.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. My app was frozen. I would have abstained.

Thank you, Mr Whittle. I will ensure that that is recorded.

The result of the division is: For 29, Against 57, Abstentions 29.

Amendment 95 disagreed to.

Amendment 42 moved—[Mark Ruskell]—and agreed to.

Amendment 65 moved—[Maurice Golden]—and agreed to.

Amendment 72 moved—[Monica Lennon]—and agreed to.

Amendment 96 moved—[Sarah Boyack].

The question is, that amendment 96 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members::

No.

There will be a division.

The result of the division is: For 48, Against 67, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 96 disagreed to.

Amendment 97 moved—[Monica Lennon].

The question is, that amendment 97 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members::

No.

There will be a division.

The result of the division is: For 47, Against 66, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 97 disagreed to.

Amendment 43 moved—[Mark Ruskell]—and agreed to.

Amendment 98 not moved.

Amendment 44 moved—[Mark Ruskell].

Amendment 44A moved—[Maurice Golden].

The question is, that amendment 44A be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members::

No.

There will be a division.

The vote is closed.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I could not connect. I would have voted no.

Thank you, Mr Brown. I will make sure that that is recorded.

The result of the division is: For 50, Against 64, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 44A disagreed to.

Amendment 44 moved—[Mark Ruskell].

The question is, that amendment 44 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members::

No.

There will be a division.

The result of the division is: For 96, Against 19, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 44 agreed to.

Amendment 45 moved—[Clare Adamson]—and agreed to.

Amendment 73 moved—[Bob Doris]—and agreed to.

Amendment 74 moved—[Monica Lennon]—and agreed to.

Amendment 66 moved—[Ben Macpherson]—and agreed to.

Amendment 33 not moved.

Section 2—Consultation on strategy

Amendment 75 moved—[Gillian Martin]—and agreed to.

Amendment 76 moved—[Gillian Martin]—and agreed to.

After section 5

Group 3 is on duties on public bodies and those in receipt of public funds. Amendment 99, in the name of Maurice Golden, is grouped with amendments 53 and 80.

The amendments would enhance the requirement on public bodies to install due diligence measures, which are required because public procurement, in particular, is still not circular enough. The weakness of the sustainable procurement legislation has been exposed in its not delivering public procurement that can pump prime the circular economy, but these amendments would support that to happen. In addition, thinking in particular about amendment 53, I note that, if this work is adhered to already, codification should not be an issue.

I am broadly in sympathy with amendment 80 in this group but fear that it may place too much of a burden on those in receipt of public funds. I am certainly happy to be convinced and hope that the current voting pattern, in which the circular economy is defined by indyref 2, will change, because the constitutional question is not, in my view, pertinent to this bill, which is far more important than that.

I move amendment 99.

Amendment 80 brings back an issue that I raised at stage 2. It would require businesses and organisations in receipt of public funding to report on their contribution to the circular economy.

That matters because of the substantial amount of money that is allocated by Scotland’s three enterprise agencies. The total enterprise training and support budget for 2023-24 was £423 million, which is a considerable investment, with considerable power to transform the economy.

The proposal does not set rigid targets for companies in receipt of public money but merely adds a requirement to assess how circular their existing practices are and to set out the ways in which they intend to improve on that, if possible, during the period that is covered by any grant or loan. It is a light-touch way of embedding thinking about circularity in the operations of businesses across the country and it takes a very similar approach to that in Maurice Golden’s amendment 99. I therefore hope that he will put the constitutional divide to one side and back my amendment 80.

At stage 2, some members raised concerns about proportionality and the need to ensure that the amendment does not place an undue burden on smaller organisations, which might put off potential recipients of public funding. I have listened carefully to those concerns and have considered them in this revised amendment. Rather than making a stand-alone report on their contributions to the circular economy, organisations could make a statement on the extent to which their activities contribute to reducing, reusing and recycling materials as part of their annual report.

Funding bodies would also be able to exempt organisations from reporting requirements on the basis of the sector that they operate in, the annual turnover of the company or the total value of the grant or loan that is being offered. That would reduce the burden because a public agency could decide that it would not add the reporting requirement when making small funding awards or, particularly, when making awards to small businesses. It will be up to the agencies to do that. That gives flexibility to funding bodies, such as Highlands and Islands Enterprise, to apply their judgment on a case-by-case basis.

This is an important mechanism. If we are serious about embedding circular practices across the economy, we must recognise the power of the public pound and should create conditionality for grant making. That was referred to in the Scottish Government’s 2016 strategy “Making Things Last”, which recognised the need for enterprise agencies to more seriously integrate circular economy thinking. The minister will remember from her previous role as convener of the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee that that was mentioned in the committee’s green recovery report in 2020, as we came out of Covid, when we spoke about embedding the circular economy in our grant-making processes.

This mechanism would also keep us in line with the European Union’s 2020 economy action plan. It is hugely important that we stay aligned with the EU so that we can rejoin when Scotland is independent.

Procurement is a key issue here. I am keen to support amendment 53 because it will raise awareness of the circular economy across the public sector. It will be critical for the implementation of the bill that that happens. Amendment 53 also links well with Monica Lennon’s amendment 72, which she moved earlier and which requires a strategy to exercise

“due diligence in relation to environmental protection and human rights ... in supply chains”.

It will be important to take a joined-up approach and to use the Scottish Government’s ability to produce regulations to make this happen.

The other issue is that giving a duty, as is set out in amendment 99, to every public sector body would make this a day-to-day issue. It would mean that public bodies would think strategically about their impact, their supply chains, their procurement and what difference they will make. That is critical given the huge impact that it could have in the public sector in making the circular economy principles part of everyday public spending.

I apologise, Presiding Officer, but I have quite a lot to say about group 3. It is important that I set out why we do not support any of the amendments in the group, even though I understand why they were lodged, so I want to spend a bit of time on them.

On Maurice Golden’s amendment 99, I agree that public bodies have a hugely significant role to play in delivering Scotland’s circular economy. The amendment highlights the role of procurement in particular, as Sarah Boyack outlined. As I said at stage 2, however, the sustainable procurement duty that was introduced by the Procurement Reform (Scotland) Act 2014 already requires public bodies to consider how they can improve economic, social and environmental wellbeing and secure improvements.

We are also taking action through policy. Public bodies should outline in their annual procurement strategies how they will use procurement to contribute to the response to the global climate emergency, and they should report progress in their annual procurement reports. That is already required explicitly to address climate change and circular economy obligations. Our latest annual report on procurement activity shows that, in 2021-22, 71 per cent of reporting bodies provided evidence of how they were addressing environmental wellbeing and climate change through procurement.

In addition, public bodies are required to comply with and report on wider climate change duties. Since 2015, more than 180 public bodies have been required to report annually on their compliance with the climate change duties under the Climate Change (Duties of Public Bodies: Reporting Requirements) (Scotland) Order 2015, which includes, where applicable, targets on reducing indirect emissions and reporting on waste.

I hear what the minister says about public bodies having all those plans in place. If that is the case, however, putting a circular economy plan on top of that should not be overly burdensome for local authorities or other public bodies. I am struggling to see why the minister is so against public bodies having their own plans. If the Scottish Government is going to have a plan, I think that public bodies need to have plans as well.

With respect, what is proposed would be burdensome. Amendment 99 would tie the definition of a public body to section 3(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002, which could capture several thousand bodies, including all primary care providers that deliver national health service services in Scotland, as well as other small and medium-sized organisations such as registered social landlords and independent special schools. All of those would be required to comply. That is my issue. It would be overly burdensome for those smaller organisations, it would be disproportionate for many of those bodies and it would be unworkable for all those plans to be approved by ministers.

I believe that continuing to develop and improve existing reporting requirements is the most appropriate way of ensuring that public bodies deliver on the circular economy, rather than creating potentially burdensome additional duties on public bodies at a time when public funds and resources are constrained.

I am not sure that I agree that what is proposed has to be a burden. Surely it is an opportunity. If Scotland is going to aspire to be a more circular nation, surely we need to encourage all our public bodies, regardless of their size, to play their part, and having a plan is really the start of that process.

Encouraging is fine, but requiring small organisations, such as those that I outlined, to have a plan and to report would be overly burdensome.

As well as procurement obligations, I will look to incorporate further circular economy requirements in further revisions of the climate change reporting guidance. That comes back to the encouragement piece and the fact that things are already in train. I therefore cannot support amendment 99. However, I will keep the matter under review. As with so many of the amendments, I understand the intention; I just do not want them to lead to unintended consequences.

Amendment 53 was also lodged by Maurice Golden. As I set out to the committee when we discussed the issue at stage 2, I whole-heartedly agree that preventing human rights harm and ensuring environmental due diligence are values that should be upheld. Our national performance framework has a very clear commitment to a Scotland in which rights are respected, protected and fulfilled.

A significant body of rights that is derived from the European convention on human rights is already hard-wired into the devolution settlement, and it is already unlawful for Scottish public authorities to act in a way that is incompatible with those rights. As I have mentioned, our national procurement legislation—the Procurement Reform (Scotland) Act 2014—includes a sustainable procurement duty, which requires contracting authorities to “consider” and “act” on opportunities to improve

“economic, social and environmental wellbeing”.

Contracting authorities that have a procurement spend of £5 million or more in any financial year must set out and report on how they comply with the sustainable procurement duty. That is proportionate. My issue is with disproportionate burdens on smaller organisations.

Although we can exclude suppliers for breaches of environmental and human rights, we cannot exclude companies from public procurement on the basis of universal, adequate due diligence. Rather than introducing burdensome requirements that would discourage Scottish small and medium-sized enterprises and third sector organisations—the very people that we are keen should win public contracts—we take a proportionate approach to addressing environmental and human rights risks in the supply chain.

In addition, we expect UK regulations to be made in due course, in line with schedule 17 to the UK Environment Act 2021. Those regulations will prevent the use of forest risk commodities that are derived from illegally deforested land in the UK supply chain. That will introduce an element of environmental due diligence. Given the range of legislation that is already in place, our view is that a new duty on public bodies is unnecessary.

If amendment 53 were to be passed, the additional burden would fall not just on the public bodies but on the businesses in the supply chains, through our commitment to the new deal for business.

Excuse me, I have to take a drink. Tonsillitis has reared its ugly head this week of all weeks.

Asking for a duty on public bodies is laudable, but getting that information would have a cascade effect on the small businesses that supply public bodies.

I support the motivation behind amendment 53. I supported amendments 72 and 77, in the name of Monica Lennon, which refer to “due diligence” and deal with the issue in a more strategic and less burdensome way.

I turn to amendment 80 from Mark Ruskell. [ Interruption .]

Will the minister take an intervention?

Yes, I will.

That will allow her to take a glass of water. Does she agree that all these amendments are making for an interesting debate?

I thought that the Deputy First Minister was going to offer to go out to the chemist to get me some lozenges.

On amendment 80 from Mark Ruskell, I recognise the importance of encouraging businesses to play their part. I have written to the chief executives of the enterprise agencies to better understand what they are already doing on that, and I am challenging them on what more can be done. Highlands and Islands Enterprise has already come back to me and is talking about bringing forward net zero conditionality from quarter 3, to support organisations to transition.

I understand that the intention of amendment 80 is not to place extra burdens on businesses, but it runs the risk of doing so. I therefore want to take the issue under review and scrutinise what the enterprise agencies are doing in that space. If they are not encouraging in the same way as on net zero obligations and conditionalities, we will have to have a stronger conversation.

Those are warm words. [ Interruption .] I will give the minister a moment to get a lozenge. I am on the lozenges as well. When do we go beyond warm words, and the writing of letters, to actual plans from the enterprise agencies? In the debate, there has been a lot of talk about burdens but, ultimately, this is about businesses and organisations becoming much more resource efficient and much leaner. That is a good thing for productivity and business.

I broadly agree with Mark Ruskell. I believe that the focus should be on targeted action rather than on broad reporting requirements. It should be on supporting businesses to make changes in their everyday lives. I do not agree that a legislative requirement that is focused on reporting is appropriate, so I cannot support the amendment. However, the general intent of Mark Ruskell’s amendment, which is for businesses that receive public support to be cognisant of their duties with regard to reaching net zero in the circular economy, is laudable. I just cannot support the amendment. Also, I thank him for the intervention, which allowed me time to have a cough sweet.

I call Maurice Golden to wind up and to press or withdraw amendment 99.

The fundamental point of the amendments in this group is that, if Parliament and the Scottish Government believe in a climate emergency, we need to change things. Existing reporting requirements are not working, and assurances do not cut it. Where are the circular economy business models being procured? There are very few.

The Government has been in power since 2007, yet it is framing the obligations as burdens. In fact, there are opportunities to make savings and, yes, changes—perhaps there could be requirements in moving from capital to revenue budgets.

Nonetheless, there is a big problem. I will give one example, given the time constraints. The NHS in Scotland has purchased 129.7 million disposable cups since 2019, yet it has purchased a little more than 200,000 reusable cups. That is not an example of a circular economy business model but a very basic example of public bodies not applying the waste hierarchy. Therefore, we require things to change.

Will the member take an intervention?

I am happy to.

I thank the member for raising that point. That is why it is important that we have a debate on the issue. The member pointed to an area in which public bodies can do an awful lot more. This is an opportunity for public bodies to reflect on some of the evidence, such as the evidence that the member gave, and to see how they can do better in that regard. I applaud that.

I appreciate those comments. My frustration is that this is a climate emergency and, unfortunately, there is no time for reflection; we need action now. There has been plenty of time to make slow, progressional change in that area, but it is not happening. We are sitting here, in 2024, facing a daunting task relating to what is required not just from public bodies but from individuals, the third sector and the private sector.

On that note, I press amendment 99.

The question is, that amendment 99 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members::

No.

There will be a division.

The result of the division is: For 52, Against 60, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 99 disagreed to.

Section 6—Circular economy targets

Group 4 is entitled “Deadline for and expiry of regulation-making powers under the bill”. Amendment 1, in the name of Graham Simpson, is grouped with amendments 2 to 9, 12 to 20 and 22 to 30.

I have 27 amendments in this group, all of which relate to deadlines for expiry of regulation-making powers under the law. I do not intend to give chapter and verse on them individually. Given the minister’s current state of health, I invite her to follow the same approach.

At stage 2, I lodged similar amendments that offered the committee an opportunity to reduce timescales to either six months, one year or two years. I thought that those were reasonable amendments. None of them required a particularly quick turnaround, because if we are serious about delivering a circular economy, we need an ambitious pace of working. Like my previous attempts at stage 2, my current amendments would set a timetable for the making of various regulations under the bill and would give the Government of the day a deadline. At stage 2, I invited the committee to

“turbo-boost the bill under the dynamism of Gillian Martin”—[Official Report, Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee, 7 May 2024; c 47.],

but the committee and the minister rejected my invitation. In fact, the minister told me that she was not “about the fast lane” and cautioned me against rushing things “at our peril”. She did not want to be tied to a timeline that would require the Government to deliver regulations within two years, but she recognised

“the need to make swift progress ... and that timelines are important.”—[Official Report, Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee, 14 May 2024; c 30.]

I was disappointed by what I saw as a lack of ambition. We want the Government of the day, whoever that is, to deliver a circular economy properly, but also at pace. I did think that giving the Government three years was far too long. However, in the light of how things progressed at stage 2, I am opting for that now. Three years should give any Government more than ample time to make regulations, including the meaningful consultation to which the minister referred at stage 2.

In this group, I also have a series of sunset clauses that say that if the Government has not made regulations under those sections within three years, those provisions will expire. That should focus the minds of any minister, I would have thought.

I am grateful to have the support of Friends of the Earth on amendments 1 and 2 in this group. Amendment 1 says that ministers must make regulation-setting targets within three years. Friends of the Earth agrees that such regulations should be introduced as soon as possible. Amendment 2 says that if ministers do not hit that target, they should make a statement to Parliament to explain themselves.

Members will be pleased to hear that I am about to sit down. I will decide how to proceed with my other amendments after I have heard other members’ views on them.

I move amendment 1.

No other member has indicated that they wish to speak on the amendments, so I call the minister to wind up.

Not that I have much of a choice, but I will have to keep my comments brief in order to save my voice. I am in danger of rehearsing some of the arguments that I made at stage 2. I will not go over them again, because they are on the record. Many of the amendments relate to regulation powers that are subject to the affirmative procedure, such as those for circular economy targets or for households recycling targets, and others, such as regulations to impose charges for single-use items, are even subject to the super-affirmative procedure. Such regulations would depend on the securing of parliamentary approval and the scheduling of parliamentary business, so they are at risk of being unworkable. Neither do I want to constrain the important work that would come first to ensure that we take an informed approach.

I will leave it there, Presiding Officer. I have had conversations with Mr Simpson. He knows my position: I am unable to support any of his amendments in this group.

I call Graham Simpson to wind up and to press or withdraw amendment 1.

I have nothing to add. I press amendment 1. We will see how that goes.

The question is, that amendment 1 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members::

No.

There will be a division.

The vote is closed.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. My app would not connect. I would have voted no.

Thank you, Ms Adamson. Your vote will be recorded.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Apologies—I would have voted no.

Thank you, Mr Marra. Your vote will be recorded.