Meeting of the Parliament 26 June 2024
When considering a bill, it is always useful to have a look at what it is meant to achieve. To do so, we need look no further than the general principles, which we all agreed to. They are:
“to prepare and publish a circular economy strategy; to make provision about circular economy targets; to make provision about the reduction, recycling and management of waste; and for connected purposes.”
I said during the stage 1 debate that we do not need a bill to have a strategy—incidentally, I agree with the First Minister that we have too many of those—or to set targets. I also said that I had concerns about the framework nature of the bill, and that I would not support it if it was not improved.
When the marathon stage 2 ended, I was definitely of a mind to oppose the bill, because the minister dug in and opposed a series of sensible amendments that would have led to greater reuse and greater recycling, along with deadlines. She got her way to block those green measures with the support of the committee’s Green member—it was all very bizarre. I had to hold out hope that things would change at stage 3. To be fair, there were some very friendly and cordial discussions with the minister, but I have to say that she gave the impression that she was trying to find reasons to oppose useful amendments rather than trying to find ways of making them work.
Yesterday, there were a number of examples in which she questioned, quite rightly, the wording of amendments. However, the wording could have been fixed had we known about the issues with it. So much for the new politics that was promised by the First Minister. The valiant efforts on this side of the chamber to improve the bill largely failed. The one crumb that I had from Gillian Martin’s table was an amendment that would see us prioritise the reuse over the recycling of unsold goods in the waste hierarchy.
During the course of four days at stage 2 and a lengthy stage 3, that was it for me. There were no targets, no holding the Government’s feet to the fire and no ambition. Maurice Golden, who has been this Parliament’s greatest cheerleader for the circular economy, suffered a similar fate, and he must be feeling very deflated—he is deflated. He spoke earlier about the lack of market signals, and he spoke of his frustration. I do not blame him. The only thing that we can say was getting recycled yesterday was the Bute house agreement, as Mark Ruskell did the Government’s bidding for it.
The bill will not change much, but there are still potential traps for the unwary, such as a fish-and-chip tax—your suppers could become more expensive.
My test for the bill is whether it will lead to change. I have to say that I do not think that it will see us reusing or recycling more, as my failed attempt to push the recycling industry into dealing with items such as drink cartons showed.