Seòmar agus comataidhean

That is a really good question from Douglas Lumsden. We can talk about the dress later. Amendment 132 simply says that we

“must consider and account for the extraterritorial impact of material consumption in Scotland”.

Saying “consider and account for” means that the amendment is not overly prescriptive, but we need to start thinking about the different tools, mechanisms and data that are available. It is about getting better at reporting. I will come on to talk about my other amendments, which make us think a bit more about due diligence and public procurement, but it is really wrapped up in what Sarah Boyack said about a just transition. If we simply say that it is too difficult at this level, we will not put anything into the bill and we will not really make the changes that we need to make. If Douglas Lumsden cannot support that today, I hope that we can have a further conversation.

Amendment 134 would strengthen the strategy’s care and regard for due diligence, which I have just mentioned, in respect of environmental protection and human rights. A couple of weeks ago, I sponsored Fashion Revolution Scotland to have a stand near the chamber. I know that many members here stopped to chat and sewed buttons on to the map of Scotland. That was about having fun and getting people to have a conversation, but it was also about reflecting on environmental and human rights disasters that have happened in the name of fast fashion and other economic activities, such as the Rana Plaza disaster in Bangladesh, which cost the lives of thousands of people and left many others with life-changing injuries.

What we do in Scotland has an impact. My amendments support Sarah Boyack’s amendment 181, which requires ministers to

“act in accordance with the ‘do no harm’ principle”,

as called for by the Scottish Catholic International Aid Fund and Siembra Colombia in their joint submission to the committee. I am grateful that my amendments are supported by Friends of the Earth Scotland.

Can I speak about a couple of other amendments?

This is quite a big group of amendments, and it is important. We want the strategy to be strong and effective and, I hope, to lead to policy coherence.

I have a few amendments in the group—amendments 132, 134 and 185—that all aim to improve the content of the strategy. Amendment 132 would do that by ensuring that the circular economy strategy considers the impact on the rest of the world of material consumption in Scotland. For example, items of so-called fast fashion are frequently bought in Scotland and they end up in landfill overseas. The issue is about how we can be more thoughtful about that.

I will look back at the important evidence that we heard from stakeholders at stage 1. We heard from Circular Communities Scotland the example of the Atacama desert in Chile and the appeal that we in Scotland should be not adding to the problem but helping to reduce it. In the spirit of circularity, I should say that the dress that I am wearing was from a swish event that was run by a local business, which asked people to bring along clothes and do a bit of a clothes swap to try to divert unwanted clothing from ending up in landfill and being shipped overseas. That was a small action, but businesses such as the Parkville hotel in Blantyre and the Angels hotel in Uddingston are backing those kinds of initiatives. If anyone is wondering about the dress—in case they recognise it as their own—that is where it came from.

Bob Doris is trying to be helpful, as ever, but it is also worth acknowledging that we are in an unusual situation. We have had a change of minister—that can happen—and the minister has explained that she has had very little time to engage directly with the committee members. That must also be the case for the many other members who have a big interest in the bill. From the stage 1 evidence and report, we can see that many stakeholders and people across Scotland have engaged with it.

Many of us have had conversations with ministers and officials, and there has been a change of minister, so we want to get as much assurance as we can that time will be made available so that not only members of the committee but others who have amendments will have time to engage meaningfully with the Government. I think that the minister has been hinting today that that will be the case, but we all want further reassurance about it.

I just wanted to make an observation. Bob Doris has done some really important work with SCIAF and others on amendment 187. I have listened to what colleagues have had to say and I think that it is right for Bob to be questioned on how his proposal might be delivered, but I am slightly concerned that some colleagues seem to be suggesting that they do not know what is meant by “human right defenders” or “the Global South”. Perhaps that makes the point that amendment 187 is really important—

I will, in a second.

I think that it is important that we mainstream this into our work. Perhaps the language in the amendment could be worked on, but the policy intent is really important. We all recognise that the climate and nature emergencies impact disproportionately on nations in the global south, including on indigenous people, who often are the human rights defenders risking their lives day in, day out, to defend their land, culture and loved ones. I just do not want anyone who is listening in today to think that we do not see the relevance of or the connections involved in this bill, because it all comes back to the polluter pays principle and the old saying, “Think globally, act locally.” We might not find a way of addressing the issue today—and I realise that we have not yet heard from the minister—but I want to make it clear that these are really important concepts. Many people look to Scotland as a leader on, for example, loss and damage, and if we are not sure of the meaning of those terms, we as members will collectively have to work harder on that.

I would be grateful to hear from Douglas Lumsden.

Obviously, a debate is required on the matter, but it is important that we go back to the evidence that we took at stage 1 and look at the submissions that we had from stakeholders who are experts in this area. I am sure that all colleagues, given a bit more time and space, could find agreement on this, but I would like to hear from the minister.

Fulton MacGregor has been very generous to constituents and FE workers with his time, but does he agree that this is not a communication problem but a political problem? Governments make political choices, and they are making the wrong ones. Can we not all work together to get the minister to finally do something today? Eight years is a very long time.

I join other members in thanking my colleague Richard Leonard and congratulating him on securing the debate. I congratulate him, too, on his passionate speech, which, from where I was sitting, sounded like a call to action amid the on-going and escalating industrial action in our vital further education sector.

I say to members here that if they are getting fed up with having to go along to picket lines and listen to members of the EIS-FELA union, they should think what it must be like for that union’s members, who are having to sacrifice pay and sometimes feel as though they are letting their students down. However, as we have heard, the students have their backs. If we are fed up with the situation, we should remember what it must be like for the lecturers.

Many of us have been out on those picket lines, and continue to go there. In my case, recently, the picket lines have been on the Motherwell campus of New College Lanarkshire, and up in East Kilbride for South Lanarkshire College. I see the same faces when I do regular visits. Recently, when I was at a graduation ceremony for South Lanarkshire College, in the setting of the Town House in Hamilton, where I was on the stage and could see everything that was happening, I could really witness the relationships, the connection and the love among the lecturers and FE staff and their students.

As other members have said, further education is not just about giving people their first chance, or even their second one; it is about giving them the lifelong opportunities that they need if they are to lead happy and fulfilled lives. It is also absolutely about our economy and skills, and about ensuring that we function and progress as a society. I am, therefore, not surprised when I hear that employers in my region of Central Scotland champion our local colleges. That is why I was pleased to sponsor a recent event in the garden lobby to shine a light on apprenticeship week and to hear from employers, apprentices and everyone in our community who sees the value in apprenticeships.

In the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee, which I sit on and attend every week, I hear about the importance of skills and training, and about the need to have proper community wealth building and to achieve a just transition. Everything comes back to further education and skills.

I want to mention some of the people behind the issues that we are debating. I am grateful to Fulton MacGregor for reminding us how long these debates and disputes have been going on for. When I was at New College Lanarkshire just a couple of weeks ago, I was able to catch up with Gabriel, who is one of the lecturers there. He has been out on the picket line for eight years and, for about seven of those years, his young son, Julio, has been on the picket line with him. They have recently made a video. I am not sure whether EIS-FELA members have put that online yet, but, if so, I appeal to everyone to watch it, because you watch a wee boy in the video whose childhood is passing by—yet here we are.

We hear colleagues suggest that the issue is perhaps just too complex. If there are ministers or people in positions of power who are finding it too hard, I would say to them that, given that there might be a reshuffle tomorrow, they should offer their resignation. To whoever is in charge of this situation, I say, “Do not walk on by, do not walk away and do not shut your door”. A couple of weeks ago, EIS-FELA members were in the Parliament in a room off of the garden lobby, and I regret to say that I witnessed the minister walk on by, even though those people had turned up to say, “Come and chat to us—we are here to find solutions”. Whether we are a minister or a back-bench MSP, we all have a duty to find those solutions.

I am glad that we are having this debate today, and there will be another debate tomorrow, but the time for talking must surely come to an end. We need action.

Okay. Fair enough. I am sure that the committee will try its best to help you to persuade colleagues that investment in bus services is absolutely crucial to Scotland’s economy but also to achieving net zero.

We know that Strathclyde Partnership for Transport’s current consultation on its approach to bus transport includes potentially setting up a municipal bus company. Would ministers support that approach?

I was feeling inspired listening to my colleague Bob Doris. Given that there are real challenges around public finances and we know that investment is crucial but that being able to unlock it is not easy, are you and your colleagues having discussions with colleagues elsewhere? It is not just about what we talk about in the Parliament. Can we learn from what is happening in, for example, Greater Manchester and the work that is being led by Andy Burnham that is a result of lots of campaigning and cross-party working? Are you building that into your fact finding?