Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

You have said that you want the body to be independent of Government and that you think the funding flow is important. Are we being asked to support something that is fully independent in its remit and funding model, or would you be comfortable with a body that would be set up to be independent, but which would be fully or partly funded by the Scottish Government?

You already answered my question in part when you clarified that the intention is for the new body to be independent and not funded by the Scottish Government, but what do you anticipate will be the funding model? Have you discussed the idea with the UK Climate Change Committee?

I am sorry; I cannot see Graham’s face at this moment. My question was whether Mr Simpson has a preference. I know that he has two amendments and that he is offering us a choice, but does he have a strong preference?

Yes, thank you, convener. I welcome the minister and her officials. The amendments from Sarah Boyack and Maurice Golden are helpful. Having the purpose of a circular economy set out in the bill is helpful and common sense.

There is a lot of similarity in the amendments. It is helpful to see the explicit reference to the reduction of the use of virgin materials in Sarah Boyack’s amendment, but there is common ground between the amendments. I also recognise that the stakeholders have been helpful. I am minded to support amendment 131 in Sarah Boyack’s name, but I hope that further discussion can take place on getting cross-party agreement.

I am sorry but I have got my numbers mixed up—it is amendment 92 that is Sarah Boyack’s amendment. I support Sarah Boyack’s amendment 92; I think that Maurice Golden’s amendment is similar, but some of the language is a bit tighter. I hope that we can see some cross-party agreement on that area today.

Would the member agree to give way?

Thank you for the clarification. I heard what you said about “just transition” having become a bit of a buzzword, but I think that it is important that we keep reminding ourselves and everyone else that the just transition cause has come from workers and trade unionists. When we talk about just transition, it is very much rooted in the experience of workers, and we need a worker-led transition.

Again, I welcome amendment 208. Having heard Bob Doris’s explanation, I am less concerned about the definition of “regions” and “communities”. We can perhaps look at that again after stage 2. However, it strikes me that, if the intention is to advance a just transition, then it is also about that place-based approach. Grangemouth, for example, is obviously important in my parliamentary region but it is also of national importance to Scotland. I do not know whether that helps Bob Doris with his thinking. I hope that we all support what he is trying to do with the amendment.

Graham Simpson is probably right that those who have to do the reports and think about accountability might wonder what we mean by references to regions and different localities of Scotland. However, I think that Bob Doris can overcome those issues.

I am interested to hear whether the minister will put on the record that SEPA already has a lot of waste guidance on its books. My understanding of amendment 190 is that it is about the procedure for review to ensure that SEPA’s guidance remains aligned with the circular economy strategy. That is my interpretation.

Will the minister explain to committee members what she sees as being the mechanism for SEPA to ensure that its guidance, and how it is used, remains up to date, particularly where there is a lot of guidance on the books already? There is a need for a bit of reassurance around capacity and the schedule to ensure that guidance remains fit for purpose and aligned with the circular economy strategy.