Chamber and committees

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.

We could go on the buses together in Manchester.

Good morning. That was a helpful opening statement, minister. Thank you for the clarification.

I note the information about the existing powers and what the instrument will do, but will more funding be made available to transport authorities? Having powers is really important, but we know that there are big challenges for bus services right across Scotland. I am thinking particularly about the Strathclyde area, where many of my constituents live. There are powers to run bus services and existing powers to subsidise services, but, when I speak to transport authorities, they say that they do not have the budget to do that. What can be expected in the months and years ahead?

That is encouraging.

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?