Chamber and committees

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.

I am looking to you for guidance.

Sarah Boyack’s amendments 93, 98 and 99 would align the bill with the just transition principles that I mentioned. Those of us who have studied the process closely will know that that was a key recommendation in the committee’s stage 1 report, and it is important that the just transition runs through all areas of Government policy, strategy and legislation. I recognise that amendment 137, which is supported by the minister, also seeks to achieve that, but I am a little concerned that that amendment might not be strong enough, because it requires the strategy only to

“have regard to the just transition principles”.

Sarah Boyack’s amendments would strengthen that requirement and ensure that the strategy is properly aligned with those principles.

Amendment 137A, from Maurice Golden, seeks to strengthen the minister’s amendment by including a more comprehensive list of items that the strategy must have regard to. However, it does not solve the weakness that is inherent in the choice of the word “regard”.

I support amendments 182, 183 and 186, in the name of Mark Ruskell. Amendment 182 would bring further clarity about how the strategy relates to transition minerals and about how we can improve in that important area.

Although amendments 184 and 136 have the same general aim of ensuring that the waste hierarchy is included in the strategy, amendment 184, in the name of Sarah Boyack, is stronger than amendment 136, which is supported by the minister. I would be interested to hear the minister’s comments on that.

I will get all my questions out now. I have a question about some of the language in Bob Doris’s amendment 209, which I hope that he can explain. The amendment talks about “regions of Scotland”. Although the amendment would make important provisions, I am keen to understand why it refers to regions rather than to council or local authority areas.

To go back to Maurice Golden, amendment 140 would align the strategy with the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009. I support that.

If I understand this correctly, amendment 122, in the name of Ben Macpherson, will fall if we back amendment 140. Because I welcome amendment 122, which is about construction waste, I wonder whether there is a way to bring it back later if it does not make it today. As convener of the cross-party group on construction, I know that the industry is constantly looking for ways to innovate around the circular economy and the climate crisis, so there is a lot of support for the inclusion of such an amendment, and I will be interested to see what happens with amendment 122. I will stop there.

I am grateful to Graham Simpson. I hear that he is inviting us into the fast lane with him, but is he not a little bit concerned that six months might just be a little too much of a challenge? We would want any Government to be able to do this properly. Is six months really reasonable?

What would your preference be?

We could go on the buses together in Manchester.

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?

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?