Chamber and committees

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.

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?

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.

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.