Chamber and committees

Rape crisis centres are trusted emergency services and should be funded as such. However, more than 800 survivors of rape and sexual assault are stuck on waiting lists. If that is not shocking enough, 28 rape crisis workers face redundancy in the new year unless the Scottish Government extends emergency waiting-list funding beyond March 2024.

Survivors cannot wait, so will the First Minister agree to take immediate action to save those jobs, reduce waiting times and commit to long-term sustainable funding for rape crisis centres across Scotland?

That is great.

Lastly, we have talked about the environmental imperative driving the bill and the economic opportunities. The issue of public procurement comes up in many bills—not just this one. Some people have been asking what the expectations are on the public sector, including on local government, and what the opportunities are in terms of public procurement. Is that something that you can elaborate on?

Thank you for that—that is helpful.

Our session last week, which included our hearing the perspective from Wales, was interesting. We also heard from the Scottish Catholic International Aid Fund. I want to raise with you some of SCIAF’s suggestions for amending the bill: they might not be things that you want to put in the bill, but I am keen to get your views on three recommendations that it makes.

The first suggestion is that we amend the consultation on strategy to include a mandatory requirement to include international stakeholders. The second is that we amend the circular economy strategy to gather evidence of the environmental and human rights implications of our consumption—the data point that Janet McVea touched on. The third is that we amend the strategy to add an objective for ensuring, in the Scottish context, the highest-possible standards for human rights, due diligence, environmental protection, supply chains and public procurement. I might come back to procurement. Would those amendments be helpful? Are you open minded on consideration not just of SCIAF’s suggestions, but of other suggestions of that nature?

I assume that you have already looked at international good practice.

Sorry to interrupt, but did you say that the bill says that the Government must “have regard to” that?

That is helpful.

From your explanation, minister, I understand why you are being cautious. However, given what we have heard in the evidence that we have taken, are you considering any amendments to address any of the points that have been made?

The 2020 Scottish environment strategy vision included a commitment to

“gather evidence on the nature of Scotland’s international environmental impact.”

We had an evidence session last week that covered some of that. We have heard from stakeholders who have highlighted the global impact of Scottish consumption on the environment and human rights. There have been suggestions that the bill could be used to increase our understanding of our impacts beyond consumption emissions.

What is your response to that, minister?

Good morning. We have heard from stakeholders who are calling for the framework for the circular economy strategy to more closely mirror climate legislation for the climate change plan, with sector-level plans, embedding just transition principles, mainstreaming across Government departments and linking legal targets explicitly to the strategy. What is your view on that? Did you give consideration to more closely mirroring climate legislation in designing the bill?

It is probably quite timely that the Scottish litter survey for 2023 was published last month. It will not surprise colleagues that nine out of 10 people believe that litter is a problem in Scotland; that opinion has grown over the past three years. There have been questions about data on what local authorities and SEPA are doing. Minister, I know that you do not hold all that information, but you are able to access it and to have those conversations.

One of the things that came out in the litter survey—and in another report that I think that Diffley Partnership consultants were involved in—is that there is quite a bit of inequality between the most and least affluent communities. If you live in a less affluent area, you are more likely to have litter problems. It looks as though that is not being tackled as robustly as it is in wealthier areas.

I wonder whether I can get a commitment from you, minister: when you look at the data on how much discretion has been applied to taking action, can you look at the equality impact of that as well? There was an equality impact assessment for the fly-tipping strategy, but I hope that the Government agrees that it is not fair that, just because you live in a less wealthy area, you have to put up with litter and fly-tipping and it is not seen as a priority compared with areas that are better resourced and where people have more power and wealth. I am keen to get your views on that.

As the Verity house agreement was mentioned, I will make a brief point in relation to that. Many of us are nervous about saying, “Let’s put a duty on councils,” because councils feel under so much pressure. However, where there is co-production and good discussion, councils are often the right place to take things forward.

Just this morning, we saw in the media—I think that she has written directly to the committee as well—that Councillor Gail Macgregor, who is the COSLA economy and environment spokesperson, has raised serious concerns. She says that the approach is

“not in tune with co-production, or the Verity House Agreement”

and that the Scottish Government has been asked to remove from the bill reference to penalties that councils would incur. At this stage in the bill process, that is quite worrying. What is the Government going to do to put that right?