Chamber and committees

I cannot say what the rationale behind that would be without having the clinical background, and we do not have anybody from the Government here to answer that. We could write to the Government and ask for that to be clarified.

That concludes the public part of the meeting. At next week’s meeting, we will hear from the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice, Housing and Local Government and the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and the Economy on the subject of the resource spending review. We will also hear from the cabinet secretary and the minister in the final evidence session of our low income and debt inquiry. We were due to have that session today, but it had to be postponed.

I guess that it would be helpful if we had that information. I anticipate that it would be clinical information. My understanding from reading the instrument is that the person who has had information withheld from them would have the right to know why it was being withheld. I guess that the reason why they were not being given the information would have to be laid out explicitly, and that it would be due to the harmful nature of that, as perceived by health professionals.

Good morning, and welcome to the Social Justice and Social Security Committee’s 19th meeting in 2022. We have received apologies from Foysol Choudhury.

Our first item of business is to decide whether to take item 3 in private. Do members agree to do so?

Members indicated agreement.

Fantastic.

The committee will now consider two negative instruments. For the first instrument, background information is outlined in paper 1. Are members content to note the instrument?

To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body whether an assessment has been made of the chairs in the MSP block for use by members and staff, in relation to occupational health and the latest standards. (S6O-01251)

Could we seek a further update as to the date of purchase, as I am sure that Christine Grahame will appreciate that human factors and ergonomics engineering is an ever-changing and evolving discipline?

As we move to a circular economy and improve our waste-prevention activities—for example, through the recent removal of single-use plastics—and with an ever-increasing awareness of the vital need to reuse, reduce and recycle our domestic waste, does the minister agree that Dr Colin Church’s report lays bare that incineration should be a transitional technology that helps to bridge the gap between mass landfill and a low-waste, low-carbon and more circular economy? His capacity analysis shows that there is a real

“risk of long-term overcapacity beginning from 2026 or 2027, if all or most of the incineration capacity ... is built”.

With that in mind, does she agree that proposed developments that are still to be consented, such as the Killoch energy from waste facility in my constituency, should not be consented, as incineration infrastructure that is within the scope of the review.

It is for you to bring them in if you wish to bring them in, minister.