Chamber and committees

I mentioned amendment 191 when we debated amendment 183 last week. Members might remember that they are about considering harmful and polluting materials in the determination of targets. I did not hear from the minister—unless I did not take note of it last week—a commitment to work with me on the issue between stages 2 and 3. I am not going to say whether that requires a legislative change at this point. Perhaps I misheard, but I did not hear that commitment last week.

I am also listening for commitments in relation to other amendments that we are debating this morning, because there is clearly value in many of the matters that members are raising for consideration. I do not feel that many of those amendments are supportable at this point, but I would like their spirit to be moved into stage 3 if the minister does not accept everything today.

That is a good point. I would be interested in hearing the minister’s reflection on what the resource requirements would be within Government to monitor and meaningfully engage with those statements. We already have grants going out to organisations, and there is already a process of monitoring and reporting on how grants are being delivered and whether objectives are being delivered. Within those objectives, it would be appropriate to have a circular economy focus. That would deliver benefits to the organisation and public benefits through the funds that are being distributed and are supporting the work of those organisations.

I will turn to other amendments in the group. Bob Doris’s amendment 197 requires large companies to report on their scope 3 climate emissions. I am sympathetic to that and keen to hear what the minister’s view is on the amendment.

Graham Simpson’s amendment 72 would require the Government to develop, by law, an app to provide information on the disposal of household waste. I do not know whether that would be a first—a Government having to deliver an app by law. I am curious to understand why a national app would be required at this point, when many councils already have that information available online, but we will come to Mr Simpson in due course.

Monica Lennon’s amendments 171 to 173 would insert requirements for information on food waste, recycling and textiles to be made publicly available. I am sympathetic to what the amendments are trying to achieve. Again, I will listen carefully to the minister when she comes to address amendments 171 and 173, to see what progress can be made on the intention behind those amendments.

I move amendment 196.

That is fine.

I turn to Jan Robertson and Ewen Cameron. We are now in a phase where there are border checks for goods that are coming into the UK. We have taken evidence from a number of businesses that have supply chains that run not just within the UK but across Europe. I am interested to know how, with your European colleagues, you support the whole supply chain. Is there now a conversation about how the existing border checks have been working? What lessons can be learned on imports? What are the top tips, whether we are talking about drivers or minimising paperwork bureaucracy? How do you work together to ensure that business, wherever it is located in Europe, is able to negotiate and navigate the bureaucracy that Brexit has thrown up?

Are there any other sectors that struggle with that?

David, I will ask you about the big policy drivers towards decarbonisation—in particular, the impact of the carbon border adjustment model and the integration of emissions trading schemes in the UK, EU and Switzerland. Where are there barriers to establishing more efficient carbon markets? What is the likelihood of bigger markets and more integration across Europe? I know that that is a big question.

That is the reality of how that massive sector is developing. What does that mean for individuals such as yourself who are looking to go where the work is? Is that becoming increasingly difficult under Brexit? Is there still flexibility? Can you find a way through the visa requirements so that you could be working in Paris this year but perhaps somewhere else next year?

Which sectors would find £38,700 as a minimum salary problematic?

Yes please. That is always really useful.

I am interested in pursuing that line of questioning with David Decrock. My impression of the energy sector, which is very innovative, is that it is quite multinational in that, rather than being based in one particular region of a country where a specialist workforce can be recruited, it is very much spread across countries in a thematic way, with the innovation being to do with collaboration and partnership. When you walk into a room where a group of companies are working together in partnership, what does the sector look like? Are all the people from one place, or is it a multinational workforce that collaborates in different ways?

Thanks—that is good. Gareth?