Chamber and committees

I have been reflecting on the challenges that your members have in relation to the loss of free movement of labour across the EU and the UK, and it would be good to get into a bit more detail about what would work for businesses. I am looking at the UK Government’s application page for the skilled worker visa, on which there are obviously a number of restrictions: your job has to be “eligible” for the visa in the first place; you must

“work for a UK employer that’s been approved by the Home Office;”

and the minimum salary has to be £38,700 per year, or higher, there is a higher going rate for the work that you will be doing.

Do those rules work for your businesses? If they do not, how would you want those rules to be modified in order for labour to meet the needs of businesses in the UK? Catherine, do you want to start?

Please do.

None of that is driving productivity in UK business, is it?

It is not driving economic growth. It is just bureaucracy, is it not?

Yes—it is a waste of time. Kate, do you want to come in?

Yes, thank you, convener. I certainly take on board a lot of the stakeholders’ comments about the need for clarity in the bill, but I am a little bit concerned about creating a definition of a circular economy at this point that is effectively fixed and immovable and cannot change over time. The sector is developing rapidly and there is a rapidly developing understanding of the circular economy, so I would appreciate some thoughts on that from the members who lodged the amendments when they are winding up.

Also, I think that it would be setting a precedent to have a purpose clause in the circular economy bill. I would be interested to know whether there are other areas of legislation where a purpose clause has been beneficial in focusing legislation on a particular area. I am not aware of that, but I will note with interest the minister’s comments and Sarah Boyack’s closing comments.

If the minister feels that it is not appropriate to put such a provision in the bill, is there another way for the Scottish Government to work with industry to ensure that the aspiration to deal with critical minerals in a sustainable way can be reflected elsewhere in policy—in the energy strategy, for instance?

I would be looking for a bit more detail on this between stages 2 and 3, because, at this point, I am not very clear how an advisory body would work with Zero Waste Scotland, given its existing role. I am not sure how much a new body would cost and whether it would be best for it to work on a Scotland-wide or a UK-wide basis to make best use of resources. Those are the areas of uncertainty.

My amendment 189 is simple. It should be clear to members that the bill requires ministers to report to the Parliament on progress in meeting the objectives under the strategy. However, there is a gap. To my mind, if ministers have been unable to meet their objectives, there needs to be an additional requirement that they must report back to the Parliament on what additional measures they will take to meet those objectives before the next reporting round. Members will know that we have very similar provisions in a range of legislation, including on the climate.

I turn to the interesting debate about amendments 187 and 188, the essence of which is about leadership. It is about having a dialogue with the global south, which is dramatically impacted by our resource overconsumption and the environmental and social impact of waste. I am not sure that that needs legislation, but Bob Doris is right to point to the amazing work that was done through the Glasgow climate dialogues ahead of COP26, which had real resonance around the world. That was about the communities in the global south, the experts and us in the developed north being part of the conversation about how we tackle climate change in a fair and just way. That approach was hugely powerful, but it did not require legislation to do that.

However, if the Government does not want to go down the legislative route, I want to hear from the minister what initiatives the Government can put in place to take the debate, and the awareness of our consumption and its global impacts, into a space where those can land and lead to change.

Although we have left the European Union, we still, thankfully, have a vast amount of environmental regulation that defines materials that are polluting and problematic and which impact on human health. We also have Environmental Standards Scotland, which is constantly reviewing existing legislation and making suggestions to Government and agencies about how we can better enforce that legislation, change the law and enhance environmental protection. The process of developing environmental legislation is continuous; indeed, new materials and new scientific evidence will continually come forward and change our understanding of which materials are problematic in their impact on human health and the environment. I do not think that it is right to fix in time today a list of problematic chemicals, given that scientific understanding and the work of our regulators continue apace within the European Union and outside it.

This is an area for flexibility. Members will recognise the danger of putting a list into legislation. A lot of lists have been brought forward this morning. The danger is that we will leave something out because we do not think that it is a problem now. However, it can, of course, be a problem going forward.

In answer to the question, I believe that the process of environmental regulation is robust enough to ensure that Government will be able to choose to take action on particular materials that are problematic.

Those are pretty much all the comments that I want to make. However, I was struck by a comment that Sarah Boyack made about amendment 136, which is the minister’s alternative amendment in relation to embedding the waste hierarchy in the legislation. She made a point about where incineration sits within the waste hierarchy. The Government has made substantial progress in weaning us off incineration in this country and prohibiting the development of more waste incinerators where they are unnecessary. I would be interested to hear the minister’s views about how that approach to the waste hierarchy puts incineration in its appropriate place, which is right at the bottom. We should not be relying on incineration any more.