Chamber and committees

Will the member take an intervention?

Will the member give way?

It has been a really interesting debate so far. “Just transition” has become a bit of a buzzword in recent months, but what does it mean in practice for workers, businesses or communities that are dependent on a particular sector to keep their local economy going? That issue led to my working with the Just Transition Partnership to flesh out what that might mean in practice and how the strategy could take account of that.

The purpose of amendment 208 is to require the Scottish Government to outline, with reference to the just transition principles, the potential impact of any circular economy strategy on the workforce, communities, employers and regions. I will return to the issue of regions, which Monica Lennon referred to.

Amendment 209 is to require the Government to include a plan on how it will support those that are impacted. We should identify how the strategy could impact on the workforce, communities, employers and regions, but doing so would clearly not be enough. We must take appropriate actions to support all those that will be impacted. That is what amendments 208 and 209 try to achieve.

Let us look at the scale of some of the sectors. Take construction. According to a census in 2023, 231,000 people are employed in the sector, which was worth £13 billion to the Scottish economy in 2022. However, if you were to ask people in construction whether they would recommend that as a career to others, 28 per cent would not do so. The sector needs 4,000 new employees every year to wash its face and to keep going as a sector. That vital sector of the Scottish economy will clearly be impacted by the Circular Economy (Scotland) Bill—that is the point—but it must be done in a just, appropriate and planned way.

The agriculture sector has nearly 67,000 employees. That is a particularly good sector to pick not only because of the very regionalised nature of many of the jobs but because of the additional add-on value that it must sustain in local economies.

I say to Monica Lennon that I picked the term “regions” because you have to pick a terminology somehow. The impact of the bill and the strategy could straddle local authority areas, so should we pick a political boundary or should we just refer to regions? I am open minded as to what that looks like.

I get that—

Let me finish this point, and then I will.

We have to look at the impact through our side of the telescope and from the global south’s side—we need to look from both sides of the lens at the same time, if you like.

Yes, Mr Simpson.

Maybe I will have more to say after Mr Simpson’s question.

May I intervene further? That was all really interesting stuff, Mr Golden, but, perhaps through my own carelessness, I did not hear you say at any point that you support having the strategy on a statutory footing. Will you confirm it?

Mr Simpson, I want to have consensus here. I genuinely do not think that you are meaning to be obtuse—perhaps you are. There is an underlying policy intent about ensuring that the global south, however we define it—I have accepted the lack of clarity in that regard—should be consulted.

Yes, I lacked brevity when asking my previous question, which was: does Mr Simpson agree with the policy intent? I am still not clear on that.

That is a reasonable point, and I anticipated that it would be made not only by Graham Simpson but by the minister. I did not want to deviate from the wording that I agreed with SCIAF, but I appreciate that there may be a need to tighten it up.

As soon as we define the global south, we could perhaps exclude some places, so we need to give the Scottish Government a degree of latitude and flexibility. That is also why this may turn out to be a probing amendment. Perhaps the wording will be tightened up, and it will be brought back at stage 3.

The important thing is that, in the co-design process with other groups, which was mentioned earlier, we need to make sure that the global south—however we define it, Mr Simpson—is part of the discussions, not just on our terms but in a way that means that we hear directly from those partners about the real-life impact on their part of the world.

I will leave it at that and draw my remarks to an end, convener.

I have been working on amendment 187 with the Scottish Catholic International Aid Fund, which I thank for its efforts. It is keen—and I agree—that

“relevant policy makers, human right defenders and environmental experts from the Global South”

should be consulted in the development of our circular economy strategy.

SCIAF has suggested that participants from Scotland’s partner countries—such as Malawi, Zambia, Rwanda and Pakistan—could be included. I have not named any countries in my amendment. I am keen for the amendment to be as flexible as possible, to maximise its opportunity to be useful to the Government and to make a meaningful contribution to ensuring that the global south is properly consulted. Those who are closest to the harm that is caused by our consumption and who understand global needs should be included in the development and implementation of our circular economy strategy.

The circular economy strategy does not sit in isolation. A truly circular economy needs to take account of the impact on the global south. We must look at it through both ends of the telescope. I am sure that the Scottish Government will want to look at the impact on the global south, anyway—