Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

The principle is important, but I am not clear what the options might be for the Government to take that forward as a meaningful piece of work.

The Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Act 2019 included a requirement to establish a citizens assembly. I do not think that there would be a need for more legislation to revisit a citizens assembly on climate. I see parallels with this issue. Yes, one way forward would be to bootstrap it and put it into legislation, but I am looking for leadership from the Scottish Government, whatever that looks like, whether that is put into legislation or it is a non-legislative measure.

Graham Simpson’s amendments 2 and 3 show the inevitable tension between Maurice Golden and Graham Simpson on turbocharging co-design. We must recognise that we have to take people with us: we have to take businesses and communities with us. A lot of careful work was done in the early years, right the way through to the implementation of the deposit return scheme. Members who have sat on this committee and looked at the evidence, heard about the work of Lorna Slater and scrutinised Circularity Scotland and others will recognise that that model was being developed and came very close to being implemented. That emphasises for me the importance of co-design. It is important.

I think that the Government is pursuing co-design in a meaningful way right now, and to simply put an arbitrary timescale on the development of a circular economy strategy, just for the sake of it, would not be a good way forward. We need work to progress at pace on all the areas in the circular economy strategy, but that will take some time, and just putting “six months” or “1 year” on it, as in the amendments, is a little churlish. It underestimates the depth of the work that is needed with stakeholders to work this through and the depth of work that was put in place for the deposit return scheme.

Perhaps the minister is sensing concerns across the committee that, despite action in sectors such as construction having been identified years ago as being important, Governments have not followed that through into waste route maps and programmes of work. Perhaps she is sensing frustration across the committee that despite construction being an area of significant resource use with a significant impact when it comes to climate change, there is a concern that the Government as a whole has not moved effectively to prioritise it. Clearly, a discussion is to be had between now and stage 3 on what action from the whole Government looks like, and what reassurances the Government can give committee members, across parties, that such action will follow.

I recognise that the minister is very new in post.

Will Maurice Golden confirm that the bill does not need new powers for the development of refillables and refillable schemes in Scotland? As I understand it, those powers are in the Environment Act 2021. Is that not right? We therefore do not need more legislation. However, I accept his desire for more refillable schemes to come forward.

Hang on a minute—let me finish the sentence.

It will take more than six months to develop a strategy around construction and for the strategy to move into sectors in which there perhaps has not been that focus or development over time. I will leave my comments there.

I accept that Graham Simpson wants to put other options on the table, but we have also heard in the debate that there are sectors, such as construction, in which there has not been enough significant progress. To be honest, that will take time. It will take more than six months to—

That is useful to know. Are we hitting the buffers in that regard now, or are you anticipating that there will be problems with ferries being taken off routes in the next year or two?

When reflecting on Stephen Kelly’s comments, I was thinking in particular about Cairnryan. What practical changes might be needed in how Cairnryan operates its facilities? I note that there will be no border at Cairnryan, but, given where we are with border checks and agreements, what might need to change to meet your members’ needs at Cairnryan in the future?

It is useful for the committee to hear such practical, real-world concerns.

I thank Tess White for bringing to the chamber this important debate. Of course, it is not a new debate, and there are many lessons from history. After the second world war, Tom Johnston brought hydro power to the glens for the first time, which led to dramatic economic progress and improved quality of life for so many communities. It would be wrong to assume, however, that that progress came with no cost. Some communities were abandoned, and pristine rivers were damaged—some, such as the River Garry, are starting to recover only now.

There will always be a balance to be struck between national energy needs, local and global environmental impacts and the need for communities to have a stake in both decision making and the economic rewards of projects.

In more recent times, the Beauly to Denny power line upgrade—which, I believe, was consented by Mr Ewing—has left us with many lessons. The debates from 18 years ago are now being rerun all over again with the SSEN programme. I will reflect on some of those debates, in which I was involved at the time.

First, there were arguments that no grid upgrades were needed, and that wind farms would never be built. However, today, we have to accept the reality that the Beauly to Denny scheme was needed, that it led to the construction of onshore wind farms, and that those wind farms have slashed the climate impact of electricity while benefiting communities across the UK through lower electricity generation costs.

Lord Callanan, the Conservative UK Minister for Energy Efficiency and Green Finance, was absolutely right when he said:

“we need to build about four times as much transmission infrastructure by 2030 as we built in the previous 30 years.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 29 February 2024; Vol 836, c 193GC.]

The missed 2030 climate target reminds us that there is no path to net zero, in Scotland or the UK, without a massive switch from fossil fuels to electricity for both transport and heating. The reality is that the bulk of that can come only from renewable energy, and the new transmission lines will be required to get that energy to where it is needed.