Seòmar agus comataidhean

Okay. Thank you. Does anyone else want to contribute on those points?

Sorry, I mean in the review, rather than in the response.

Good morning. Thank you for your time and your submissions.

Before I ask my questions, I draw members’ attention to my registered interest as a solicitor on the roll of Scottish solicitors and as a previously practising, now non-practising, member of the Law Society of Scotland.

This is all about the climate crisis and the biodiversity crisis on a larger scale, but for the constituencies that we represent and the communities whom we serve, it is about quality of place, quality of the local environment and quality of life. What interests me about the wider issue is the question how we make improvements together. I take SEPA’s point about working collaboratively. I have certainly seen that in my constituency at the Seafield waste water treatment works, for example, on which Professor Parsons and SEPA have been engaged. We have seen improvement through collaboration without the need for legal process.

There are questions, however, about access to justice in order to make improvements. I am open-minded about the idea of an environmental court. I know that Dr Fifield has been involved in considerations of the Water of Leith basin in my constituency: thank you for that.

What are the panel’s views on the need for an environmental court in Scotland? Do we really need that? To what extent do you agree with the concern that has been raised by ERCS in its written evidence—that the Scottish Government’s consideration of the issue in the review did not meet the requirements of the UK Withdrawal from the European Union (Continuity) (Scotland) Act 2021, even taking into account that the Government went on to publish a further briefing on the issue and extended the consultation period? Dr Fifield seems to want to answer that question first.

May I add a supplementary question on that point? I talked earlier about the Civil Litigation (Expenses and Group Proceedings) (Scotland) Act 2018. Has that had any meaningful positive impact on those considerations?

Minister, you made a point about careers advice. In my constituency, Leith academy runs a great programme that brings in lots of employers to introduce young people to what is available in the local area, and Drummond community high school specialises in construction. Yesterday, I was at Lothian Buses with a third sector organisation called Powering Futures to look at the apprenticeships that they are creating. That is anecdotal evidence of good work in just one constituency, but how do we get to a position where there is consistency in introducing young people to the plethora of different opportunities that are available?

That is helpful. In your previous answers and in your opening remarks, you said that you are—quite rightly—considering all the recommendations and that you will take the appropriate time to respond to and implement them. We heard from Mr Withers on 15 November that he would be concerned if elements of the review were cherry picked. You have certainly not indicated today that that is happening, but it would be helpful to the Parliament if you would confirm that the Government does not intend to take a cherry-picking approach to the review. In due course, once you have taken the appropriate time to consider all the recommendations, will the Scottish Government set out its response to each of them to give clarity to the Parliament? If so, when, approximately, should we anticipate that?

Since the review was published, there has been an accelerating enthusiasm for giving such qualifications parity of esteem. That will all take us in the right direction.

I want to pick up briefly on some of the points that have been made about employers. Thank you for telling us about the round-table discussion that you are going to have with employers. I know from my constituency casework that skills planning is pertinent to a number of employers in these considerations. Have you considered how, following that round table, you will continue to include employers’ skills planning expertise in the considerations of how to respond to their needs and make sure that there is access to skills in the short, medium and long terms, which you talked about?

You talked about taking time. James Withers has said that a 10-year timescale for post-school reform is not unrealistic and that results will not be seen quickly. It is important for everyone to appreciate that. However, that could impact on the momentum. I am interested in what the Scottish Government is doing to build consensus politically across the sector and how momentum will be maintained. You said, rightly, that the review has been widely embraced by different stakeholders, but how do we keep the momentum going?

I absolutely endorse that. The people I grew up with have gone in different directions. There is absolutely a need to change the public consciousness, and I look forward to collaborating with the Government on that.

My final question is about the fact that people who become plumbers or joiners, to use your example, often have interests in many other things as well. The arts are facing a challenge in other parts of the UK, where some degrees or avenues of study and human knowledge are being discussed by some politicians as having less value than more practical qualifications. I have thought for some time that our society and individuals in their learning journeys and wider lives would benefit if practical skills could be combined with an area of the arts that they might want to engage in, whether that is a language or a creative subject such as art history. Has the Government ever considered that? It is not mentioned in the review but, to me, it is a pertinent issue at this time.