Seòmar agus comataidhean

As other members have, I record my thanks to Scottish Parliament staff, particularly in the Scottish Parliament information centre, for supporting the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee. I also thank all the members of the committee and Scottish Government officials for their support.

I was pleased to hear Lorna Slater making a contribution. I also thank Gillian Martin for being generous with her time at short notice to work not just with me but with many colleagues around the chamber.

Scottish Labour believes that the bill as amended is stronger and better than it was when it was introduced, which is testament to cross-party working by members. That is why I am a little surprised that Maurice Golden does not seem to be his usual enthusiastic self today. Perhaps a bit of tiredness has set in. Every party in the chamber has added to the bill, which is a good thing.

At every stage of the bill, Scottish Labour has made sure that innocent householders will not be criminalised for the actions of others or for making the simple mistake of putting the wrong thing in the wrong bin, which is important. We have also tried to embed incentivising good behaviour and creating opportunities.

In closing the debate for Scottish Labour, I want to reflect on what my amendments and my colleague Sarah Boyack’s amendments contribute. I think that they strengthen the bill, particularly in relation to provisions on due diligence, human rights, environmental impact and global supply chains. All that is important. Our approach will also ensure that the secondary legislation to come will be strengthened in relation to reducing carbon emissions and on exempting food from the provisions relating to unsold consumer goods.

I thank the Government for working constructively with us, but we are disappointed, in the sense that we would have liked the Scottish Government to strengthen the bill further around reuse and the just transition, because some stakeholders wanted closer alignment with the just transition principles in the Climate Change Act 2008. Our amendments would have helped with that, but we will continue to work with the Scottish Government to do more.

I am pleased that the Scottish Government has committed to work on improving access to reusable nappies. We will see that in the route map and, I hope, in the co-design process with local authorities. I hope that the minister will establish a short-life working group to work with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and other partners to build on the findings of the James Hutton Institute’s report and the work that has been done by North Ayrshire Council.

We are very short of time, even though we did a lot of work on the bill. It is fair to say that some stakeholders have been concerned that the Government was not being ambitious enough; we have just had a debate on the climate emergency. We are putting faith in the Government on the circular economy, but we hope and expect to see action through the strategy and the route map.

It is important to say that we welcome the clarity around funding, but the matter requires the right framework and a fair approach as well as the right funding, because local authorities in particular need to be empowered to take the work forward.

I will end with the words not of circular economy guru Maurice Golden—he is a bit tired today—but of Ellen MacArthur, who said:

“If we could build an economy that would use things rather than use them up, we could build a future.”

I hope that those words will resonate. There is an opportunity before us to create a new economy in which we use rather than use up.

I thank the Presiding Officer for her generosity, and I look forward to working with the minister.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I seek your guidance. At question 6, the minister was asked a very direct question about what action the Scottish Government can take regarding the on-going Fife College staff pay dispute, and that question built on my earlier question at question 2 on what action the Government could take. In response to my question, the minister Graeme Dey asked what the Labour Party would do and, in response to question 6, he gave no answer at all. Is the minister unable or unwilling to take meaningful action to resolve the industrial dispute at Scotland’s colleges?

What can members do to get proper answers from these ministers?

To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to end the reported disruption to students in further education, in light of the on-going industrial dispute between College Employers Scotland and the Educational Institute of Scotland Further Education Lecturers Association over pay and conditions. (S6O-03638)

The member is making some really important points, but we are here to talk about action that the Scottish Government can take in Scotland. Does he agree with me and many others that the Scottish Government should join the Beyond Oil & Gas Alliance, and that it should do so quickly?

Will the member take an intervention?

I was talking about transport but, on ScotWind, I hear concerns that Scotland’s sea bed has been sold off far too cheaply. We can have another debate about that.

I go back to my point about transport. What additional policies will be introduced to support the expansion of train, tram and bus services? I might steal some of Graham Simpson’s lines, but when we discussed the issue at the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee, there was real concern about bus deserts—areas where people young and old have a free bus pass but there are no buses to get on. More and more councils across the country are cutting back on school transport because they do not have the budget, including in Lanarkshire, which is affecting my constituents. We need the Government to get real on that.

I agree with Uplift’s call regarding workforce. To achieve a just transition, the Government needs to urgently deliver a coherent transition plan for workers, or we will risk situations such as those that exist in Grangemouth right now occurring around the country.

I will bring my remarks to a close. Lord Deben, the outgoing chair of the Climate Change Committee, said:

“Our children will not forgive us if we leave them a world of withering heat and devastating storms where sea level rises and extreme temperatures force millions to move because their countries are no longer habitable. None of us can avoid our responsibility. Delay is not an option.”

I agree with that. Scottish Labour stands ready to work with the Scottish Government where necessary, and we will push it to be bolder at all times.

Will the minister give way briefly on that point?

I am grateful to Mark Ruskell for his comments and for his interest in the issue, as a fellow cloth-bum parent—if that is the right terminology these days. I just want to try to get a bit of debate here. The scheme in North Ayrshire has been on the go since 2019 and, in the past, there were other schemes. Every year, when reusable nappy week comes around—it is normally in April—I go on social media and see lots of activity being promoted by local authorities in England and Wales, and I feel quite sad not to see more of that in Scotland. I know that Lorna Slater has heard me say that before. Progress is not being made.

Amendment 105 would require local authorities to bring in schemes by April 2026, which gives a bit of time. I have had a chat with COSLA and there is no objection to learning more from North Ayrshire. However, does Mark Ruskell not share my concern that, if we do not start to provide a bit of national direction and leadership on the issue, no more schemes will emerge in Scotland, which would be a real shame?

Scottish Labour welcomes amendment 71, in the name of Gillian Mackay. We note that Action to Protect Rural Scotland also strongly supports the amendment. Adding to the bill a provision that ministers

“may, by regulations, establish a take-back scheme for single-use vaping products”

would be welcome. I hope that all members will support amendment 71.

All members will know, from local conversations that they will have had, that tackling the blight of single-use vapes in our communities is important. People have raised with me the issues caused by litter that they see in local parks. Young people, especially those in our primary schools, are often the most vocal about that.

Scottish Labour welcomes the other work that the Scottish Government and the UK Government have undertaken and the approaches that Gillian Mackay has championed as we try to achieve a ban on single-use vapes. The Prime Minister’s last-minute gamble on an early election has clearly delayed the implementation of any such ban. I hope that, whatever happens after the election on 4 July, we will see cross-party and cross- Government working on the issue. As we work towards the medium and longer term, having such a ban would be ideal. It would be great if that could be done across the UK. If we need to drive that approach forward in Scotland, let us do so. We need to send a strong signal that such littering is not acceptable.

In response to Edward Mountain’s question, Gillian Mackay made an important point about making take-back easier for people. For example, South Lanarkshire Council should be commended for its appointment system for local amenity sites in my area. It has seen high demand from people who access the sites by car, so it now has an appointment system to manage any conflict there.

The general point is that we need to make such schemes as easy as possible for individuals to use. If people consume a product and go back to a particular retailer, the take-back model is appropriate.

I strongly support amendment 71.