The Official Report is a written record of public meetings of the Parliament and committees.
The Official Report search offers lots of different ways to find the information you’re looking for. The search is used as a professional tool by researchers and third-party organisations. It is also used by members of the public who may have less parliamentary awareness. This means it needs to provide the ability to run complex searches, and the ability to browse reports or perform a simple keyword search.
The web version of the Official Report has three different views:
Depending on the kind of search you want to do, one of these views will be the best option. The default view is to show the report for each meeting of Parliament or a committee. For a simple keyword search, the results will be shown by item of business.
When you choose to search by a particular MSP, the results returned will show each spoken contribution in Parliament or a committee, ordered by date with the most recent contributions first. This will usually return a lot of results, but you can refine your search by keyword, date and/or by meeting (committee or Chamber business).
We’ve chosen to display the entirety of each MSP’s contribution in the search results. This is intended to reduce the number of times that users need to click into an actual report to get the information that they’re looking for, but in some cases it can lead to very short contributions (“Yes.”) or very long ones (Ministerial statements, for example.) We’ll keep this under review and get feedback from users on whether this approach best meets their needs.
There are two types of keyword search:
If you select an MSP’s name from the dropdown menu, and add a phrase in quotation marks to the keyword field, then the search will return only examples of when the MSP said those exact words. You can further refine this search by adding a date range or selecting a particular committee or Meeting of the Parliament.
It’s also possible to run basic Boolean searches. For example:
There are two ways of searching by date.
You can either use the Start date and End date options to run a search across a particular date range. For example, you may know that a particular subject was discussed at some point in the last few weeks and choose a date range to reflect that.
Alternatively, you can use one of the pre-defined date ranges under “Select a time period”. These are:
If you search by an individual session, the list of MSPs and committees will automatically update to show only the MSPs and committees which were current during that session. For example, if you select Session 1 you will be show a list of MSPs and committees from Session 1.
If you add a custom date range which crosses more than one session of Parliament, the lists of MSPs and committees will update to show the information that was current at that time.
All Official Reports of meetings in the Debating Chamber of the Scottish Parliament.
All Official Reports of public meetings of committees.
Displaying 1920 contributions
Meeting of the Parliament
Meeting date: 25 June 2024
Monica Lennon
I aim to surprise. We will talk about the issue later.
Amendment 74 speaks for itself, and I hope that members will support it. I am pleased to have worked closely with the minister on it.
I will make a final comment on amendment 45, which is in the name of Clare Adamson. It is an important amendment, as others have said. I know from my work chairing the cross-party group on construction that there is a lot of support for what the amendment proposes. In the interests of time, I will leave it there. I hope that colleagues will also support amendment 45.
Meeting of the Parliament
Meeting date: 25 June 2024
Monica Lennon
I am not sure that I agree that what is proposed has to be a burden. Surely it is an opportunity. If Scotland is going to aspire to be a more circular nation, surely we need to encourage all our public bodies, regardless of their size, to play their part, and having a plan is really the start of that process.
Meeting of the Parliament
Meeting date: 25 June 2024
Monica Lennon
I see that Douglas Lumsden is very excited that we have reached my amendment 105. At almost half past 7 at night, I am glad to be waking up the Tory front bench, at least.
Group 13 is indeed about reusable nappies. We have been building up to this, not just during today’s debates at stage 3 or during stages 1 and 2, but throughout the parliamentary questions that I have asked and the discussions that I have had with various members of the Government and, most important, with people across the country who can see the benefit of what I propose in my amendment.
Why did I lodge amendment 105? Well, Scotland sends 160 million single-use nappies to landfill every year. We know that, on average, each baby or toddler will use around 5,000 disposable nappies. It is an expensive business for families, but also for local authorities, given the landfill costs, and ultimately for our environment. Where better to tackle that than in the Circular Economy (Scotland) Bill?
The inspiration for the proposal came from one of our local authorities—North Ayrshire Council, whose reusable nappy scheme has been operating successfully since 2019. It was introduced by Scottish Labour and continued by an SNP administration. Back in March, I think, the former circular economy minister Lorna Slater and I went on a visit to North Ayrshire. We met the officers who have been involved in operating the scheme and promoting it to local people, and we also met one of the parents who have benefited from the scheme.
As a member of the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee, I felt that it was good to get out of Parliament and go on that visit with the then minister to find out what has been going on in North Ayrshire and what makes the good practice there tick. I thank Lorna Slater for being the first minister to agree to meet me to talk about the subject. That led to the minister commissioning the James Hutton Institute to undertake some research to investigate the barriers to the use of reusable nappies. If they can save families money and help our environment, why is their use not more mainstream? I will perhaps return to that visit in a moment.
Amendment 105 is supported by Scottish Environment LINK, Action to Protect Rural Scotland, Fidra, Friends of the Earth Scotland, Keep Scotland Beautiful and the Marine Conservation Society, which are all organisations that are widely respected by colleagues in the Parliament.
The proposal would help not only with local impact but with global impact. Colleagues, including Sarah Boyack, have talked today about our obligations on environmental justice. We know that there has been a problem with the offshoring of nappy waste, and there have been issues around the supply chain, too. I will not repeat some of the points that were made earlier about human rights and environmental justice, but the facts speak for themselves.
I know that this is the Circular Economy (Scotland) Bill, but one of the things that we have discussed is where we can avoid siloed working and where we can try to do things in a joined-up way. When North Ayrshire Council brought in a reusable nappy scheme in 2019, it was very much about trying to be more circular, but it was also an anti-poverty measure. Today we can see how such schemes, which are available in other council areas, would help families who are struggling with the cost of living.
When it comes to reducing waste-stream contamination, baby waste on nappies causes many issues, and there are practical benefits of reusable nappy schemes. I brought the issue to the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee at stage 2, but I withdrew my amendment at that time to take up the offer from the current minister, Gillian Martin, to discuss further opportunities and possibilities.
Mark Ruskell talked earlier about the frustrations that we all have, and one of the frustrations that I have had for a couple of years now is that only a handful of councils are doing something about promoting access to reusable nappies. From my point of view, it is not about telling people that they must use those products; it is about creating more choice and giving people more options. We need to better understand why other councils have not been able to learn from the good practice in North Ayrshire, particularly as we know that the scheme there operates on a cost-neutral basis.
I will mention something really positive that the Scottish Government is doing. With the baby box, people can opt in to use the voucher on reusable nappies. In recent years, however, uptake has remained static, at around 13 or 14 per cent. I know that Shirley-Anne Somerville, the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice, is looking into that. The James Hutton Institute will perhaps give us a bit more insight into some of the barriers.
I will be keen to hear from the Minister for Climate Action about the lessons that we can now take from the James Hutton Institute report and about whether that might lead to some action, such as a short-life working group.
To my mind, amendment 105 is quite straightforward. When I met representatives of North Ayrshire Council, I found that they were very proud—rightly—of what the council has been achieving. It is helping families in a practical way, while diverting waste away from landfill. The council is doing its bit for the environment and is helping families with the cost of living. What that shows, however, is that our councils are so busy trying to do their core work that they do not have time to shout about the great work that they are doing, and they do not then promote it to others.
Ayrshire is not in my parliamentary region, so I do not have any skin in the game there, but there is an example there. Ayrshire Nappy Library, which is led by volunteers, works in a pan-Ayrshire way, but only one part of Ayrshire—North Ayrshire—has the scheme, and the families who come along from East and South Ayrshire currently do not. It is not a matter of prescribing to local councils how they might operate such a scheme, but the aim is to try to make something happen.
I will stop there. I hope that other members will take part, particularly Douglas Lumsden, who showed a bit of interest earlier—if he is still with us. I hope to hear more from the minister, who has been very constructive in her approach, although I know that there is still something holding the Government and perhaps others back from getting stuck into the issue.
I will end where I started. If my proposal is not to feature in the Circular Economy (Scotland) Bill, then where will it?
I move amendment 105.
19:30Meeting of the Parliament
Meeting date: 25 June 2024
Monica Lennon
I agree with Sarah Boyack—there are some important amendments in the group. I will not speak to them all, but I think that Mark Ruskell, in opening consideration of the group, got off to a good start—in particular, with regard to his amendment on “critical minerals”.
As many people have pointed out during scrutiny of the bill, it is a framework bill, which means that the main effects of the legislation will become apparent later, after publication of the secondary legislation and strategy. It is important, therefore—indeed, it is crucial—that we get things right at this stage. That includes ensuring that the right requirements for the strategy are in the text of the bill. The amendments in the group are therefore important, as we have heard.
My amendments 94 and 97 seek to strengthen the bill’s alignment with the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009. At stage 2, the Scottish Government lodged an amendment requiring ministers to
“have regard to the just transition principles set out in ... the Climate Change ... Act”.
However, that amendment did not include all the subsections in section 35 of the 2009 act, which contain specific requirements for the climate change plan in relation to employment, the regions, and support for the workforce, businesses and communities.
Key stakeholders, including the Just Transition Partnership and Friends of the Earth Scotland, agree with Scottish Labour that the definition of “just transition” that we have seen at stage 2 is too narrow. Amendments 94 and 97 would implement subsections (20) and (21) of section 35 of the 2009 act. That is important, because it would require the Scottish Government to consider
“how any proposals and policies”
will
“affect different sectors ... and ... regions”
of the economy; to support sectoral and regional developments; and to
“set out ... costs and benefits”
of policies. I ask colleagues to back amendments 94 and 97 in order to draw from the best practice in the 2009 act and to ensure that our transition towards a circular economy is a just transition.
Amendment 72 would require the strategy to consider human rights and environment impacts in supply chains. I thank Friends of the Earth Scotland and Scottish Environment LINK for supporting amendment 72, and I thank the Minister for Climate Action for engaging constructively with me and with Scottish Labour on the amendment following stage 2.
During stage 2, we discussed at length the impact of policy in Scotland on other countries, in particular with regard to how resource demand here can impact on other parts of the world, especially in the global south, in both an environmental context and a human rights context. The importance of due diligence in supply chains was highlighted many times. Amendment 72 would strengthen the strategy’s commitment to
“due diligence ... in supply chains”,
thereby ensuring that we maximise the environmental and social benefits in Scotland and internationally.
I am grateful to Mark Ruskell for his support for amendment 95, which aims to strengthen the strategy with regard to promoting reuse. At stage 1, we heard concerns that the bill was too recycling focused; some people called it “a recycling bill”. People were looking for more on other aspects of the waste hierarchy—in particular, reuse.
I am pleased, therefore, that the Scottish Government has sought to address that further at stage 2 and to provide more reassurance. Scottish Labour would, however, like the bill to go further and to strengthen the provision in relation to the waste hierarchy. My amendment 95, which would require that
“reusable items are given priority over single-use items wherever possible”,
is backed by key stakeholders, including Scottish Environment LINK’s sustainable economy group, which has provided valuable expertise in scrutiny of the matter.
Amendment 74 relates to how ministers prepare the circular economy strategy, and states that they
“must have regard to ... encouraging equal opportunities ... and ... furthering the reduction of inequalities of outcome which result from socio-economic disadvantage.”
The minister and I had some good discussions in which we agreed that we need to take a gender-sensitive approach when we are thinking about transitioning towards a circular economy. I will not talk about nappies too much just now, because that will come in a later group, but it was through our discussion of how an item—I see that Douglas Lumsden is giggling. I am sure that he will have a lot to say on that later.
That is partly the point; there is a wee bit of embarrassment about items such as nappies. That led us into a discussion about stigma and the gendered aspects of the issue, which is perhaps why we have noticed that there is not enough policy development in that regard.
Meeting of the Parliament
Meeting date: 25 June 2024
Monica Lennon
I am grateful to Mark Ruskell and the minister for their contributions. It is important, following on from stage 2, when we last discussed the matter, that we had a chance to get this discussion on the record and to explore the progress that has been made and what we can learn from the James Hutton Institute report. More work needs to be done, and I hope that we can work on that together.
I was disappointed not to hear from Douglas Lumsden, because I thought that he wanted to contribute to the debate; he must be overwhelmed by what he has heard.
I hope that, as constituency and regional MSPs, we can go back to our own local authorities, and indeed to our health boards, on the issue. At stage 2, I lodged amendments on what our health boards can do because, when I made a freedom of information request, I found that health boards were spending a lot of money on single-use nappies. We can address that point, alongside the provision of the baby box, through conversations with health visitors, midwives and others to raise awareness and take some of the stigma out of the subject. We can also address the worry that reusable nappies may mean extra laundry and extra work, when in fact people who try reusables enjoy it and really feel the benefit.
It is a shame that, in the past couple of years, we have seen the demise of Tots Bots, which was the reusable nappies firm that supplied the baby box. It has now gone out of business. Again, that links in with our work on a just transition and community wealth building, where we have opportunities to do things differently.
I know that Maurice Golden and others who are involved in the cross-party group on the circular economy try to look at the issues in the widest possible sense, so it is actually of interest to every portfolio. Again, I note that it is a shame when we see companies and other enterprises that have a real passion for the circular economy, and which have interesting products, go down the toilet when they should be thriving. We need to think about the issue in terms of a just transition as well.
I will leave the minister to think about something that, again, does not lie only in her portfolio. Through the Period Products (Free Provision) (Scotland) Act 2021, we have seen what can happen when we create opportunities through legislation. One could argue that the 2021 act took a top-down approach, but it has allowed people, in their communities or in their own schools or colleges, access to reusable period products that they would not have previously had. That has allowed people to try products, and it has maximised choice. It is not dictatorial—it is about giving people access to products where they are, including in their own local authorities.
I will leave that point there. Local authorities are really embracing the 2021 act—they are doing excellent work as a result, and people around the world look to Scotland to learn from that. We could do something along those lines with reusable nappies.
I am pleased to have commitments from Ms Martin today. I hope that the finalised route map will include the commitment that she has given on reuse, that the work will continue, and that it will perhaps be in the strategy as well. Nevertheless, I wonder whether there could be a short-life working group to look at the James Hutton Institute’s findings and take those forward with a bit more oomph.
I am sorry; I thought that Maurice Golden was getting up, but he is just stretching. Yes—I see that he is sitting back down.
Given what we have heard today, I will not press amendment 105, but I look forward to working with the Scottish Government in the future.
Amendment 105, by agreement, withdrawn.
After section 17
Meeting of the Parliament
Meeting date: 25 June 2024
Monica Lennon
There is a lot of agreement on this group, and we certainly support all the amendments in it. My amendment 77 seeks to mirror my earlier amendment 72, which was already debated in group 2 and agreed to. Amendment 77 is about ensuring that the application of due diligence in relation to environmental protection and human rights is exercised in supply chains. That would ensure that those issues are taken into account when ministers produce secondary legislation, and it would provide consistency between sections 1(3) and 6(2), for the same reasons that I set out earlier.
I thank members for their comments, and I ask them to support Sarah Boyack’s amendment 100. As I said, we support all the amendments in the group.
Meeting of the Parliament
Meeting date: 25 June 2024
Monica Lennon
This is a really important contribution from Mark Ruskell. For clarity, I take this opportunity to say that amendment 104 seeks to place a duty on the minister when creating secondary legislation under section 13. It is not about putting that duty on to local authorities directly. Throughout the scrutiny of the bill, we have heard that there is a real appetite for more activity on reuse, and our local authorities are certainly looking for more guidance and support on that. Mark Ruskell says that he feels a bit frustrated; I would say that that is putting it politely. I have to say, in the gentlest possible way, that the minister’s explanation seemed a little bit on the weak side. I take the point about the importance of co-production, in the spirit of the Verity house agreement, but the issue is not one of directly imposing a duty on to local authorities.
It is important to embed reuse into the bill as much as we can. Amendment 104 simply adds that we should
“make further provision for the promotion of reuse to assist local authorities to achieve their targets”.
I am seeking to be helpful here, and I think that there is cross-party support for the intention behind the amendment. I hope that the Government can give it full consideration.
I am grateful to Mark Ruskell for giving way.
Meeting of the Parliament
Meeting date: 25 June 2024
Monica Lennon
Amendments 102 and 103, which are in my name, would help to achieve Scottish Labour’s aims of strengthening the bill in relation to reuse—a point that has already been made a number of times today. We recognise the important role that individual households and local authorities will play in the success of the bill. Much of that will be achieved through the code of practice, which will be co-designed with local authorities.
Through my interest in reusable nappies—I know that Douglas Lumsden loves to hear about that—and specifically the North Ayrshire scheme, it is apparent that there is a lack of awareness of good schemes where they exist. By requiring the code of practice to promote schemes such as North Ayrshire Council’s, we can tap into the public desire to help the environment. I believe that the public want to do the right things. By requiring existing reusable schemes to be promoted by the code, we will make it easier for people in Scotland to find out about such schemes in their local areas. To be clear, amendment 102 seeks to ensure that the code promotes reusable schemes that are operated by local authorities.
We recognise that Maurice Golden’s amendments 58 and 59 will help to boost the prioritisation of reuse and repair, so we were glad to see them. We were also pleased to see Maurice Golden’s amendment 60, which would require proper resourcing for local authorities to enable them to meet their duties under the bill. Local authorities need to have adequate capacity, in terms of skills and resources, to ensure that we become a more circular nation. It is important that the Scottish Government supports local authorities in every way that it can to properly achieve a more circular economy.
Meeting of the Parliament
Meeting date: 25 June 2024
Monica Lennon
This group of amendments is important. It follows on from an important debate that we had at stage 2. We believe that the targets that Maurice Golden and Graham Simpson have lodged are critical to driving up action to increase recycling. We also agree that targets are essential, but, as we have seen in relation to climate targets, action is crucial. Given that this is a framework bill, it is critical that we set the right ambitions now, so that we can steer the right action to meet those ambitions in the future.
I have one amendment in this group. Amendment 104 is to
“make further provision for the promotion of reuse to assist local authorities to achieve their targets”.
That is connected to Scottish Labour’s concerns that, initially, the bill had a lot of focus on recycling but not enough on other important parts of the waste hierarchy, particularly reuse. Section 13 deals with targets for household waste recycling specifically. However, ultimately, it is important that we include provisions for the promotion of reuse wherever possible.
I thank Scottish Environment LINK for supporting amendment 104. The amendment recognises the crucial role of local authorities. Increasing reuse through the targets will help our local authorities to drive down the amount of waste that is ending up in landfill and will help to ease the transition to a more circular economy.
Meeting of the Parliament
Meeting date: 25 June 2024
Monica Lennon
I hope that there will be a break soon so that the minister’s voice gets a little bit of respite.
I think that I understand the minister’s point about the statutory duties, but people in the chamber and outwith it will be wondering how the bill will encourage more activity in the local authority space to work with our third sector partners and others so that we can shift towards more reuse, which is really important. If we cannot support such a simple amendment, how else can we give effect to that?