Seòmar agus comataidhean

It is a matter of impact and proportionality. I agreed with Ben Macpherson when he talked last week about the impact on the construction sector. However, we do not put things in the bill as a punishment; we do it to maximise opportunities. In any case, I think that we will return to the construction sector.

I have already narrated some of the figures, but I note again that, in the UK, 3 billion disposable nappies go to landfill every year. There are opportunities in the circular economy strategy and the route map, but I point out that the North Ayrshire example—I really encourage colleagues to look at that—has been in place for five years and no other local authority in Scotland has run with it or put something similar in place. North Ayrshire does it well because it has waste awareness officers and leadership on the issue. It has really bought into it. Other local authorities perhaps do not have the time, capacity or knowledge to do the same thing. Sometimes, therefore, we have to put things in legislation.

I draw a parallel with the Period Products (Free Provision) (Scotland) Act 2021. We did not say in that act that people must use reusable products, but if we put in place legislation that says that there must be access to such products, we create choice and start the culture change. If we do not put disposable nappies in the bill, we will miss an opportunity. In 10 years’ time, we could still be talking about the great scheme in North Ayrshire that no one else is doing.

I have, of course, been speaking to the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, because we want to do this with local government. It is very interested in the work in North Ayrshire. We have had some discussions about the issue and they will continue.

Maurice Golden might have noticed, as I did, that, last week, there was prominent media coverage of the fact that more than 100 civil society organisations signed an open letter to say that they are really worried that the human rights bill might be scrapped, so the information that Ms Martin is going to seek on the bill will be important for us all.

Therefore, we do not know about the human rights bill. Does Maurice Golden recognise that Sarah Boyack has proposed a member’s bill on a wellbeing and sustainable development commissioner? Some of the intentions of his amendment could be picked up by a commissioner, if, collectively, as a Parliament, we agree on that. Does he recognise that there could be an opportunity there?

Thank you.

Some important points have been made. Looking back at our stage 1 report, I see that paragraphs 18, 19 and 20 are relevant here; indeed, the points that have been made about trust and confidence and about co-operation between the UK and the Scottish Government are points that we have made in the report.

Amendments 87 and 28 are identical—I think. Obviously, Douglas Lumsden and Graham Simpson have been co-operating themselves. I had to wonder whether the amendments had been handed out by the secretary of state—was that a no? [Interruption.] Graham Simpson has said that they were not.

Having checked these amendments with the Scottish Parliament information centre, I do not think that any other act of this Parliament has the same provision, and I am not sure that inserting it at stage 2 of a circular economy bill is the best way of bringing in such principles.

The points about dialogue and co-operation are well made. In paragraph 20 of our stage 1 report, we recommended that the Government should seek advice on the bill from the Office for the Internal Market “at the earliest opportunity”. The minister can perhaps give an update on that. However, if we were to agree to the amendments in this group, I would be worried about what that said about devolution. I am sure that we are all in a reflective mood, given that we have had 25 years of the Scottish Parliament, but I do not think that we need the amendments, and I do not think that they would be the right direction to go, so I will not support them.

I did think that Graham Simpson was more of a carrot rather than stick kind of guy. However, I am interested in hearing whether there are examples in other acts of this Parliament where such a mechanism is used. Has Mr Simpson any examples of the Scottish Government being fined for missing targets?

There is nothing odd about you, Graham.

I think that it probably would be easy to set up an app. My question is about proposed section 14(1)(b), which relates to

“reporting any incident of unlawful disposal of waste.”

You have said that an app could be a one-size-fits-all solution, but would it take into account that different local authorities have different set-ups in relation to their staffing teams, as you will appreciate given your background in local government? Would it be as easy as you are suggesting?

Your point about information was well made. You might be familiar with the PickupMyPeriod app, which works nationally but is much more about providing information about the different public buildings where people can collect free period products. It is easier to keep that app up to date because it is based on location.

Are you concerned that including the provision on reporting could raise public expectations about getting a response to such reports? Would the response come nationally, or would it be for the local authority to respond?

Good morning. Amendment 144 aims to increase the uptake of reusable nappies by requiring ministers to set targets for that. Other amendments that I have lodged in a later group would provide the means by which we can increase uptake, but amendment 144 is about the target.

Anyone who followed stage 1 and heard the evidence on the bill will have heard me talk about the issue and will know that I am passionate about it. More than 160 million disposable nappies go to landfill every year in Scotland alone; the figure for the UK is around 3 billion. On average, each baby or toddler will go through about 5,000 disposable nappies. It is clearly a huge issue for the circular economy, but it is also about how we can provide families with choice to help them to save money.

I am grateful to the Scottish Government for the time that it has spent working with me on the proposals. That included a fact-finding visit to see North Ayrshire Council’s trailblazing birth-to-potty scheme, which is a good initiative whereby the council works with waste officers and other local partners to give parents choice and access to free reusable nappies. The scheme has been going for about five years and it is cost neutral. The council can save money on landfill and the scheme does not cost it any additional money. That is the principle behind it.

The Scottish Government is also doing good work with the baby box, which gives people access to a voucher that they can redeem to try out reusable nappies and see whether they like them. However, as I will perhaps talk about when we get to a later section, other support is needed around education and awareness. As Sarah Boyack said, people need awareness, but this is not about forcing people to use reusable nappies. I want to make that clear. As a parent who has used them, I am a big fan, but they are not for everyone.

I agree with a lot of the sentiments behind amendment 15, but I wonder whether it is possible to strike a more optimistic note. We know that, with the moratorium on new incinerators, there is a question about the legacy infrastructure, but we are going to see a reduction in the waste that is going to incineration. I share the concerns about what we are doing now on reuse and recycling, but we have already seen a big shift in policy because we have introduced a block on new incinerators. Did you take that into account when you thought about the need for your amendments to the bill? Does that give you any comfort that there will be a different approach from the local authorities that have been too reliant on incinerators?

I will in a moment. I am trying to remember the figures. I was going to talk about them later. It is estimated that switching to reusables can save families between £600 and £1,000 a year, or more.

Some parents, including parents we met in North Ayrshire, take a hybrid approach. They might use a disposable nappy at night time or if they are going on holiday or are out and about. I hope that, as our communities and businesses become more supportive of the circular economy, we will see better facilities for these things. I was about to say to the minister that there is some similarity with the work that we did together as back benchers with the Government on reusable period products.

I am happy to hear from Maurice Golden.

Amendment 153 would add provisions for the redistribution of unsold textile goods by public bodies and businesses. That would come in under section 8. I have already touched on the carbon implications of textile waste and the impact of Scotland’s waste on people overseas.

Amendment 154 has a similar aim to amendment 153. It would place a requirement in the legislation under section 8 to include provisions for the recycling, reuse and repair of unsold textiles. That recognises that not all textiles will be suitable for businesses and public bodies to redistribute, and it builds in flexibility to provide for other means of disposing of unsold textiles while ensuring compliance with the waste hierarchy.

Amendments 155 and 156 are connected in their aim, which is to prohibit the exportation of unsold textile goods.

I will briefly mention Douglas Lumsden’s amendment 88. He makes some important points. Through my extensive research into the enforcement of existing regulations in the course of my member’s bill on ecocide, I am very aware that the funding of enforcement bodies is important. I am happy to support that amendment.