Seòmar agus comataidhean

Bob Doris has made a really good point. The situation is similar to the challenges on fast fashion, where we are trying to create a culture shift towards slow fashion. I know that Graham Simpson is a big fan of pre-loved clothing, which he has spoken about in the chamber previously. I am not sure whether he is wearing something circular today.

There are things that we can do, individually, but we need to have the right systems in place. How do we create an environment in our schools where it is normal to have more sustainable practices? Callum’s proposition mentions metal bottles, but there might not be a facility to wash those properly. Sometimes, children feel that they cannot wash them properly in school or do not have the access to do so.

That important idea is not my mine; it came from Callum when he was seven years old and visited the Parliament. I know that he continues to receive support from Sue Webber, who is one of his local MSPs. I read that he felt a bit disappointed that nothing had happened after he met former First Minister Nicola Sturgeon. I am reflecting on the many young people that the committee has heard from, whether they be members of the Scottish Youth Parliament or other young people who have been involved in citizens panels. They want to know that, if they bring us good ideas, something will happen.

That is a fair question. I cannot speak for COSLA. The conversations that we have had together have been really positive—and they have primarily been on nappies. COSLA has not expressed any opposition to the proposals. I was surprised to hear that COSLA did not really know about the North Ayrshire scheme. There is something here that we need to take away about collaboration and good practice not being spotlighted enough.

I have not had time to speak to COSLA about the mattress scheme or the proposals for reusable water bottles. A lot of attention has been given to reusable bottles at the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee, and there is a lot on the record about it.

The comments about what more local authorities could do are fair. It is sometimes frustrating that everyone waits to see what the legislation is going to do. We might then think, “Don’t do legislation. Put it in a plan or a strategy.” I note that Mr Swinney said that we perhaps need fewer strategies and more action.

I will leave it there in the interests of everyone’s time.

I move amendment 157.

I am trying to understand the amendment. I understand the aim and the issues around lack of consistency. The desire is to simplify, but would it apply only to new bins? What would happen to existing bins in the different colours that we already have? I will not narrate the colours of my recycling bins, but they are probably different from your recycling bins. What would happen with the existing bins, of which we have many across Scotland right now?

For clarity, you mentioned that we could learn from other regions and other countries. Are you aware of countries that have shifted towards having a uniform approach to recycling, whether that is through the colour of the bins or providing information that goes alongside them—for example, with a sticker that indicates what can go into which bin and what cannot go into it?

Will the member take an intervention?

I am grateful to Maurice Golden for lodging his amendments. It is important that we have a culture of zero tolerance of violence against any worker, but people who work in waste disposal sometimes get abuse that many of us do not realise goes on, and safety is crucial.

I am interested to know what discussions Maurice Golden has had with the relevant trade unions. I put on the record my membership of Unite and the GMB, which represent workers in the sector, as does Unison. I also note that I chair the Scottish Labour trade union group in the Parliament. Has Maurice Golden been able to have discussions with either the STUC or individual unions about the way in which his amendments have been drafted? I have a few questions on the language, but I agree with the sentiment.

It is nice to come in after Douglas Lumsden, having heard him be very passionate about reusable items. Mr Lumsden, I ask you just to hold that thought.

I want to come in briefly to support amendment 25, in the name of Graham Simpson, on biodegradable items being exempt from a charge. It is important that people who are already trying to be more circular and environmentally friendly are not penalised for that. I am happy to support that amendment.

Amendment 26 provides helpful clarity for business. However, I will not be supporting amendment 35, which seeks to strip out section 9. That part of the bill is important.

Thank you, convener. I am grateful for your remarks. You spoke well on this group.

We all have examples of serious fly-tipping in our regions and constituencies. I was asked to speak at a Keep Scotland Beautiful conference in my region a couple of months ago. I pay tribute to the volunteers who are out trying to deal with litter and fly-tipping every weekend—in fact, every day of the week. People are frustrated and there is recognition that current regulations and enforcement practices are not robust enough.

Mr Simpson talked about SEPA. I am interested to hear what Mr Lumsden says about that. I know from my research for my proposed member’s bill on ecocide that people are asking what we can do with existing powers to strengthen enforcement, but there is a big question mark about resources for SEPA and local authorities.

That leads me back to prevention and having a deterrent. We can try to save money by making fly-tipping unattractive for the criminals—let us just call them what they are. Some fly-tipping is on an industrial level and some of it is organised crime, which is a growing problem across Europe. Europol has done some interesting work on it. One of the fastest-growing areas of crime relates to waste.

We discussed the issue with Michael Matheson when he was Cabinet Secretary for Net Zero, Energy and Transport. At that point, there had been a big programme about it on the BBC. I discussed it a lot with Lorna Slater in her previous role as Minister for Green Skills, Circular Economy and Biodiversity. Like Murdo Fraser, who is not at the meeting but has done a power of work on the matter, I am grateful to Ms Slater for all her work. It is interesting to hear that he and Ms Slater had constructive talks, because that is a side of their relationship that we do not hear about often on social media or in newspaper columns. Let us get that firmly on the record, because the reality is that a lot of work goes on behind the scenes.

Fly-tipping is a universal problem across Scotland. It is very much an issue for rural communities, but it is also an urban issue. I want to speak in favour of the amendments in the group. I note that Edward Mountain will not move his amendment 121, but I am interested to hear what the minister has to say, because the amendments are about empowering our local authorities and other regulators, such as SEPA, and trying to get behaviour change on a nationwide level. Right now, the people who are responsible for fly-tipping are completely unfussed about the consequences of it. Not enough fines are dished out—I have seen that through my research.

The reaction to Murdo Fraser’s bill proposal has been really positive. If it looks like the Government will not support his bill as a stand-alone piece of legislation, I would be keen to see how much of it can be brought into the Circular Economy (Scotland) Bill.

Yes, of course.

It could be either. That is a really good question. In the hospital setting, people are often told to bring in their own nappies, but sometimes babies come early and circumstances do not allow that, so hospitals provide emergency supplies, as they do with nursing pads, maternity pads and so on. If parents see what reusable nappies are and know that they will get access to them in the baby box, that creates awareness. We are not saying that those would be the only nappies that parents would be given. However, given that NHS boards are spending the money already and that, as a nation, we aim to be more circular and to do things differently, we need to consider how we can embed that across the public sector.

On the point about laundry, we have very high clinical standards around infection prevention and control in our NHS settings, but there is no reason why the nappies could not be laundered and kept for the next baby who needs them. That is happening in our communities already. At the nappy libraries, pre-owned and pre-loved nappies are being passed on. The other day, I visited a social enterprise where people could pick up pre-owned real nappies for a couple of pounds, with all the kit that they might need. Again, that is removing the stigma.

It is encouraging that Ms Slater commissioned some research on the barriers to the uptake of reusable nappies. I understand that the Government has a report coming to it from the James Hutton Institute, and it will be interesting to see what that has uncovered. It is a bit like the situation with reusable period products. Once people know that alternatives are available, they might try them.

It is important that local authorities can take a lead on the matter—that is what amendment 170 is about—because one of the barriers is cost. If families buy the birth-to-potty kit themselves, it can cost them up to a couple of hundred pounds. Often, they also wonder what other things they will have to buy, and we need to factor in the loss of income because of maternity pay and so on. It might not be a high priority, but councils, given their procurement powers, can buy reusable nappies at volume. I will not narrate the figures that North Ayrshire Council gave me, but I was quite surprised by the rate at which it is able to buy them. It said that we should consider the potential savings if more councils did the same thing.