Seòmar agus comataidhean

I thank the minister for taking an intervention. Some really important points and principles have been raised. There are other relevant workstreams that are outside the committee’s remit, such as Scotland’s aspiration to be a fair work nation by 2025. Recently, senior figures in the trade union movement have cast a lot of doubt on whether we are on track in that regard.

Given the obligations that Maurice Golden narrated and given that we will have workers in situations that could become quite confrontational, there needs to be guidance and co-design work around that. I encourage Maurice Golden to speak to relevant unions and the STUC. I note that the Parliament passed legislation on the protection of retail workers. Notwithstanding issues around the reserved nature of employment law, could we look at that legislation as a template to see whether any learnings can be taken from it? Maurice Golden has really good intent with his amendments, but some of the wording—how we frame the point—needs to be looked at. Will the minister take that away and speak to colleagues with responsibility for the economy?

That was another really important contribution. I come back to the work that is being done on barriers, because there is a perception—I should say that it is not an unfair one—that using real nappies can create extra work, and we live in a society where a lot of unpaid work at home falls to women. The ability to save money is an incentive, but if it means having to spend a lot of time doing extra laundry, that could—quite rightly—put some people off. We certainly need to look at that. I cannot remember exactly, but I am pretty sure that I lodged some written questions about schemes that might be available for support with laundry.

In our scrutiny of the circular economy, we have talked a lot about the importance of the third sector. It is important for colleagues to know that there are organisations in our communities that are doing a lot of work on education and awareness. For example, there is a nappy library that operates across Ayrshire, although it is in a bizarre situation where it operates pan-Ayrshire but only one part of Ayrshire—North Ayrshire, and not East or South Ayrshire—has the birth-to-potty scheme.

In my area, we have the Lanarkshire real nappy project. I recently met some of the mums at Swaddle—a social enterprise that sells pre-owned reusable nappies, which are really cheap. People might think, “Oh, you’re buying second-hand nappies”, but they are washed and sterilised and are perfectly good to be used again. However, people might think that they are not going to touch a nappy that someone else has used, so it is about education around that.

I will draw my comments to a close. I think that I have warmed everyone up for a later discussion about why reusable nappies are important and why they are an important feature of a circular economy. However, amendment 144 is simply about the target. We will come to the other amendments on the subject in due course. Amendment 144 seeks to ensure that secondary legislation that is made on the target commits ministers to increasing the uptake of reusable nappies. That would support measures that are introduced elsewhere in the bill.

Amendment 145 seeks to achieve a similar result for food waste. Colleagues will know that Scottish Environment LINK and others mentioned food waste at stage 1. If we are more circular in relation to food, we will have opportunities to improve biodiversity and the climate.

Amendment 146 seeks to ensure that targets that are set under section 6 will align with the “do no harm” principle. That would support Sarah Boyack’s amendment to section 1 that will implement the requirements for that principle.

I will not comment too much on other people’s amendments in the group, but there are some really good suggestions. Sarah Boyack’s amendment 192 would ensure that the waste hierarchy is considered when the targets are devised. We heard in the stage 1 evidence that there is a feeling that the bill is still quite recycling heavy, and amendment 192 would contribute to rebalancing that.

Ben Macpherson’s amendments 125 and 126 will contribute to creating a more holistic approach by increasing repair and refurbishment and they, too, will rebalance the bill away from a disproportionate focus on recycling.

I have been listening carefully to Ben Macpherson. On paper, I was pleased with amendment 128—Mr Macpherson has put a lot of thought into it. Indeed, he referenced our report in his comments, and I was just looking back at the paragraphs that he mentioned, including paragraph 421.

Let me just read out some of that paragraph. Some councils told us that they were recycling

“a significant amount of materials ... that could have been repaired and reused”,

citing “a lack of infrastructure” as “the primary reason”. Again, our report contains really good evidence on this issue, with funding as the elephant in the room throughout the whole process. Indeed, we know that there have been concerns about the financial memorandum. I appreciate that Ben Macpherson has said today that amendment 128 is a probing amendment, but we really need a serious discussion about this issue, and it would be good to hear what the minister has to say.

The reference to the Verity house agreement was important. From my discussions with COSLA and local government, I know that they have appreciated, up to this point, their dialogue with Ms Slater and officials. I hope that that dialogue will continue because, in my view, local authorities want to do the right thing. They are ambitious for the circular economy, but the funding and the lack of capacity are putting real constraints on local authorities and other partners.

It was really good that Douglas Lumsden mentioned men’s sheds, as there has been a lot of media coverage about the funding challenges that the national organisation faces and what the situation might mean for men’s sheds in our regions and constituencies. It would be a real shame if some of them had to close.

I support amendment 128, and I thank Ben Macpherson for bringing it forward for discussion.

Will Mark Ruskell give way?

I apologise for the preamble. The question is, of course, will the minister meet me to talk about the amendments, so that we can make progress on the topic together?

On amendment 72, I want to clarify that I was not meaning to be critical of local government. The proposal could be seen as something that could enhance existing communication. Is there scope in the work on the circular economy strategy to work in partnership with our local authority colleagues and others on communication?

We would all agree that public buy-in is crucial, and the way to achieve that is to invest in public information, resources and capacity. Local authorities are doing really good work, but they all have different structures. When we went to North Ayrshire, we saw that the council there had waste awareness officers, who perform an important role. Not every council has that, but could such initiatives go into the strategy as a piece of work to take forward?

I apologise.

I think that what you are trying to do with amendment 196 is a good intention, but I wonder what it would mean in practice. Do you have any idea of how many companies or organisations would have to file such a report? Who would then assess that? Do you think that the Government has the capacity to look at that in a proper and meaningful way?

The figures vary and it will depend on what brand of nappies people are using.

I am getting carried away.