Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

That is a fair question, and you made some helpful comments. Overall, it is about increasing the use of reusable nappies and reducing reliance on disposable nappies. Later amendments that are not in the current group cover different schemes that could be introduced, but I have modelled this on the North Ayrshire Council example. In Parliament, we are always keen to hear about good practice and the amazing things that are going on in local government, and North Ayrshire Council has been quietly working on this for five years.

The scheme was brought in by a Labour administration and it survived a change in administration—it is a Scottish National Party-led council now. I met the environment convener, and they are very proud of what the council is doing across the political divide, because it is a really practical way to help families. Some people engage with the scheme because they want to be more sustainable, and for others it is about trying to save money. We need such practical schemes that are free of any sort of judgment. People are not going to be policing this and asking others, “Did you use disposables some of the time?”

The purpose of the group of amendments is to set targets, and that is all about being able to monitor and encourage these things and see where we are making progress. I note that the Scottish Government has already agreed to carry out some research on the matter. I am probably stealing the minister’s lines here, but the James Hutton Institute is conducting some research on the barriers that exist.

Maurice Golden is right, and it is great that we have an expert with us who has been working on this for two decades—I did not think that he was quite as old as that. Support used to be in place. My daughter is now almost 18, but I used reusable nappies a long time ago and, although we did not get any support for doing so, I remember reading information about some of the potential health benefits, including not being exposed to some of the chemicals in disposable nappies.

To fill in the blank space on that missing page, would Bob Doris agree that the people’s panel on climate change made a really important recommendation about the importance of climate hubs and the need to make such investment locally? That would help with wider engagement, which Bob Doris referred to.

Has the minister had a chance, yet, to look at the green heat finance task force’s recommendations on developing financing mechanisms so that warm, healthy, zero-emission homes are affordable to everyone?

I am grateful to Maurice Golden for securing the important and timely debate and I congratulate Gillian Martin on her reappointment to the Government in the important role of Minister for Climate Action. I hope that, when we leave the chamber after the debate, we will all have a sense that we can work together; that the minister has said that her door is open and that good ideas from across the chamber can make their way to the Cabinet table.

Five years ago today, the Scottish Government was absolutely right to come to the chamber and declare a climate emergency. Scotland’s climate targets were achievable and they were ambitious, and we should not apologise for ambition. However, somehow—I do not have all the answers—the Government has struggled to focus on delivery and implementation and to get the right action in place at the right time. That is a real shame and a missed opportunity, because if we had got it right or it had been done a lot better, millions of Scots could have had the benefit of warmer homes, cheaper bills, better public transport, well-paid green jobs and a healthier, cleaner environment. That is what my constituents across Central Scotland want, and I think that that is what everyone in Scotland wants. That is why it is really important that the Net Zero, Energy and Climate Change Committee established the climate change people’s panel.

We often hear in the Parliament that we have to take people with us and on a journey. People already know the science. The good people of Scotland know what needs to be done, and they want us to find a way to get on and do it, so if we can knock heads together and have a group hug, let us do that. It is not about the demise of the Bute house agreement, as sad as that may be for those who were involved: we are talking about the demise of the planet and of people’s jobs and their health. Let us make just transition for workers and communities a reality and get on with it.

We have received some helpful briefings for the debate. I thank Oxfam, Friends of the Earth Scotland and the Existing Homes Alliance. The Climate Change Committee has sent an important letter to the Cabinet Secretary for Net Zero and Energy, which I expect has reinforced what has been said in the debate. I will quote Professor Piers Forster, the interim chair of the CCC, who said:

“It is deeply disappointing that the Scottish Government has decided to withdraw its 2030 and 2040 interim targets. When set, these represented an ambitious commitment to the pace of decarbonisation in Scotland; however, the Scottish Government’s development and implementation of plans were too slow, and action has not kept pace with this ambition.”

However, it is not too late to get it right. We have had passionate contributions in the debate and I can draw examples of that from across the chamber. I think that Mr Ewing has left his seat, but there are other examples of colleagues working across party divides. I have worked with Mr Ewing on solar energy; Maurice Golden on the circular economy; colleagues on the Green benches on my ecocide proposals; the Lib Dems on measures to protect our oceans and rivers from pollution; and Ash Regan in the Alba Party on its ambitions for a just transition for the workers and communities in Grangemouth—an issue that I know Stephen Kerr also cares about.

We can work together when we take the personal attacks out of it. There is no Government in the world that is doing enough. Collectively, members of the Parliament have good intentions, but we have to create the space and time in how we do our politics so that we focus on action. I thank Lorna Slater for her time and effort and the respect that she showed me during her time in the Government when we worked together on my proposals for ecocide law, and I hope that I can work with Gillian Martin and others on that.

I will end by saying that my constituents in Central Scotland do not want me to come into the chamber and critique colleagues, making it personal. It is not about the character of the individuals who are sitting on the seats, but it is very much about what we do and the action that we take. Let us focus on that as we go forward.

You have said that you want the body to be independent of Government and that you think the funding flow is important. Are we being asked to support something that is fully independent in its remit and funding model, or would you be comfortable with a body that would be set up to be independent, but which would be fully or partly funded by the Scottish Government?

You already answered my question in part when you clarified that the intention is for the new body to be independent and not funded by the Scottish Government, but what do you anticipate will be the funding model? Have you discussed the idea with the UK Climate Change Committee?

I am sorry; I cannot see Graham’s face at this moment. My question was whether Mr Simpson has a preference. I know that he has two amendments and that he is offering us a choice, but does he have a strong preference?