Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

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?