Chamber and committees

I was talking about transport but, on ScotWind, I hear concerns that Scotland’s sea bed has been sold off far too cheaply. We can have another debate about that.

I go back to my point about transport. What additional policies will be introduced to support the expansion of train, tram and bus services? I might steal some of Graham Simpson’s lines, but when we discussed the issue at the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee, there was real concern about bus deserts—areas where people young and old have a free bus pass but there are no buses to get on. More and more councils across the country are cutting back on school transport because they do not have the budget, including in Lanarkshire, which is affecting my constituents. We need the Government to get real on that.

I agree with Uplift’s call regarding workforce. To achieve a just transition, the Government needs to urgently deliver a coherent transition plan for workers, or we will risk situations such as those that exist in Grangemouth right now occurring around the country.

I will bring my remarks to a close. Lord Deben, the outgoing chair of the Climate Change Committee, said:

“Our children will not forgive us if we leave them a world of withering heat and devastating storms where sea level rises and extreme temperatures force millions to move because their countries are no longer habitable. None of us can avoid our responsibility. Delay is not an option.”

I agree with that. Scottish Labour stands ready to work with the Scottish Government where necessary, and we will push it to be bolder at all times.

Will the minister give way briefly on that point?

I am grateful to Mark Ruskell for his comments and for his interest in the issue, as a fellow cloth-bum parent—if that is the right terminology these days. I just want to try to get a bit of debate here. The scheme in North Ayrshire has been on the go since 2019 and, in the past, there were other schemes. Every year, when reusable nappy week comes around—it is normally in April—I go on social media and see lots of activity being promoted by local authorities in England and Wales, and I feel quite sad not to see more of that in Scotland. I know that Lorna Slater has heard me say that before. Progress is not being made.

Amendment 105 would require local authorities to bring in schemes by April 2026, which gives a bit of time. I have had a chat with COSLA and there is no objection to learning more from North Ayrshire. However, does Mark Ruskell not share my concern that, if we do not start to provide a bit of national direction and leadership on the issue, no more schemes will emerge in Scotland, which would be a real shame?

Scottish Labour welcomes amendment 71, in the name of Gillian Mackay. We note that Action to Protect Rural Scotland also strongly supports the amendment. Adding to the bill a provision that ministers

“may, by regulations, establish a take-back scheme for single-use vaping products”

would be welcome. I hope that all members will support amendment 71.

All members will know, from local conversations that they will have had, that tackling the blight of single-use vapes in our communities is important. People have raised with me the issues caused by litter that they see in local parks. Young people, especially those in our primary schools, are often the most vocal about that.

Scottish Labour welcomes the other work that the Scottish Government and the UK Government have undertaken and the approaches that Gillian Mackay has championed as we try to achieve a ban on single-use vapes. The Prime Minister’s last-minute gamble on an early election has clearly delayed the implementation of any such ban. I hope that, whatever happens after the election on 4 July, we will see cross-party and cross- Government working on the issue. As we work towards the medium and longer term, having such a ban would be ideal. It would be great if that could be done across the UK. If we need to drive that approach forward in Scotland, let us do so. We need to send a strong signal that such littering is not acceptable.

In response to Edward Mountain’s question, Gillian Mackay made an important point about making take-back easier for people. For example, South Lanarkshire Council should be commended for its appointment system for local amenity sites in my area. It has seen high demand from people who access the sites by car, so it now has an appointment system to manage any conflict there.

The general point is that we need to make such schemes as easy as possible for individuals to use. If people consume a product and go back to a particular retailer, the take-back model is appropriate.

I strongly support amendment 71.

I aim to surprise. We will talk about the issue later.

Amendment 74 speaks for itself, and I hope that members will support it. I am pleased to have worked closely with the minister on it.

I will make a final comment on amendment 45, which is in the name of Clare Adamson. It is an important amendment, as others have said. I know from my work chairing the cross-party group on construction that there is a lot of support for what the amendment proposes. In the interests of time, I will leave it there. I hope that colleagues will also support amendment 45.

I am not sure that I agree that what is proposed has to be a burden. Surely it is an opportunity. If Scotland is going to aspire to be a more circular nation, surely we need to encourage all our public bodies, regardless of their size, to play their part, and having a plan is really the start of that process.

I see that Douglas Lumsden is very excited that we have reached my amendment 105. At almost half past 7 at night, I am glad to be waking up the Tory front bench, at least.

Group 13 is indeed about reusable nappies. We have been building up to this, not just during today’s debates at stage 3 or during stages 1 and 2, but throughout the parliamentary questions that I have asked and the discussions that I have had with various members of the Government and, most important, with people across the country who can see the benefit of what I propose in my amendment.

Why did I lodge amendment 105? Well, Scotland sends 160 million single-use nappies to landfill every year. We know that, on average, each baby or toddler will use around 5,000 disposable nappies. It is an expensive business for families, but also for local authorities, given the landfill costs, and ultimately for our environment. Where better to tackle that than in the Circular Economy (Scotland) Bill?

The inspiration for the proposal came from one of our local authorities—North Ayrshire Council, whose reusable nappy scheme has been operating successfully since 2019. It was introduced by Scottish Labour and continued by an SNP administration. Back in March, I think, the former circular economy minister Lorna Slater and I went on a visit to North Ayrshire. We met the officers who have been involved in operating the scheme and promoting it to local people, and we also met one of the parents who have benefited from the scheme.

As a member of the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee, I felt that it was good to get out of Parliament and go on that visit with the then minister to find out what has been going on in North Ayrshire and what makes the good practice there tick. I thank Lorna Slater for being the first minister to agree to meet me to talk about the subject. That led to the minister commissioning the James Hutton Institute to undertake some research to investigate the barriers to the use of reusable nappies. If they can save families money and help our environment, why is their use not more mainstream? I will perhaps return to that visit in a moment.

Amendment 105 is supported by Scottish Environment LINK, Action to Protect Rural Scotland, Fidra, Friends of the Earth Scotland, Keep Scotland Beautiful and the Marine Conservation Society, which are all organisations that are widely respected by colleagues in the Parliament.

The proposal would help not only with local impact but with global impact. Colleagues, including Sarah Boyack, have talked today about our obligations on environmental justice. We know that there has been a problem with the offshoring of nappy waste, and there have been issues around the supply chain, too. I will not repeat some of the points that were made earlier about human rights and environmental justice, but the facts speak for themselves.

I know that this is the Circular Economy (Scotland) Bill, but one of the things that we have discussed is where we can avoid siloed working and where we can try to do things in a joined-up way. When North Ayrshire Council brought in a reusable nappy scheme in 2019, it was very much about trying to be more circular, but it was also an anti-poverty measure. Today we can see how such schemes, which are available in other council areas, would help families who are struggling with the cost of living.

When it comes to reducing waste-stream contamination, baby waste on nappies causes many issues, and there are practical benefits of reusable nappy schemes. I brought the issue to the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee at stage 2, but I withdrew my amendment at that time to take up the offer from the current minister, Gillian Martin, to discuss further opportunities and possibilities.

Mark Ruskell talked earlier about the frustrations that we all have, and one of the frustrations that I have had for a couple of years now is that only a handful of councils are doing something about promoting access to reusable nappies. From my point of view, it is not about telling people that they must use those products; it is about creating more choice and giving people more options. We need to better understand why other councils have not been able to learn from the good practice in North Ayrshire, particularly as we know that the scheme there operates on a cost-neutral basis.

I will mention something really positive that the Scottish Government is doing. With the baby box, people can opt in to use the voucher on reusable nappies. In recent years, however, uptake has remained static, at around 13 or 14 per cent. I know that Shirley-Anne Somerville, the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice, is looking into that. The James Hutton Institute will perhaps give us a bit more insight into some of the barriers.

I will be keen to hear from the Minister for Climate Action about the lessons that we can now take from the James Hutton Institute report and about whether that might lead to some action, such as a short-life working group.

To my mind, amendment 105 is quite straightforward. When I met representatives of North Ayrshire Council, I found that they were very proud—rightly—of what the council has been achieving. It is helping families in a practical way, while diverting waste away from landfill. The council is doing its bit for the environment and is helping families with the cost of living. What that shows, however, is that our councils are so busy trying to do their core work that they do not have time to shout about the great work that they are doing, and they do not then promote it to others.

Ayrshire is not in my parliamentary region, so I do not have any skin in the game there, but there is an example there. Ayrshire Nappy Library, which is led by volunteers, works in a pan-Ayrshire way, but only one part of Ayrshire—North Ayrshire—has the scheme, and the families who come along from East and South Ayrshire currently do not. It is not a matter of prescribing to local councils how they might operate such a scheme, but the aim is to try to make something happen.

I will stop there. I hope that other members will take part, particularly Douglas Lumsden, who showed a bit of interest earlier—if he is still with us. I hope to hear more from the minister, who has been very constructive in her approach, although I know that there is still something holding the Government and perhaps others back from getting stuck into the issue.

I will end where I started. If my proposal is not to feature in the Circular Economy (Scotland) Bill, then where will it?

I move amendment 105.

I agree with Sarah Boyack—there are some important amendments in the group. I will not speak to them all, but I think that Mark Ruskell, in opening consideration of the group, got off to a good start—in particular, with regard to his amendment on “critical minerals”.

As many people have pointed out during scrutiny of the bill, it is a framework bill, which means that the main effects of the legislation will become apparent later, after publication of the secondary legislation and strategy. It is important, therefore—indeed, it is crucial—that we get things right at this stage. That includes ensuring that the right requirements for the strategy are in the text of the bill. The amendments in the group are therefore important, as we have heard.

My amendments 94 and 97 seek to strengthen the bill’s alignment with the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009. At stage 2, the Scottish Government lodged an amendment requiring ministers to

“have regard to the just transition principles set out in ... the Climate Change ... Act”.

However, that amendment did not include all the subsections in section 35 of the 2009 act, which contain specific requirements for the climate change plan in relation to employment, the regions, and support for the workforce, businesses and communities.

Key stakeholders, including the Just Transition Partnership and Friends of the Earth Scotland, agree with Scottish Labour that the definition of “just transition” that we have seen at stage 2 is too narrow. Amendments 94 and 97 would implement subsections (20) and (21) of section 35 of the 2009 act. That is important, because it would require the Scottish Government to consider

“how any proposals and policies”

will

“affect different sectors ... and ... regions”

of the economy; to support sectoral and regional developments; and to

“set out ... costs and benefits”

of policies. I ask colleagues to back amendments 94 and 97 in order to draw from the best practice in the 2009 act and to ensure that our transition towards a circular economy is a just transition.

Amendment 72 would require the strategy to consider human rights and environment impacts in supply chains. I thank Friends of the Earth Scotland and Scottish Environment LINK for supporting amendment 72, and I thank the Minister for Climate Action for engaging constructively with me and with Scottish Labour on the amendment following stage 2.

During stage 2, we discussed at length the impact of policy in Scotland on other countries, in particular with regard to how resource demand here can impact on other parts of the world, especially in the global south, in both an environmental context and a human rights context. The importance of due diligence in supply chains was highlighted many times. Amendment 72 would strengthen the strategy’s commitment to

“due diligence ... in supply chains”,

thereby ensuring that we maximise the environmental and social benefits in Scotland and internationally.

I am grateful to Mark Ruskell for his support for amendment 95, which aims to strengthen the strategy with regard to promoting reuse. At stage 1, we heard concerns that the bill was too recycling focused; some people called it “a recycling bill”. People were looking for more on other aspects of the waste hierarchy—in particular, reuse.

I am pleased, therefore, that the Scottish Government has sought to address that further at stage 2 and to provide more reassurance. Scottish Labour would, however, like the bill to go further and to strengthen the provision in relation to the waste hierarchy. My amendment 95, which would require that

“reusable items are given priority over single-use items wherever possible”,

is backed by key stakeholders, including Scottish Environment LINK’s sustainable economy group, which has provided valuable expertise in scrutiny of the matter.

Amendment 74 relates to how ministers prepare the circular economy strategy, and states that they

“must have regard to ... encouraging equal opportunities ... and ... furthering the reduction of inequalities of outcome which result from socio-economic disadvantage.”

The minister and I had some good discussions in which we agreed that we need to take a gender-sensitive approach when we are thinking about transitioning towards a circular economy. I will not talk about nappies too much just now, because that will come in a later group, but it was through our discussion of how an item—I see that Douglas Lumsden is giggling. I am sure that he will have a lot to say on that later.

That is partly the point; there is a wee bit of embarrassment about items such as nappies. That led us into a discussion about stigma and the gendered aspects of the issue, which is perhaps why we have noticed that there is not enough policy development in that regard.

I am grateful to Mark Ruskell and the minister for their contributions. It is important, following on from stage 2, when we last discussed the matter, that we had a chance to get this discussion on the record and to explore the progress that has been made and what we can learn from the James Hutton Institute report. More work needs to be done, and I hope that we can work on that together.

I was disappointed not to hear from Douglas Lumsden, because I thought that he wanted to contribute to the debate; he must be overwhelmed by what he has heard.

I hope that, as constituency and regional MSPs, we can go back to our own local authorities, and indeed to our health boards, on the issue. At stage 2, I lodged amendments on what our health boards can do because, when I made a freedom of information request, I found that health boards were spending a lot of money on single-use nappies. We can address that point, alongside the provision of the baby box, through conversations with health visitors, midwives and others to raise awareness and take some of the stigma out of the subject. We can also address the worry that reusable nappies may mean extra laundry and extra work, when in fact people who try reusables enjoy it and really feel the benefit.

It is a shame that, in the past couple of years, we have seen the demise of Tots Bots, which was the reusable nappies firm that supplied the baby box. It has now gone out of business. Again, that links in with our work on a just transition and community wealth building, where we have opportunities to do things differently.

I know that Maurice Golden and others who are involved in the cross-party group on the circular economy try to look at the issues in the widest possible sense, so it is actually of interest to every portfolio. Again, I note that it is a shame when we see companies and other enterprises that have a real passion for the circular economy, and which have interesting products, go down the toilet when they should be thriving. We need to think about the issue in terms of a just transition as well.

I will leave the minister to think about something that, again, does not lie only in her portfolio. Through the Period Products (Free Provision) (Scotland) Act 2021, we have seen what can happen when we create opportunities through legislation. One could argue that the 2021 act took a top-down approach, but it has allowed people, in their communities or in their own schools or colleges, access to reusable period products that they would not have previously had. That has allowed people to try products, and it has maximised choice. It is not dictatorial—it is about giving people access to products where they are, including in their own local authorities.

I will leave that point there. Local authorities are really embracing the 2021 act—they are doing excellent work as a result, and people around the world look to Scotland to learn from that. We could do something along those lines with reusable nappies.

I am pleased to have commitments from Ms Martin today. I hope that the finalised route map will include the commitment that she has given on reuse, that the work will continue, and that it will perhaps be in the strategy as well. Nevertheless, I wonder whether there could be a short-life working group to look at the James Hutton Institute’s findings and take those forward with a bit more oomph.

I am sorry; I thought that Maurice Golden was getting up, but he is just stretching. Yes—I see that he is sitting back down.

Given what we have heard today, I will not press amendment 105, but I look forward to working with the Scottish Government in the future.

Amendment 105, by agreement, withdrawn.

After section 17

There is a lot of agreement on this group, and we certainly support all the amendments in it. My amendment 77 seeks to mirror my earlier amendment 72, which was already debated in group 2 and agreed to. Amendment 77 is about ensuring that the application of due diligence in relation to environmental protection and human rights is exercised in supply chains. That would ensure that those issues are taken into account when ministers produce secondary legislation, and it would provide consistency between sections 1(3) and 6(2), for the same reasons that I set out earlier.

I thank members for their comments, and I ask them to support Sarah Boyack’s amendment 100. As I said, we support all the amendments in the group.