Chamber and committees

Thank you, convener. I apologise; I was trying to be helpful but I ended up being unhelpful. I will speak on the points about reusable nappies at the end.

Amendment 159 would have the effect of providing every school pupil in Scotland with a free, refillable bottle made from sustainable materials. Colleagues will remember Callum Isted, who made history when he came to Parliament as a seven-year-old, to speak to his petition—PE1896—at the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee. Callum successfully campaigned in his school to put an end to single-use plastic bottles.

Local authorities have a duty to provide drinking water and to make that available to children during the school day, but Callum did the sums and worked out that his school was sending a lot of single-use plastic to landfill every week in the form of drinking bottles. He managed to change the policy within his school, but he wanted to solve the issue at a Scotland-wide level.

Parliament is still considering the petition. Callum is now nine and growing up fast. He had a meeting with former First Minister Nicola Sturgeon, but as far as momentum is concerned the campaign has not gone anywhere quickly enough. Callum’s suggestion is an absolutely brilliant idea. This committee talks a lot about charges and what we might call “sticks”, in the context of the circular economy, but this idea is about incentives and “carrots”, and about giving young people opportunities.

I am grateful for all of your comments so far on the amendments, minister.

Only six local authorities have said that they would be interested in signing up to a national procurement scheme for making reusable bottles available, with the caveat that the funding would have to come from the Scottish Government. Does that not reflect a general challenge in that some of the good practice that we would like and expect to see is not happening because of expectations around funding? I also think that the mindset in local authorities of making savings where they can be made so that the authority can get to cost neutral is not being properly looked at. Your point about a national procurement scheme was well made, but the appetite for it does not seem to be there—or, there is an appetite, but the funding would have to follow.

I am enjoying hearing your response to the amendments. I do not know whether you have the figures at hand just now, but do you know approximately how many notices SEPA is serving per year, using that power? I wonder whether it would make SEPA more proactive in this space if it had responsibility for clearing what had been fly-tipped.

My general perception is that not enough notices are being served and that people feel that the enforcement side of things is not really working. That is something that I have looked at through my research on ecocide, which is looking at much higher-level crimes. If you do not have the figures today, it would be interesting to see that, because there is a perception that the powers are not being used as often as they should be.

North Ayrshire Council has been clear that the scheme is cost neutral. It has operated in that way from the beginning and that continues. Therefore, it does not cost any extra money. Yes, it is buying the nappy kits to distribute to families, and any family who lives in North Ayrshire who needs nappies is eligible—I should say that the scheme is for babies and toddlers.

The authority has said that, because of commercial confidentiality, it cannot publish the amount that it is charged at the gate for its landfill waste. That would be the same for every council—it will not give those figures—but I have no reason to disbelieve North Ayrshire Council when it says that the scheme is cost neutral. In fact, it has said that it thinks that there is potential for more savings to be made.

While I am talking about amendment 170, I want to say that the issue that it deals with relates to discussions that we have had about litter and fly-tipping. When I started working on this, I was thinking very much about trying to reduce the number of nappies that go to landfill and encouraging the use of alternatives. However, nappies are such a problem in our communities—we see them in bins in the park, at the beach and in the countryside. I know from my discussions with COSLA that, when it comes to reducing antisocial behaviour and litter, although nappies might not be one of the top five issues, they are one of the items that get disposed of irresponsibly.

I recently dealt with an issue that was raised by a local councillor in my area, who spoke about a new housing area that has a mixture of public and private sector housing. The houses are beautiful. However, someone stuck a nappy down the toilet and blocked the drains. Therefore, there is a big opportunity around education and awareness.

On the point about health boards, I want to keep this really simple. Health boards are already spending money on nappies, and the data that I have shows that none of that spend is on reusable items; it is all on single-use items. Therefore, if there was a way in which health boards could have a policy or scheme that started to shift some of that spend to reusable nappies, that would create awareness. I am thinking about not just hospitals but health visitors and midwives in the community. Having such a scheme would create visibility and start a conversation; ultimately, we are trying to bring about a change in behaviour.

Parents must have a choice. I am not saying that parents must do this or forcing parents to use a certain kind of nappy, especially if they have just given birth or they are in the hospital because their wee one is unwell. However, alongside the baby box, we need to do more. That is why, together, amendments 157 and 170 seek to create the system change that will lead to individual behaviour change.

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.