Chamber and committees

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.

Yes—I am afraid that it is back to me. Sarah Boyack sends her apologies, as she is away on parliamentary business.

The intention of amendment 105 is to exempt from the penalties in section 11 residents who are living in a tenement or flat, under the definition of those properties in the Tenements (Scotland) Act 2004. As we have heard before—usually from the deputy convener, who I hope will speak to the issue, because he knows much more about it than I do—there were concerns, which we put in our stage 1 report, about those penalties being applied to people in communal properties. The committee was keen to get more clarity on that.

As a member for Lothian, Sarah Boyack is keen to highlight that Edinburgh has a number of tenements and flats where waste and recycling bins are shared among a number of properties. Other MSPs with tenements and flats in their areas also have that interest. When properties have a factor, the factor will often arrange for disposal of waste that has been left next to bins or deal with recyclates that have been put in the wrong bin, and the cost is then divided among the properties. Sarah Boyack lodged amendment 105 because of the concern that residents could be hit twice in the pocket. The amendment aims to ensure that there is protection for residents of flats and tenements.

Did you call me Maurice Lennon?

These ideas are coming straight from young people in classrooms in Scotland. Callum Isted has a lot of support for his proposition, not just from environmental groups but from young people themselves. As members will know from visiting any school or speaking to any eco committee, young people are so passionate about being change makers, and they get a bit frustrated with people like us—the politicians. They know the science and the required actions but do not see system change happening quickly enough. That is on us.

There needs to be a conversation about the procurement opportunities, but our schools are well placed to implement this idea in a joined-up way. We need to consider what is already in the curriculum on climate, nature and sustainability. Learning about sustainability is a national endeavour, but if we listen to Scotland’s young people we can learn something from them on this subject.

On Maurice Golden’s point about nappies, what if we are sitting here in 20 years and someone says, “Why are we not routinely using refillable and reusable bottles? There was a conversation in Parliament about that 20 years ago?”

It is also an important part of reducing the cost of the school day. There is a lot of pressure on families to buy the new school bag, the new lunch box and the new water bottle with the latest theme every year. I would say to Bob Doris that that is part of, and an extension of, fast fashion. Schools are working hard to reduce the cost of the school day. I see the amendment sitting very much in that space, but it is highly relevant to having a more circular economy.

Maurice Golden kindly mentioned amendment 216. People are going to think that I am on commission with North Ayrshire Council, but when I was down visiting it in anticipation of the meeting, I found out that it operates a scheme that tackles the issue of problem mattresses.

These figures might be a little bit out of date, as they are from 2019, but Zero Waste Scotland estimated that more than 600,000 mattresses were sent to landfill in Scotland. North Ayrshire Council is partnering with a local charity to uplift used or donated mattresses. They are completely sanitised, so they can be redistributed and have a second life. We all know from our local areas, and urban areas in particular, that mattresses can be a bit of a problem when they are just dumped on the street and in other places.

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.