Chamber and committees

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?

The figures vary and it will depend on what brand of nappies people are using.

I am getting carried away.

I appreciate the letter that the committee received recently from Ms Slater, which recognised the EU’s work on preventing ecocide, and her helpful comments on my proposed ecocide prevention member’s bill. The minister mentioned the human rights bill. Will she clarify when that will be introduced and whether that will include the right to a healthy environment?

Today has been a good opportunity to discuss the issue, given the way that the bill is set out. Perhaps it will not be today, given the time, but I hope that we will have time to have a conversation about the more substantial amendments. I take the point that the minister made about targets and that there could be a place for those in regulations. That is important.

I ask the minister and colleagues to think about the fact that we have had that example in North Ayrshire for five years. That good practice has existed, but something is missing in terms of others proactively learning from it. In other hearings of the committee, when we have had council leaders in front of us, I have put that example to them and they have all said that it is very laudable and good, but nothing has happened.

There is a danger that we will continue to fall behind other parts of the UK, where there is quite a lively programme of work around reusable nappy week, which happens in April every year. Other local authorities elsewhere are doing some good work.

I do not have the data here today, and I do not want to name and shame individual councils—it is not about that—but every year I have put in freedom of information requests to find out what schemes are available, and we have seen a reduction, so I would welcome—

I was deep in thought, listening to Mr Simpson. There were some good ideas in there.

Amendments 171 to 173 would place reporting requirements on public authorities with regard to food waste and textiles, and I am grateful to Mark Ruskell for his earlier words about them.

We know that food waste and textile waste have immense carbon consequences, as stakeholders noted during stage 1. Household recycling rates are already published by SEPA, but the amendments aim to deal specifically with textiles and unused food items that are stored and disposed of by public authorities. The proposals would give us more clarity and, I believe, more accountability and transparency around unused or wasted textiles and food in the public sector. The SEPA data that is published annually covers household recycling rates and includes some information on textile waste and food waste, but I believe that my amendments complement that and would bring further clarity—I am sorry, I have made that point already, so I will leave that one there.

Amendment 172 would place a requirement on local authorities to report on the final destination of recycled items, and that links to issues that we raised earlier about the export of waste overseas. SEPA’s annual data on local authority recycling rates does not include that information, and I think that having it would help us to better understand the impact of what is being done. That also helps with the earlier points about doing no harm.

On Graham Simpson’s amendment 72, there is a really important point about using technology for goods to make it easier for the public to get information and to report bad practice and potential crimes. If that helps public bodies, particularly local authorities, that is a good thing. I will be interested to hear what the minister says about the amendment. There is a lot of merit in what Graham Simpson has said, although I have some questions about digital inclusion. Again, we know that not everyone will be on apps, and I would not want to have something in the bill that would quickly become out of date. However, that kind of innovation is exactly what we should be looking at. Perhaps there should not be a top-down approach with a requirement for ministers to do something. I would be interested to hear what discussions have taken place with COSLA and local government on that.

It is a matter of impact and proportionality. I agreed with Ben Macpherson when he talked last week about the impact on the construction sector. However, we do not put things in the bill as a punishment; we do it to maximise opportunities. In any case, I think that we will return to the construction sector.

I have already narrated some of the figures, but I note again that, in the UK, 3 billion disposable nappies go to landfill every year. There are opportunities in the circular economy strategy and the route map, but I point out that the North Ayrshire example—I really encourage colleagues to look at that—has been in place for five years and no other local authority in Scotland has run with it or put something similar in place. North Ayrshire does it well because it has waste awareness officers and leadership on the issue. It has really bought into it. Other local authorities perhaps do not have the time, capacity or knowledge to do the same thing. Sometimes, therefore, we have to put things in legislation.

I draw a parallel with the Period Products (Free Provision) (Scotland) Act 2021. We did not say in that act that people must use reusable products, but if we put in place legislation that says that there must be access to such products, we create choice and start the culture change. If we do not put disposable nappies in the bill, we will miss an opportunity. In 10 years’ time, we could still be talking about the great scheme in North Ayrshire that no one else is doing.

I have, of course, been speaking to the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, because we want to do this with local government. It is very interested in the work in North Ayrshire. We have had some discussions about the issue and they will continue.

Maurice Golden might have noticed, as I did, that, last week, there was prominent media coverage of the fact that more than 100 civil society organisations signed an open letter to say that they are really worried that the human rights bill might be scrapped, so the information that Ms Martin is going to seek on the bill will be important for us all.

Therefore, we do not know about the human rights bill. Does Maurice Golden recognise that Sarah Boyack has proposed a member’s bill on a wellbeing and sustainable development commissioner? Some of the intentions of his amendment could be picked up by a commissioner, if, collectively, as a Parliament, we agree on that. Does he recognise that there could be an opportunity there?

Thank you.

Some important points have been made. Looking back at our stage 1 report, I see that paragraphs 18, 19 and 20 are relevant here; indeed, the points that have been made about trust and confidence and about co-operation between the UK and the Scottish Government are points that we have made in the report.

Amendments 87 and 28 are identical—I think. Obviously, Douglas Lumsden and Graham Simpson have been co-operating themselves. I had to wonder whether the amendments had been handed out by the secretary of state—was that a no? [Interruption.] Graham Simpson has said that they were not.

Having checked these amendments with the Scottish Parliament information centre, I do not think that any other act of this Parliament has the same provision, and I am not sure that inserting it at stage 2 of a circular economy bill is the best way of bringing in such principles.

The points about dialogue and co-operation are well made. In paragraph 20 of our stage 1 report, we recommended that the Government should seek advice on the bill from the Office for the Internal Market “at the earliest opportunity”. The minister can perhaps give an update on that. However, if we were to agree to the amendments in this group, I would be worried about what that said about devolution. I am sure that we are all in a reflective mood, given that we have had 25 years of the Scottish Parliament, but I do not think that we need the amendments, and I do not think that they would be the right direction to go, so I will not support them.