Chamber and committees

Amendments 102 and 103, which are in my name, would help to achieve Scottish Labour’s aims of strengthening the bill in relation to reuse—a point that has already been made a number of times today. We recognise the important role that individual households and local authorities will play in the success of the bill. Much of that will be achieved through the code of practice, which will be co-designed with local authorities.

Through my interest in reusable nappies—I know that Douglas Lumsden loves to hear about that—and specifically the North Ayrshire scheme, it is apparent that there is a lack of awareness of good schemes where they exist. By requiring the code of practice to promote schemes such as North Ayrshire Council’s, we can tap into the public desire to help the environment. I believe that the public want to do the right things. By requiring existing reusable schemes to be promoted by the code, we will make it easier for people in Scotland to find out about such schemes in their local areas. To be clear, amendment 102 seeks to ensure that the code promotes reusable schemes that are operated by local authorities.

We recognise that Maurice Golden’s amendments 58 and 59 will help to boost the prioritisation of reuse and repair, so we were glad to see them. We were also pleased to see Maurice Golden’s amendment 60, which would require proper resourcing for local authorities to enable them to meet their duties under the bill. Local authorities need to have adequate capacity, in terms of skills and resources, to ensure that we become a more circular nation. It is important that the Scottish Government supports local authorities in every way that it can to properly achieve a more circular economy.

This group of amendments is important. It follows on from an important debate that we had at stage 2. We believe that the targets that Maurice Golden and Graham Simpson have lodged are critical to driving up action to increase recycling. We also agree that targets are essential, but, as we have seen in relation to climate targets, action is crucial. Given that this is a framework bill, it is critical that we set the right ambitions now, so that we can steer the right action to meet those ambitions in the future.

I have one amendment in this group. Amendment 104 is to

“make further provision for the promotion of reuse to assist local authorities to achieve their targets”.

That is connected to Scottish Labour’s concerns that, initially, the bill had a lot of focus on recycling but not enough on other important parts of the waste hierarchy, particularly reuse. Section 13 deals with targets for household waste recycling specifically. However, ultimately, it is important that we include provisions for the promotion of reuse wherever possible.

I thank Scottish Environment LINK for supporting amendment 104. The amendment recognises the crucial role of local authorities. Increasing reuse through the targets will help our local authorities to drive down the amount of waste that is ending up in landfill and will help to ease the transition to a more circular economy.

I hope that there will be a break soon so that the minister’s voice gets a little bit of respite.

I think that I understand the minister’s point about the statutory duties, but people in the chamber and outwith it will be wondering how the bill will encourage more activity in the local authority space to work with our third sector partners and others so that we can shift towards more reuse, which is really important. If we cannot support such a simple amendment, how else can we give effect to that?

Will the member take an intervention?

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.