Chamber and committees

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.

This is a really important contribution from Mark Ruskell. For clarity, I take this opportunity to say that amendment 104 seeks to place a duty on the minister when creating secondary legislation under section 13. It is not about putting that duty on to local authorities directly. Throughout the scrutiny of the bill, we have heard that there is a real appetite for more activity on reuse, and our local authorities are certainly looking for more guidance and support on that. Mark Ruskell says that he feels a bit frustrated; I would say that that is putting it politely. I have to say, in the gentlest possible way, that the minister’s explanation seemed a little bit on the weak side. I take the point about the importance of co-production, in the spirit of the Verity house agreement, but the issue is not one of directly imposing a duty on to local authorities.

It is important to embed reuse into the bill as much as we can. Amendment 104 simply adds that we should

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

I am seeking to be helpful here, and I think that there is cross-party support for the intention behind the amendment. I hope that the Government can give it full consideration.

I am grateful to Mark Ruskell for giving way.

The minister will know that almost 23,000 people have signed a petition that urges the Scottish Government to stop the downgrading of Lanarkshire’s neonatal intensive care unit. It is important that my constituents believe that their voices are being heard.

The Scottish Government says that parents are key partners in the care of their babies and that we should do everything possible to keep mothers and babies together. That said, how can the Scottish Government continue with the devastating downgrading plans, when ignoring the pleas to save the Wishaw neonatal intensive care unit would force families to be apart at a vulnerable and critical time?

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will proceed with its reported plans to downgrade the neonatal intensive care unit at University hospital Wishaw. (S6O-03599)

I will bring us back to net zero, because that was starting to sound like an interesting discussion.

We know that land and land use have the biggest role in Scotland’s emission of greenhouse gases. Do the owners of large landholdings have a moral and societal responsibility to promote net zero and climate change measures? If we agree on that point, is it reasonable to accept that there should be obligations on the biggest emitters to reduce their emissions? If so, how could the bill be strengthened and improved in that area? I am looking at Mr Macleod in particular.

I do not want to push you beyond your remit, but I will go back to Don Macleod’s point that the polluter should pay. If we are looking at responsibilities and obligations, would it be fair to say that there should be an evidence base on the impact of certain activities? Is it better to look at it as being about ensuring that there is clarity on any impact and what should be an appropriate form of compensation or mitigation?

Thank you.

Issues of local context and the role of ministers in making decisions have come up. How might the process be improved to take account of local context? Is it appropriate that ministers make the decision, or is there another way in which that could be done more proportionately?

Just one, convener—it is on small landholdings. From the written submissions, I think that the Faculty of Advocates and the Law Society of Scotland are broadly supportive of the small landholders provisions, but in Turcan Connell’s—

Okay. I will let you expand on that in a moment.

In contrast, the Turcan Connell submission raises concerns. You state that you disagree with those provisions and that

“The Bill introduces some rights for small landholders from croft tenure and others from 1991 act tenure which could result in”

unnecessary complexity. Can you expand on what rights you are referring to?