Chamber and committees

I have a question. This point has been made in the committee’s evidence on recycling and, elsewhere, I remember having a discussion ahead of COP26—the 26th United Nations climate change conference of the parties—with an organisation that was supporting people with learning disabilities to be engaged in that conference. The question arose about why we have all the different colours of bins. People were saying that, if they work in one area, learn in another and visit families in another, they get confused. That is particularly the case for people who have additional support needs.

There would be a cost and a lot of faff—that is not a technical word—or work involved even in changing the lids, and I do not know who would do that. However, could a remedy not be a sticker that could be placed on bins? Could that work?

The conversation is interesting. Amendment 105, in the name of Sarah Boyack—others also have an interest in the issue—recognises the particular challenges that face people in tenement housing, not on a rare occasion but on a fairly typical occasion. I mentioned factoring; residents of tenement housing are already familiar with having to chip in and cover costs for disposal of waste, for which their factor sends a bill. A penalty alone will not be a disincentive, because the residents are already getting charged, and the problem is not necessarily coming from the residents—sometimes, incidental stuff happens because people pass by and use their bins. Does Graham Simpson agree that Sarah Boyack’s amendment 105 is right to focus on tenement housing, because there are particular challenges for people who live in those homes?

I might need a stiff drink.

I want to put on the record the fact that I think that amendments 55 and 56 are good amendments that will strengthen this part of the bill, by requiring the preparations to be made and the guidance to be published before the section comes into force. Those are welcome improvements to the section.

Amendment 160, in the name of Jackie Dunbar, is also a good amendment. Again, it speaks to that whole set of work around co-design with relevant authorities, which is crucial to the bill’s success. They are good proposals.

I thank the minister for taking an intervention. Some really important points and principles have been raised. There are other relevant workstreams that are outside the committee’s remit, such as Scotland’s aspiration to be a fair work nation by 2025. Recently, senior figures in the trade union movement have cast a lot of doubt on whether we are on track in that regard.

Given the obligations that Maurice Golden narrated and given that we will have workers in situations that could become quite confrontational, there needs to be guidance and co-design work around that. I encourage Maurice Golden to speak to relevant unions and the STUC. I note that the Parliament passed legislation on the protection of retail workers. Notwithstanding issues around the reserved nature of employment law, could we look at that legislation as a template to see whether any learnings can be taken from it? Maurice Golden has really good intent with his amendments, but some of the wording—how we frame the point—needs to be looked at. Will the minister take that away and speak to colleagues with responsibility for the economy?

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.

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?

I will speak to the amendments in the group, which is on free provision of reusable items.

In relation to the waste hierarchy, there is a desire for there to be more in the bill about reuse, refill and repair. Some people have unfairly called it a recycling bill, so we should make sure that it is not seen as only a recycling bill.

I do not have to speak to the amendments in any particular order, do I, convener? [Interruption.] In that case, I will jump ahead to speak about the amendments on nappies first, because they are grouped together. I will speak to amendments 157, 158 and 170.

In our stage 1 evidence taking, we heard that single-use nappies have been identified as a problem with regard to waste stream contamination because they are often sent to landfill with baby waste included. They can also end up in the wrong bins. We know that they cause a bit of a stink in more ways than one. A colossal number of single-use nappies go to landfill, not just in Scotland but across the UK and, indeed, globally. It is a big issue in the UK—environmentally, it is damaging, and it is expensive. There is a convenience factor to using disposable nappies, but it is very expensive for consumers, who are largely parents and families.

I have been trying to look at the issue holistically, and I am having different conversations across Government. The Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice very kindly offered to meet me, because, as we know, there is a huge issue with hidden nappy need in families who cannot afford them. They have to ration the nappies that they can access, which results in a load of health and wellbeing issues for babies and toddlers that hinder their development.

However, today, I will focus my remarks on the circular economy aspect of the issue. The sending of single-use nappies to landfill presents a barrier to Scotland becoming a circular nation, and we know that alternatives are available. It is not a question of forcing a product on people; rather, it is about creating more awareness and more choice. The alternatives are sometimes referred to as cloth nappies, reusable nappies or real nappies. We know that they are part of the solution, and the Scottish Government agrees, because Scotland’s baby box includes a voucher that allows families to try reusable nappies, and there is now a QR code that is easy to redeem. The waterproof wrap is provided, along with liners. That could be the first time that someone has seen or touched a reusable nappy; it could even be the first time that they have heard of them.

The baby box is a good vehicle, but it is not enough, because the uptake of the scheme has been static for the past few years. It is stuck at around 13 to 14 per cent. I know that the Scottish Government wants to do more and has the ambition to do more. That is why my amendments are important. The main one—amendment 170—is about the creation of a reusable nappy scheme. The amendments talk about “diapers”. I apologise for that, because no one in Scotland talks about diapers, but when I was drafting the amendments, I was advised by the Parliament’s legislation team to use that word. There is good reason for using it, but as language can be a barrier, I will use the word “nappies” today. However, I am not contradicting what is in the amendments.

The scheme that I am proposing is not my idea—I have not come up with it all by myself. There is already some really good practice in Scotland. As committee colleagues know, I have talked about North Ayrshire Council’s birth-to-potty scheme, which was set up in 2019 as an environmental measure, but also as an anti-poverty measure. Like the baby box scheme, it allows families to try reusable nappies, but there is also option 2, birth to potty, which allows families to get some advice from the local authority’s waste prevention team. Some families want to live more sustainably, while others are motivated to reduce their living costs. Ultimately, it is a non-judgmental service that involves the provision of advice by council officers. Families can introduce reusable nappies and use them in a hybrid way, alongside disposable nappies, or they can use reusable nappies all the time.

That scheme has been operating since 2019, when it was brought in by a Scottish Labour administration, but it has continued under a Scottish National Party administration. Along with Government officials, I and Lorna Slater, Gillian Martin’s predecessor, recently visited North Ayrshire to see the scheme in action, to hear from the officers—who are rightly very proud of what they are achieving—and to hear from a parent who has been using the scheme. It is very successful, and there is a lot of demand for it.

I am frustrated that the good work that has been happening in North Ayrshire since 2019 has not been rolled out across the country. Around four other councils have schemes of some sort, but they are not as comprehensive as North Ayrshire Council’s. It seems that there is not enough awareness across Scotland of the opportunity that exists for reusable nappy schemes. There is a reusable nappy awareness week every April, but it has not been prominent in Scotland, although it is quite well supported in other parts of the UK.

I have been trying to understand why other councils have not been doing it, and I think that it comes down to leadership. We need to have people who are passionate about reuse and who understand some of the issues with nappies, and local authorities need to have the time and the capacity to share good practice.

The North Ayrshire visit reinforced my view that we need to do something quite bold. Obviously, resources are tight and people are nervous about asking councils to take on work that might cost money, but the scheme is cost neutral, because the council saves money on landfill—more than 62,250kg of waste has been intercepted from landfill in North Ayrshire alone, and much more could be done.

Alongside that, I have looked at other parts of the public sector. Health boards spend quite a lot of money on single-use nappies for maternity and neonatal wards and other clinics. They have not been using reusable or real nappies, but I have had a conversation with NHS Lanarkshire, and now that it has had the idea put to it, it says that, because of its net zero targets and its goal of reducing single-use plastics, it wants to look at that, and to do something.

Again, it is a case of trying to join up the dots. We talk a lot about behavioural change, but we need to support people—

Yes, of course.