Chamber and committees

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.

I did think that Graham Simpson was more of a carrot rather than stick kind of guy. However, I am interested in hearing whether there are examples in other acts of this Parliament where such a mechanism is used. Has Mr Simpson any examples of the Scottish Government being fined for missing targets?

There is nothing odd about you, Graham.

I think that it probably would be easy to set up an app. My question is about proposed section 14(1)(b), which relates to

“reporting any incident of unlawful disposal of waste.”

You have said that an app could be a one-size-fits-all solution, but would it take into account that different local authorities have different set-ups in relation to their staffing teams, as you will appreciate given your background in local government? Would it be as easy as you are suggesting?

Your point about information was well made. You might be familiar with the PickupMyPeriod app, which works nationally but is much more about providing information about the different public buildings where people can collect free period products. It is easier to keep that app up to date because it is based on location.

Are you concerned that including the provision on reporting could raise public expectations about getting a response to such reports? Would the response come nationally, or would it be for the local authority to respond?

I am grateful to Maurice Golden for securing the important and timely debate and I congratulate Gillian Martin on her reappointment to the Government in the important role of Minister for Climate Action. I hope that, when we leave the chamber after the debate, we will all have a sense that we can work together; that the minister has said that her door is open and that good ideas from across the chamber can make their way to the Cabinet table.

Five years ago today, the Scottish Government was absolutely right to come to the chamber and declare a climate emergency. Scotland’s climate targets were achievable and they were ambitious, and we should not apologise for ambition. However, somehow—I do not have all the answers—the Government has struggled to focus on delivery and implementation and to get the right action in place at the right time. That is a real shame and a missed opportunity, because if we had got it right or it had been done a lot better, millions of Scots could have had the benefit of warmer homes, cheaper bills, better public transport, well-paid green jobs and a healthier, cleaner environment. That is what my constituents across Central Scotland want, and I think that that is what everyone in Scotland wants. That is why it is really important that the Net Zero, Energy and Climate Change Committee established the climate change people’s panel.

We often hear in the Parliament that we have to take people with us and on a journey. People already know the science. The good people of Scotland know what needs to be done, and they want us to find a way to get on and do it, so if we can knock heads together and have a group hug, let us do that. It is not about the demise of the Bute house agreement, as sad as that may be for those who were involved: we are talking about the demise of the planet and of people’s jobs and their health. Let us make just transition for workers and communities a reality and get on with it.

We have received some helpful briefings for the debate. I thank Oxfam, Friends of the Earth Scotland and the Existing Homes Alliance. The Climate Change Committee has sent an important letter to the Cabinet Secretary for Net Zero and Energy, which I expect has reinforced what has been said in the debate. I will quote Professor Piers Forster, the interim chair of the CCC, who said:

“It is deeply disappointing that the Scottish Government has decided to withdraw its 2030 and 2040 interim targets. When set, these represented an ambitious commitment to the pace of decarbonisation in Scotland; however, the Scottish Government’s development and implementation of plans were too slow, and action has not kept pace with this ambition.”

However, it is not too late to get it right. We have had passionate contributions in the debate and I can draw examples of that from across the chamber. I think that Mr Ewing has left his seat, but there are other examples of colleagues working across party divides. I have worked with Mr Ewing on solar energy; Maurice Golden on the circular economy; colleagues on the Green benches on my ecocide proposals; the Lib Dems on measures to protect our oceans and rivers from pollution; and Ash Regan in the Alba Party on its ambitions for a just transition for the workers and communities in Grangemouth—an issue that I know Stephen Kerr also cares about.

We can work together when we take the personal attacks out of it. There is no Government in the world that is doing enough. Collectively, members of the Parliament have good intentions, but we have to create the space and time in how we do our politics so that we focus on action. I thank Lorna Slater for her time and effort and the respect that she showed me during her time in the Government when we worked together on my proposals for ecocide law, and I hope that I can work with Gillian Martin and others on that.

I will end by saying that my constituents in Central Scotland do not want me to come into the chamber and critique colleagues, making it personal. It is not about the character of the individuals who are sitting on the seats, but it is very much about what we do and the action that we take. Let us focus on that as we go forward.

To fill in the blank space on that missing page, would Bob Doris agree that the people’s panel on climate change made a really important recommendation about the importance of climate hubs and the need to make such investment locally? That would help with wider engagement, which Bob Doris referred to.

Has the minister had a chance, yet, to look at the green heat finance task force’s recommendations on developing financing mechanisms so that warm, healthy, zero-emission homes are affordable to everyone?

I am loving Graham Simpson’s enthusiasm for Clare Adamson’s amendment. I recognise Clare’s long-standing work on health and safety matters. We did not find out whether our deputy convener managed to get his iron repaired, which was a feature of the stage 1 debate. He will be glad that I have reminded him of that.

There is a really important link between repair, safety and just transition. If we are going to get it right on repair, reuse and so on, we need to remember that there is a big skills issue here. We need to give employers certainty about training and address all the requirements and the need for investment around that. Does Sarah Boyack agree that there is a lot of merit in Clare Adamson’s amendment and that, whether it is moved today or not, we are all keen to further the conversation before stage 3?

I think that Ben Macpherson wants to intervene, convener. I do not know the etiquette. Should we go back to Sarah Boyack first? [Interruption.] The convener is busy. Ben, I will bring you in. [Laughter.]