Chamber and committees

Is there time? I had put my notes aside, as I thought we were running out of time.

I did have a couple of final questions, if there is time. One is on the Scottish Government’s wish for growth in peatland and woodland carbon markets. We know that NatureScot is piloting approaches with the private sector, and we have heard about the Scottish National Investment Bank investing in commercial forestry, seeking to generate carbon credits. What are your views on the role of the public sector in supporting the growth of natural capital finance? You have given us a flavour of that already. Is it too early to say whether the public are getting value for money? We have heard some concerns about the approach taken with ScotWind. Some people feel that Scotland’s sea bed was sold off too cheaply—that view is out there. Should people be nervous about what is happening with land and about the current approaches?

I see Josh Doble nodding, so I will go to him first.

I was going to ask about the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill.

I was surprised that I was allowed to ask any questions, given the time. I will move on to my question.

The Land Reform (Scotland) Bill has been introduced only recently. Do you have any initial views or thoughts on the relevance of the bill to our discussion? Will any of the proposals in the bill tackle the issues that have been raised, such as land markets, transparency, community engagement or land use changes? Just say a couple of words, if you could.

To ask the Scottish Government what support it can provide to any local authorities that are struggling to meet the rising costs associated with providing school transport, so that children and young people can travel to school in a safe, efficient and affordable manner. (S6O-03238)

Notwithstanding the funding that the cabinet secretary has mentioned, and without giving away our exact ages, the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 is older than me and the cabinet secretary and many people believe that the act’s minimum home-to-school provisions are no longer fit for purpose.

Changing legislation takes time, but my young Lanarkshire constituents and their families need action right now. I am pleased that Jim Fairlie, who has ministerial responsibility for buses, has agreed to meet locally with me and some of those families. Many children now face difficult walks of up to six miles a day between home and school, which is not fair on those children, so we need to find solutions. Will the cabinet secretary agree to take part in those talks?

Absolutely. We have demonstrated that on the record in the Parliament, just now.

I think that we all agree that the bill is necessary: we need legislation. In 2022, Keep Scotland Beautiful declared a litter emergency in Scotland. That there is an emergency is undeniable. Despite years of campaigning, with people doing litter picks and trying their best to recycle, we still have a massive problem with litter. That is a symptom of a much wider issue and of our reliance on a linear economic model, in which we continually extract new resources to make new things and new products, then throw them away before starting all over again. We have to break that cycle.

There have been serious impacts here in Scotland and around the world. The Scottish Environment Protection Agency has data to show that, between 2018 and 2022, around 100 tonnes of plastic packaging waste was shipped from Scotland overseas every single month. That is a real scandal.

The question is what the bill can do to tackle that. Other members have expressed concern that there is too much focus on the recycling part of the waste hierarchy. I believe that the minister will take that in the spirit in which it is intended. We need to look at other aspects of the waste hierarchy.

We have heard that there is a lot of passion for reuse and repair. The example that I will touch on today—people who know me know that I talk about this a lot—is reusable nappies. We need to make it easier for people who want to do the right thing environmentally but are worried about cost and other barriers. In the spirit of that collaborative approach, the minister and I are doing a fact-finding visit next week to North Ayrshire Council. Since 2019, it has been leading the way not only in Scotland, but in the UK. Third sector partners are involved with the local authority. The approach was brought in by my Labour colleague Councillor Joe Cullinane and has been continued by a Scottish National Party Administration. It is the kind of thing that can help all our constituents and it is cost neutral for the local authority. I am considering lodging amendments at stage 2 to see how we can do that with our local authorities—not by telling them what to do but by enabling them and giving them the confidence to work in that way.

Another big issue in the bill is food: we need to do much more to reduce food waste. We have the scandal of ever-increasing food poverty and food insecurity while we are also seeing food waste increasing.

As a member of the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee, I am pleased to be speaking in the debate. I associate myself with the remarks of the committee’s convener, Edward Mountain. Other committees have been involved, and I record my thanks to our clerks, the Scottish Parliament information centre’s team and the many witnesses who informed our evidence. We had 10 evidence sessions and we made 80 recommendations.

Although we are having a robust debate about the bill today, there is a lot of passion and a lot of agreement. We need to become a more circular Scotland—no one disputes that—so we need to harness that passion.

We have been hearing from people in our communities and the local authorities in our areas about how we can make things better. Sarah Boyack, my Labour colleague, is absolutely correct to say that stage 2 will be crucial. I believe that the minister’s door is open for work with colleagues and people across the country; we all have to co-operate.

I hope that Ben Macpherson finds someone to repair his iron by the end of the debate. I did a wee Google search and have sent him a link to a business in Edinburgh that might be able to help. It is a matter of knowing where to go—

We absolutely need industry to play its part, but we know that that does not happen voluntarily, so we need legislation.

Colleagues have mentioned France; we know that California is also a really good example of where, through legislation, there are now requirements on households and businesses to separate green waste and food waste, to donate edible waste to food recovery groups and to recycle the rest. More can be done at stage 2 on that.

Time is short. Others, including Bob Doris, have talked about the international impact of what we are doing. We got really good evidence from the Scottish Catholic International Aid Fund. I will not repeat its points because it has provided a good briefing.

We know that there is a big issue with clothing and textiles, and with food waste being exported. As Ben Macpherson said, there are economic benefits, but this is also about the social imperative. We know that where the environment is exploited, people are often exploited, too. Fashion Revolution Scotland influenced me heavily. It came together because of the disaster in Rana Plaza that killed thousands of garment workers. People are working in the most awful exploitative conditions and are losing their lives and their health so that people like us in the global north can buy cheap clothes that we might wear only once then throw away.

We can do a lot through lodging amendments to the bill and through the strategy. However, as others have said, we need co-operation and collaboration, and we need certainty around funding, which means costed plans. I hope that we can, if we put all those things together, work towards a more circular Scotland.

Thank you, Mr Wilson. That was helpful. I am encouraged to hear that there has been perhaps not formal consultation but wide engagement. You also mentioned a number of key stakeholders including unions, whose involvement is important.

Given what you have said, I have a wider question. Obviously, there are the provisions in this bill—which is not a Scottish Government bill—but, more generally, concerns have been raised about the impact of automated vehicles on workers. Jim Wilson gave the good example of self-scanning checkouts in supermarkets. I am sure that we have all had our ups and downs with those.

I believe that, in Scotland, there was a trial involving self-driving buses in 2023, and concerns were raised about what such a move might mean for workers not just from a safety perspective but for future workforce planning. Cabinet secretary, could you speak to the issue of workforce planning? We know that there is a shortage of bus drivers, but have you picked up on any other particular issues? On Mr Wilson’s point about the importance of collaboration and discussion with the Department for Transport, are you satisfied that there is good dialogue with the UK Government on these matters?

Good morning to our panel. On the back of Mark Ruskell’s question, I was reading a media comment by Mike Robinson, who is the chair of Stop Climate Chaos Scotland, on the issue of value and affordability. On behalf of the coalition, he said:

“Reverting to expensive tickets would be a hugely retrograde decision and would be bad news for workers, passengers and the climate.”

When you are taking the temperature of the travelling public, are you picking up on that desire to do the right thing by the climate and the environment in addition to having more affordable train travel?