Chamber and committees

No. Thank you—that was helpful.

Good morning. I would like to ask about early learning and childcare. The provision of 1,140 hours of free childcare is really important for the economy as well as for children. In evidence, the committee heard about the differential in rates of pay between the public sector and the private, voluntary and independent sector, and that was highlighted to ministers. The public sector generally offers better pay and conditions to the skilled workforce.

When we raised the issue with ministers, we recommended that a mapping exercise be carried out to see whether there was any movement between the two types of employer. Is there any update on that? I appreciate that we were due to get that in the spring. It is certainly not spring at the moment, so it is perhaps too early, but I would appreciate hearing the cabinet secretary’s reflections on that issue.

My connection broke up a bit, so I will check something. Are we on track to have the result of the scoping exercise by the spring? Do you have an indication of when that information will be available?

I join colleagues in congratulating Stephanie Callaghan on securing this debate and on highlighting and promoting the adoption of circular fashion methods. I am not normally a fan of commenting on the appearance of politicians, but she and Kenneth Gibson both look magnificent in their hired outfits.

Although upcycling has become increasingly trendy, circular fashion is nothing new. Historically, clothes shopping for the average person was costly. Customers bought fabric, trimmings, linings and threads to be made up by a tailor or dressmaker, and the finished textiles involved so much intensive hand work that goods were expensive and items were made to last—and last they did. Clothes were repeatedly mended or restyled and, eventually, cut short for children to wear. Even when mass production of clothing was refined in the UK during the second world war, strict restrictions under the utility scheme ensured that manufacturers produced goods of a high standard that were able to be repurposed.

Now, we have fast fashion. Popular high street brands offer cheaper and speedier manufacturing and shipping methods, which facilitate increasing consumer appetite for up-to-the-minute styles and the ability to indulge the instant gratification of desires while promoting a throwaway culture and maximising their profits.

Individual purchasing is variable, which makes it important to understand inequality and the financial and social pressures, particularly on low earners and low-income families. Hand-made leather shoes that will last a lifetime with some care and repair might be cheap over the long run, but an initial outlay of hundreds of pounds is not possible for everyone. There are other ways and, today, it is more important than ever that we highlight the importance of dumping the linear take-make-waste model.

I applaud organisations that specialise in the rental and renewal of clothing, such as Advanced Clothing Solutions. I also applaud second-hand online and high street charity shops in which people can buy good-quality, affordable clothing, and community-led initiatives to reuse items such as school uniforms. Those examples are becoming more commonplace, and they illustrate successful initiatives that result in cultural change, reduce waste, are accessible for many, and can tackle poverty in a stigma-free way.

Those organisations value not just what they do or the garments that they provide but the people who work for them. Fair work should be at the centre of a move toward sustainable fashion. Fair wages and good conditions for the fabric and garment workers who produce our apparel are important.

Findings from the 2021 “Fashion Transparency Index” show that most major brands still withhold vital data on human rights issues, including workers’ pay and conditions, purchasing practices, and racial and gender inequality. Although that might conjure up images of sweatshops in poorer countries, with workers toiling in dangerous conditions for minimal pay, Labour Behind the Label published evidence in June 2020 that exposed forced labour in UK garment factories, with some workers enduring intimidation and earning as little as £3 an hour.

With the current cost of living crisis, we need to ensure that our citizens are aware of options that are available to them to make cheaper, sustainable choices and move away from fast fashion. In November 2022, the Centre for Social Justice reported that, in the current financial crisis, the poorest in our society face a poverty premium in seven key areas, costing families around an extra £480 per year. It is disgraceful that lower-income households are incurring extra costs when purchasing the same essential goods and services that households that are better off are.

Our planet and people are no longer capable of maintaining a throwaway culture. It is necessary that we move at pace towards a sustainable future. People should know that a move to circular fashion is no longer just the privilege of the rich.

As the minister said in opening, planning is not just about place but about people. The final national planning framework 4 makes it clear that Scotland will not compromise on the climate crisis and empowering communities. Although the document and this debate might not get much public attention, NPF4 is really important to how we live, work and play. It is a plan for the type of Scotland that we want to live in.

Welcome proposals in NPF4 include enabling more renewable energy generation to support the transition away from reliance on fossil fuels, while protecting national parks and national scenic areas and supporting emerging low-carbon technologies, such as hydrogen and carbon capture, and developments that unlock the transformative potential of offshore renewable energy. As the cabinet secretary laid out in his statement yesterday, the opportunity that that provides to grow Scotland’s highly skilled energy workforce and increase jobs in energy generation and the supply chain, while enabling communities and businesses to prosper, is vast and welcome.

Over and above protecting national parks and national scenic areas, which are, of course, very important, I am keen to see brownfield sites used for such projects, and I would welcome—as I believe would the majority of my Ayrshire constituents—the use of previously developed land that is not in use, rather than having new developments on land that is currently used for farming or leisure, wherever that is possible.

In the chamber, I have previously mentioned my constituents in Lylestone, who told me that they feel that they are in a David and Goliath fight with a company that is proposing to build a large solar farm on farmland next to their village. They expressed worry and anger about the fact that the company concerned was acting as though the project was a foregone conclusion. I sought and received reassurance from the Scottish Government that that is absolutely not the case, and that the concerns and objections of residents of the village who would be most impacted by the proposed development would be taken seriously. Impact assessment and mitigation remain vital to community wellbeing, and I note that NPF4 policies do not give a blank cheque to developers to build on wild land.

Community consent to large-scale renewables projects is important, and I think that there is more work to do in that regard, particularly around so-called community benefit. A few thousand pounds for a community council to distribute does not cut it any more, I do not think. Citizens should benefit from clean, green energy being produced.

NPF4 facilitates active travel infrastructure, low-carbon transport, and more green spaces, which is good news for the nation’s health and wellbeing.

Absolutely. There is huge potential in that, and I welcome it.

NPF4 facilitates active travel infrastructure, low-carbon transport and more green spaces, which is good news for the nation’s health and wellbeing. We know that opportunities to be outdoors and active not only have a restorative impact on those with existing physical and mental health issues but can prevent ill health in the first place.

I note that, in developing active travel infrastructure, it is crucial to consider all users who will be walking, wheeling or cycling. The news this morning highlighted a shared space not far from us here, in Leith Walk in the capital, that does not seem to do that. That underlines the importance of meaningful consultation and dialogue and consideration of all citizens in developing our public spaces.

NPF4 adopts a planned and evidence-based approach to delivering good-quality and affordable homes that benefit communities. Good-quality affordable homes, as well as being good for health, support valuable local jobs. They are an excellent example of the wellbeing economy that we want to create. I note what colleagues have said about the targets within that, and I acknowledge that M stands for “minimum”. Evidence-based minimum requirements set an achievable starting point. I think that local development plans can be more ambitious, and it is locally that the knowledge about the scale and mix of housing that is required in our communities will sit.

A fairer and greener planning system can tackle long-standing challenges and inequalities to the benefit of all our communities in Scotland, the environment, and our economy. Better places will be an important part of our response to the strategic priorities of net zero, addressing child poverty, and growing a wellbeing economy that benefits all our citizens. Planning can also play a critical role in delivering the national strategy for economic transformation—and, again, the community wealth building that the minister mentioned.

At NPF4’s core lie measures that will reduce carbon emissions, tackle climate change, and restore nature while providing our communities in Scotland with sustainable, liveable, and productive places. It is time to get NPF4 in place and begin implementation at pace to the benefit of Scotland’s communities, environment, and economy.

I appreciate what Pam Gosal is saying, and I am listening to her carefully. Would she agree that even if not every person of faith needs such single-sex care, we have to listen to those who do?

I just wanted to be clear that I was not making a point about self-identification itself; I was just pointing out the difference between the two systems and asking what evidence would be accepted as proof.

People might have a concern that folk will be wrongly accused. I get that prosecution is the business of the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, but law is our business and we need to be really clear about what we are legislating for. I was not making a point about self-ID—I was talking about the member’s amendment.

The member mentioned the importance of service providers knowing the law. Does she agree that it is also important that funders know what service providers are and are not allowed to provide?

I will not press amendment 88.