Seòmar agus comataidhean

It is nice to come in after Douglas Lumsden, having heard him be very passionate about reusable items. Mr Lumsden, I ask you just to hold that thought.

I want to come in briefly to support amendment 25, in the name of Graham Simpson, on biodegradable items being exempt from a charge. It is important that people who are already trying to be more circular and environmentally friendly are not penalised for that. I am happy to support that amendment.

Amendment 26 provides helpful clarity for business. However, I will not be supporting amendment 35, which seeks to strip out section 9. That part of the bill is important.

Thank you, convener. I am grateful for your remarks. You spoke well on this group.

We all have examples of serious fly-tipping in our regions and constituencies. I was asked to speak at a Keep Scotland Beautiful conference in my region a couple of months ago. I pay tribute to the volunteers who are out trying to deal with litter and fly-tipping every weekend—in fact, every day of the week. People are frustrated and there is recognition that current regulations and enforcement practices are not robust enough.

Mr Simpson talked about SEPA. I am interested to hear what Mr Lumsden says about that. I know from my research for my proposed member’s bill on ecocide that people are asking what we can do with existing powers to strengthen enforcement, but there is a big question mark about resources for SEPA and local authorities.

That leads me back to prevention and having a deterrent. We can try to save money by making fly-tipping unattractive for the criminals—let us just call them what they are. Some fly-tipping is on an industrial level and some of it is organised crime, which is a growing problem across Europe. Europol has done some interesting work on it. One of the fastest-growing areas of crime relates to waste.

We discussed the issue with Michael Matheson when he was Cabinet Secretary for Net Zero, Energy and Transport. At that point, there had been a big programme about it on the BBC. I discussed it a lot with Lorna Slater in her previous role as Minister for Green Skills, Circular Economy and Biodiversity. Like Murdo Fraser, who is not at the meeting but has done a power of work on the matter, I am grateful to Ms Slater for all her work. It is interesting to hear that he and Ms Slater had constructive talks, because that is a side of their relationship that we do not hear about often on social media or in newspaper columns. Let us get that firmly on the record, because the reality is that a lot of work goes on behind the scenes.

Fly-tipping is a universal problem across Scotland. It is very much an issue for rural communities, but it is also an urban issue. I want to speak in favour of the amendments in the group. I note that Edward Mountain will not move his amendment 121, but I am interested to hear what the minister has to say, because the amendments are about empowering our local authorities and other regulators, such as SEPA, and trying to get behaviour change on a nationwide level. Right now, the people who are responsible for fly-tipping are completely unfussed about the consequences of it. Not enough fines are dished out—I have seen that through my research.

The reaction to Murdo Fraser’s bill proposal has been really positive. If it looks like the Government will not support his bill as a stand-alone piece of legislation, I would be keen to see how much of it can be brought into the Circular Economy (Scotland) Bill.

Yes, of course.

It could be either. That is a really good question. In the hospital setting, people are often told to bring in their own nappies, but sometimes babies come early and circumstances do not allow that, so hospitals provide emergency supplies, as they do with nursing pads, maternity pads and so on. If parents see what reusable nappies are and know that they will get access to them in the baby box, that creates awareness. We are not saying that those would be the only nappies that parents would be given. However, given that NHS boards are spending the money already and that, as a nation, we aim to be more circular and to do things differently, we need to consider how we can embed that across the public sector.

On the point about laundry, we have very high clinical standards around infection prevention and control in our NHS settings, but there is no reason why the nappies could not be laundered and kept for the next baby who needs them. That is happening in our communities already. At the nappy libraries, pre-owned and pre-loved nappies are being passed on. The other day, I visited a social enterprise where people could pick up pre-owned real nappies for a couple of pounds, with all the kit that they might need. Again, that is removing the stigma.

It is encouraging that Ms Slater commissioned some research on the barriers to the uptake of reusable nappies. I understand that the Government has a report coming to it from the James Hutton Institute, and it will be interesting to see what that has uncovered. It is a bit like the situation with reusable period products. Once people know that alternatives are available, they might try them.

It is important that local authorities can take a lead on the matter—that is what amendment 170 is about—because one of the barriers is cost. If families buy the birth-to-potty kit themselves, it can cost them up to a couple of hundred pounds. Often, they also wonder what other things they will have to buy, and we need to factor in the loss of income because of maternity pay and so on. It might not be a high priority, but councils, given their procurement powers, can buy reusable nappies at volume. I will not narrate the figures that North Ayrshire Council gave me, but I was quite surprised by the rate at which it is able to buy them. It said that we should consider the potential savings if more councils did the same thing.

I was inviting interventions on nappies. If there are none, I can move on.

Amendment 216 provides for local authorities to make a scheme for their area to provide access to donated mattresses. Again, to draw on an example from North Ayrshire Council, there is a process for repair, safety checks and sanitisation. If it is not possible or hygienic to reuse a mattress—there will be circumstances in which that is not possible—there will not be the enforced use of that mattress. However, I hope that the way in which the amendment is drafted will provide enough flexibility. I appreciate that it is a novel idea, and I have not had time to discuss it with the minister, although we have talked at length about other matters. However, if it is not something that could be put into the bill, we could look at how we can learn from good practice that is already happening.

North Ayrshire Council has identified an environmental and social issue and, when we have those solutions, how can we support local authorities and other partners to—

That is really important. Today, we focus our remarks on the circular economy and how we become a more circular Scotland, but—I will try to keep this very brief, convener; I see that the pen is almost—

I am grateful to the minister and all colleagues who have taken part in the debate. I am glad to hear the minister say that she supports the intention behind the amendments and that they are laudable.

We had a good conversation when we met last week, and I think that we can continue to work together and have dialogue ahead of stage 3. Many important points and questions have been raised today, and I will reflect on them. Perhaps we can think about a form of wording that might satisfy everyone for stage 3.

I am grateful to colleagues for their time, because I know that the debate on this group has gone on longer than the convener would have liked. However, it is important that we have had this debate now, because we should be in a much clearer position on these issues for stage 3. The reason why I spent so much time on the reusable nappy amendments—not just today but in the work building up to stage 2—is because of the impact that nappies have on our environment.

If the circular economy bill is to be worthy of its name, we have to look at the items that have the biggest impact. It has therefore been proportionate to spend a bit of time on this today. As others do, including Maurice Golden, I want the pace to quicken. These are not new conversations. My almost-18-year-old daughter had a cloth bum, as we say; we used real nappies in our house. That is quite a long time ago, now, but I feel as though, sometimes, we talk about the idea as if it is brand new and we have to explain what it is. There is something in that, which is why I will take up the offer to meet Shirley-Anne Somerville to talk about the baby box and what more we can do.

It is about proportionality—that item has a huge impact. It is about pace—not enough is happening. It is about partnership—we have heard about some local authorities doing excellent work in that space, but it is also about work in our communities, whether that is led through social enterprises or a small group of mums coming together, as they do in Ayrshire on Fridays, to provide peer-to-peer support.

I will not press or move my amendments in the group today, but I will continue to speak with the Government, I hope, and other colleagues, and continue discussions with COSLA.

As I said earlier, it is about looking at the issue holistically. Often, we in the Parliament or the Government are accused of working in silos, and I really do not want us to look at this in a siloed way.

It is also absolutely an issue of gender equality. Maybe if we had more women, including mothers, in decision-making positions, we would have had such policies in place a long time ago and it would just be normal.

As I said, there is a poverty dimension and a welfare issue. A charity that operates in Edinburgh takes donations of nappies and gets them out to people who need them. When I visited it, a health visitor had come in and was taking a bundle of nappies away to a young mum in the city who was at home with not very much. The conversation was about wee babies having nappy rash, and babies and toddlers who never get to go swimming because parents cannot afford swim nappies. It is about having that conversation and letting people know what is available.

I will continue to be passionate about it and talk about it way more than anyone would like, but I am genuinely grateful to the minister and the Government for the time that they have already spent on the issue. That visit to North Ayrshire was really worth while. I look forward to seeing the report from the James Hutton Institute that talks about some of the barriers, and I hope that I will have something that is much more fit for purpose at stage 3.

Amendment 157, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendments 158, 159 and 216 not moved.

Section 10—Householder’s duty of care

You have said that, sometimes, families and people with young children might need a larger bin. What is your understanding of the reasons for that?