Seòmar agus comataidhean

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?

I am enjoying hearing your response to the amendments. I do not know whether you have the figures at hand just now, but do you know approximately how many notices SEPA is serving per year, using that power? I wonder whether it would make SEPA more proactive in this space if it had responsibility for clearing what had been fly-tipped.

My general perception is that not enough notices are being served and that people feel that the enforcement side of things is not really working. That is something that I have looked at through my research on ecocide, which is looking at much higher-level crimes. If you do not have the figures today, it would be interesting to see that, because there is a perception that the powers are not being used as often as they should be.

North Ayrshire Council has been clear that the scheme is cost neutral. It has operated in that way from the beginning and that continues. Therefore, it does not cost any extra money. Yes, it is buying the nappy kits to distribute to families, and any family who lives in North Ayrshire who needs nappies is eligible—I should say that the scheme is for babies and toddlers.

The authority has said that, because of commercial confidentiality, it cannot publish the amount that it is charged at the gate for its landfill waste. That would be the same for every council—it will not give those figures—but I have no reason to disbelieve North Ayrshire Council when it says that the scheme is cost neutral. In fact, it has said that it thinks that there is potential for more savings to be made.

While I am talking about amendment 170, I want to say that the issue that it deals with relates to discussions that we have had about litter and fly-tipping. When I started working on this, I was thinking very much about trying to reduce the number of nappies that go to landfill and encouraging the use of alternatives. However, nappies are such a problem in our communities—we see them in bins in the park, at the beach and in the countryside. I know from my discussions with COSLA that, when it comes to reducing antisocial behaviour and litter, although nappies might not be one of the top five issues, they are one of the items that get disposed of irresponsibly.

I recently dealt with an issue that was raised by a local councillor in my area, who spoke about a new housing area that has a mixture of public and private sector housing. The houses are beautiful. However, someone stuck a nappy down the toilet and blocked the drains. Therefore, there is a big opportunity around education and awareness.

On the point about health boards, I want to keep this really simple. Health boards are already spending money on nappies, and the data that I have shows that none of that spend is on reusable items; it is all on single-use items. Therefore, if there was a way in which health boards could have a policy or scheme that started to shift some of that spend to reusable nappies, that would create awareness. I am thinking about not just hospitals but health visitors and midwives in the community. Having such a scheme would create visibility and start a conversation; ultimately, we are trying to bring about a change in behaviour.

Parents must have a choice. I am not saying that parents must do this or forcing parents to use a certain kind of nappy, especially if they have just given birth or they are in the hospital because their wee one is unwell. However, alongside the baby box, we need to do more. That is why, together, amendments 157 and 170 seek to create the system change that will lead to individual behaviour change.

Bob Doris has made a really good point. The situation is similar to the challenges on fast fashion, where we are trying to create a culture shift towards slow fashion. I know that Graham Simpson is a big fan of pre-loved clothing, which he has spoken about in the chamber previously. I am not sure whether he is wearing something circular today.

There are things that we can do, individually, but we need to have the right systems in place. How do we create an environment in our schools where it is normal to have more sustainable practices? Callum’s proposition mentions metal bottles, but there might not be a facility to wash those properly. Sometimes, children feel that they cannot wash them properly in school or do not have the access to do so.

That important idea is not my mine; it came from Callum when he was seven years old and visited the Parliament. I know that he continues to receive support from Sue Webber, who is one of his local MSPs. I read that he felt a bit disappointed that nothing had happened after he met former First Minister Nicola Sturgeon. I am reflecting on the many young people that the committee has heard from, whether they be members of the Scottish Youth Parliament or other young people who have been involved in citizens panels. They want to know that, if they bring us good ideas, something will happen.

That is a fair question. I cannot speak for COSLA. The conversations that we have had together have been really positive—and they have primarily been on nappies. COSLA has not expressed any opposition to the proposals. I was surprised to hear that COSLA did not really know about the North Ayrshire scheme. There is something here that we need to take away about collaboration and good practice not being spotlighted enough.

I have not had time to speak to COSLA about the mattress scheme or the proposals for reusable water bottles. A lot of attention has been given to reusable bottles at the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee, and there is a lot on the record about it.

The comments about what more local authorities could do are fair. It is sometimes frustrating that everyone waits to see what the legislation is going to do. We might then think, “Don’t do legislation. Put it in a plan or a strategy.” I note that Mr Swinney said that we perhaps need fewer strategies and more action.

I will leave it there in the interests of everyone’s time.

I move amendment 157.

I am trying to understand the amendment. I understand the aim and the issues around lack of consistency. The desire is to simplify, but would it apply only to new bins? What would happen to existing bins in the different colours that we already have? I will not narrate the colours of my recycling bins, but they are probably different from your recycling bins. What would happen with the existing bins, of which we have many across Scotland right now?