³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

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?

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?