���˿���

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 ���˿���. 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?

For clarity, you mentioned that we could learn from other regions and other countries. Are you aware of countries that have shifted towards having a uniform approach to recycling, whether that is through the colour of the bins or providing information that goes alongside them—for example, with a sticker that indicates what can go into which bin and what cannot go into it?

Will the member take an intervention?

I am grateful to Maurice Golden for lodging his amendments. It is important that we have a culture of zero tolerance of violence against any worker, but people who work in waste disposal sometimes get abuse that many of us do not realise goes on, and safety is crucial.

I am interested to know what discussions Maurice Golden has had with the relevant trade unions. I put on the record my membership of Unite and the GMB, which represent workers in the sector, as does Unison. I also note that I chair the Scottish Labour trade union group in the Parliament. Has Maurice Golden been able to have discussions with either the STUC or individual unions about the way in which his amendments have been drafted? I have a few questions on the language, but I agree with the sentiment.

I will speak to the amendments in the group, which is on free provision of reusable items.

In relation to the waste hierarchy, there is a desire for there to be more in the bill about reuse, refill and repair. Some people have unfairly called it a recycling bill, so we should make sure that it is not seen as only a recycling bill.

I do not have to speak to the amendments in any particular order, do I, convener? [Interruption.] In that case, I will jump ahead to speak about the amendments on nappies first, because they are grouped together. I will speak to amendments 157, 158 and 170.

In our stage 1 evidence taking, we heard that single-use nappies have been identified as a problem with regard to waste stream contamination because they are often sent to landfill with baby waste included. They can also end up in the wrong bins. We know that they cause a bit of a stink in more ways than one. A colossal number of single-use nappies go to landfill, not just in Scotland but across the UK and, indeed, globally. It is a big issue in the UK—environmentally, it is damaging, and it is expensive. There is a convenience factor to using disposable nappies, but it is very expensive for consumers, who are largely parents and families.

I have been trying to look at the issue holistically, and I am having different conversations across Government. The Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice very kindly offered to meet me, because, as we know, there is a huge issue with hidden nappy need in families who cannot afford them. They have to ration the nappies that they can access, which results in a load of health and wellbeing issues for babies and toddlers that hinder their development.

However, today, I will focus my remarks on the circular economy aspect of the issue. The sending of single-use nappies to landfill presents a barrier to Scotland becoming a circular nation, and we know that alternatives are available. It is not a question of forcing a product on people; rather, it is about creating more awareness and more choice. The alternatives are sometimes referred to as cloth nappies, reusable nappies or real nappies. We know that they are part of the solution, and the Scottish Government agrees, because Scotland’s baby box includes a voucher that allows families to try reusable nappies, and there is now a QR code that is easy to redeem. The waterproof wrap is provided, along with liners. That could be the first time that someone has seen or touched a reusable nappy; it could even be the first time that they have heard of them.

The baby box is a good vehicle, but it is not enough, because the uptake of the scheme has been static for the past few years. It is stuck at around 13 to 14 per cent. I know that the Scottish Government wants to do more and has the ambition to do more. That is why my amendments are important. The main one—amendment 170—is about the creation of a reusable nappy scheme. The amendments talk about “diapers”. I apologise for that, because no one in Scotland talks about diapers, but when I was drafting the amendments, I was advised by the Parliament’s legislation team to use that word. There is good reason for using it, but as language can be a barrier, I will use the word “nappies” today. However, I am not contradicting what is in the amendments.

The scheme that I am proposing is not my idea—I have not come up with it all by myself. There is already some really good practice in Scotland. As committee colleagues know, I have talked about North Ayrshire Council’s birth-to-potty scheme, which was set up in 2019 as an environmental measure, but also as an anti-poverty measure. Like the baby box scheme, it allows families to try reusable nappies, but there is also option 2, birth to potty, which allows families to get some advice from the local authority’s waste prevention team. Some families want to live more sustainably, while others are motivated to reduce their living costs. Ultimately, it is a non-judgmental service that involves the provision of advice by council officers. Families can introduce reusable nappies and use them in a hybrid way, alongside disposable nappies, or they can use reusable nappies all the time.

That scheme has been operating since 2019, when it was brought in by a Scottish Labour administration, but it has continued under a Scottish National Party administration. Along with Government officials, I and Lorna Slater, Gillian Martin’s predecessor, recently visited North Ayrshire to see the scheme in action, to hear from the officers—who are rightly very proud of what they are achieving—and to hear from a parent who has been using the scheme. It is very successful, and there is a lot of demand for it.

I am frustrated that the good work that has been happening in North Ayrshire since 2019 has not been rolled out across the country. Around four other councils have schemes of some sort, but they are not as comprehensive as North Ayrshire Council’s. It seems that there is not enough awareness across Scotland of the opportunity that exists for reusable nappy schemes. There is a reusable nappy awareness week every April, but it has not been prominent in Scotland, although it is quite well supported in other parts of the UK.

I have been trying to understand why other councils have not been doing it, and I think that it comes down to leadership. We need to have people who are passionate about reuse and who understand some of the issues with nappies, and local authorities need to have the time and the capacity to share good practice.

The North Ayrshire visit reinforced my view that we need to do something quite bold. Obviously, resources are tight and people are nervous about asking councils to take on work that might cost money, but the scheme is cost neutral, because the council saves money on landfill—more than 62,250kg of waste has been intercepted from landfill in North Ayrshire alone, and much more could be done.

Alongside that, I have looked at other parts of the public sector. Health boards spend quite a lot of money on single-use nappies for maternity and neonatal wards and other clinics. They have not been using reusable or real nappies, but I have had a conversation with NHS Lanarkshire, and now that it has had the idea put to it, it says that, because of its net zero targets and its goal of reducing single-use plastics, it wants to look at that, and to do something.

Again, it is a case of trying to join up the dots. We talk a lot about behavioural change, but we need to support people—

Yes, of course.