Official Report 484KB pdf
Waste (Scotland) Regulations 2012 [Draft]
Welcome to the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee’s 12th meeting in 2012. Members and the public should turn off mobile phones and BlackBerrys as leaving them on silent will affect the broadcasting system.
Good morning. With me I have Stuart Greig, who is my official who is responsible for waste, and Andy Crawley, who is here to deal with any legal issues that the committee might want to explore—the regulations are quite complex in drafting terms, so I felt that he should be here, too.
Thank you, minister.
The starting point on timescale is that we are the first country in these islands, and possibly the first country in Europe—although I cannot claim that categorically—that is legislating to close off the option of landfill for biodegradable waste, for example, which is the most troublesome material that goes to landfill.
I am sure that particular issues about timescales will be raised in a minute, but we now turn to the cost of observing the regulations. Jim Hume will lead on that.
Ian Telford of Glasgow City Council was rather concerned about costs post the three-year support period. He believed that there will be costs to councils. Has the Government considered providing further financial support after the initial three-year set-up period?
Each council will have a different set of challenges. For example, in Glasgow, there are issues to do with multistorey buildings of one sort or another, but those are less of an issue for Aberdeenshire Council, in whose area my constituency is largely placed. However, we must not lose sight of the fact that, if we focus on prevention and reducing consumption of materials, which is first in the hierarchy of waste, that has a potential benefit for councils, householders and businesses.
That covers a couple of points.
I will let Alex Fergusson come in, as he has a supplementary question.
I have a question on cost, and I am thinking particularly of my local authority—Dumfries and Galloway Council. There might well be others in the same position, but Dumfries and Galloway Council has already made considerable investment and entered in good faith into long-term contracts that were signed off by previous Administrations and endorsed by the Scottish Environment Protection Agency to bring in a regime that creates very high diversion from landfill. In the past, the local authority has been used as a good example.
We talk to all the councils and to the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities as the representative body. I recognise that Dumfries and Galloway Council and, I think, one other council have specific issues, and we will continue to talk to those councils and see what we can do. The bottom line for Dumfries and Galloway, as for elsewhere, is that there is an economic benefit in changing behaviours.
I am pleased to hear that.
I will move on from the public sector to talk about private companies and the food industry. It has been estimated that the proposed new regulations might cost some larger hotels £18,000 every year, which is the cost of someone’s salary. Has the minister or the Government considered supporting the food industry in complying with the regulations?
Looking at the timetable, we get to 2020 before biodegradable waste will stop going to landfill. That is a good eight years ahead, which is a reasonable period for hotels and food outlets of all sorts to prepare for the change. We used precisely that issue to determine some of the timetable.
Just for clarification, during the transition period of eight years, which I think will be appreciated, will there be no assistance for restaurants, hotels and so on? For example, will the Government support the Glasgow co-operative initiative?
Support means different things, of course. If by support you mean money, that is more difficult. However, if you are asking whether we will work with the industry to help it understand how it can change, the answer is of course that we will. The guidance that will be produced in due course will acknowledge the issues that exist for significant players and will focus on getting biodegradable material out of landfill. Narrow sections of business and communities will find that a greater challenge than others. For example, it may not be a big challenge for the Parliament in our operation, but it might be a significant challenge for some of our major hotels. However, we will support them and work with them.
That is quite clear. Thank you.
Annabelle Ewing has a question on the role of the waste management sector.
Good morning, minister. All the questions are interrelated and what my question is about has been touched on already: the crucial issue of developing a market for waste and facilitating the waste management sector. What position do you think that we have reached in that regard? I have made the point in previous evidence sessions that we must take into account the potential role of the third sector and social enterprises. I would have thought that they are uniquely placed to facilitate matters, particularly with respect to the cost issues that my colleagues have just raised. Will you comment on that?
The member is perfectly correct to highlight social enterprises as having key opportunities to contribute—perhaps particularly in smaller communities, to return to the point about differences in scale. Indeed, social enterprises are often the leaders in innovation, which we very much welcome. An example is the social enterprise called GREAN, which stands for Golspie Recycling & Environmental Action Network. It has recently been awarded funding by the Government to expand its commercial recycling in Sutherland. That is a good example that we would expect to see repeated across Scotland.
Thank you for that comprehensive answer, minister.
That captures the essence very well. With our deadlines and timetable, which cover an eight-year period, we are trying to create some certainty over a relatively long term and stability in our approach to ensure that investors have not only the time to make changes but confidence that there will be a stable regime to allow them to recover their costs. We think that domestic bins alone contain as much as £100 million of recoverable materials every year, so there is plenty of scope there. Indeed, significant markets for preparing materials—particularly plastics but also metals—for use are emerging.
Was that during the war, minister?
I would not wish to fall out with the convener by reminding him that he is one of the few MSPs who are older than I am.
As a quick aside, I do not wish to seem too competitive, but my grandmother, who lived to 104, used to make us unwrap our Christmas presents carefully and then fold up the paper for next year.
I know that this is terribly sad, but I have to say that my wife still collects and reuses Christmas paper.
So do I.
There are many examples of good practice on the committee.
I am glad to see a cross-party nodding of heads from the Conservatives, Labour, the Scottish National Party and the Liberals. That is absolutely first class.
Good morning, minister. I will explore a little further maximising the revenue from recycled products. There is a bit of controversy about the collection of products for recycling. Some local authorities permit commingling of products but it has been suggested to the committee that, to maximise the revenue, separation is perhaps the best way forward. Do you have a view on that?
Good morning, Dennis, and welcome to the committee. I think that this is the first time that I have attended the committee since you became a member of it.
The issue is quite technical. There are two schools of thought, one of which is that we should collect as much material as possible and send it to a big sorting facility, which will deal with it. The other is that we should collect material separately and maintain quality that way. We think that the right approach is probably somewhere in between; it is horses for courses. The real focus is on maintaining the quality of the materials, so we have introduced a strong requirement that, whatever system is used to collect the materials, it must be demonstrated that the recyclate is of the same quality as if the materials were collected separately. We will work with the industry to work out the quality standards, the benchmarks and how we ensure that quality is maintained.
Will the Government produce guidance for business and the domestic user on the collection of goods for recycling, or will you leave the matter to local authorities?
We will produce general guidance on what the regulations mean. Although we are not clear that it should cause us any issues, we will also consider the judicial review that is happening on the English regulations, which have not been cast in the same way as we have cast ours.
Why are we allowing commingling? You explained that it is partly because of our geography, but it reduces the quality of recyclate. Is there a market for that recyclate?
There is a market, but remember what I said. A number of topics that we have covered already touch on that point. For example, Glasgow was mentioned. There is an issue there, because the physical structures of some multistorey buildings mean that it is not easy to provide the facilities for the degree of separation that one might have if one can put a number of bins at a kerbside, for example.
Dennis Robertson asked about guidance. Will the guidance be absolutely clear about when commingling will be allowed?
To some extent, we will wish to work with industry and local authorities. However, we are clear that, as a general approach to government, we are interested in the outcomes and, if it makes sense to have limited commingling that can still deliver consistent quality of output, we should not rule it out at this stage, when we still have commingling in practice. However, I expect that, in the long term, the economics will drive us to the situation in which commingling has all but vanished and ceases.
I will return briefly to the situation in Dumfries and Galloway, if I may. As I understand it, the system there is a commingling system in that it takes the waste in its entirety and then extracts the recyclates from it. That is a mechanical and biological system that avoids the need for large-scale thermal treatment work, for example. At the end of the day, it produces two products: a high-calorific-value fuel and a compost-like output with high-quality growing characteristics.
Thank you for the promotion.
I beg your pardon.
Of course, my cabinet secretary is somewhere on the continent.
Dumfries and Galloway has a challenge with its existing facility. Mechanical biological treatment is suitable for the mixed-waste stream—the stuff that we cannot recycle properly—but it is not the technology for today, when we can create usable materials that can replace virgin materials.
You mention a long-term transition agreement. Will you assure me that a body such as Dumfries and Galloway Council, which has invested large amounts in recent years and is tied into long-term contracts, will have flexibility of transition without financial penalty?
Dumfries and Galloway Council is making the transition, which is great. It is beginning to roll out separate collections for households. We understand that it cannot change the situation overnight. We have worked closely with the council and will continue to do that, to give it help. I do not know how long the long term is—whether it is five or three years. We need to work that out and to get a plan of action in place, but the council is committed to the transition, which is a benefit.
I have a quick query. It is reassuring for the committee to hear that it is hoped that commingling will vanish in the foreseeable future. Given your comments on climate change targets for transport, I observe that the export of low-grade commingled materials might not be an appropriate way forward.
I hope that I said—but I might not have said it—that the UK is a large exporter of low-grade materials today. I think that that will change. Materials will still be exported, but they will be higher-grade materials with a higher value. Of course, the export trade is of value.
Good morning, minister. I agree with your comments about the opportunities in waste. I have suggested that waste is Scotland’s second oil opportunity.
It is not for me to comment on councils’ contracts—that is really a matter for them. However, having already referred to a number of social enterprises this morning, I should mention a commercial operation in this area, Forth Resources Management, which is another good example of a new company coming into the market. People are certainly finding niches. After all, the big traditional commercial waste companies have significant assets to manage in landfill and are simply not as fleet of foot as the new smaller companies. I certainly want to encourage the emergence of the new social enterprises that are at the lower end of the size scale and, if it is within our power to do so, to try to provide help with and deconstruct any specific barriers that might be identified in that respect.
When you mentioned the war earlier, I realised that you were referring to the second world war. I was not born at the time myself but I know that, during that period, there was a lot of recycling and everyone had a tremendous involvement in that opportunity. I find it deplorable that people are still throwing away recyclable waste, but what are we doing to encourage everyone to increase their recycling and move us closer to our targets?
It might be helpful if I say, first of all, that one of the things that we will not do is penalise people financially, a suggestion that has been part of the public discourse from time to time.
Perhaps I can develop that point a little. Given the nature of the media in this country, there might well be a lot of negative reporting on the consequences of the regulations and the demands that they might make on individuals and organisations. Do you accept that that is a probability? If so, what steps will the Scottish Government take to counter such reporting? Can we expect a very positive national campaign to back up the introduction of the regulations and promote their positive message?
If we had a more balanced media, there would be more people with reporter’s notebooks sitting behind me in the public gallery instead of sitting elsewhere in this Parliament.
Jolly good.
Thank you very much.
It is clear that markets for high-quality recyclates are emerging without Government intervention in particular. I refer to what I said in answering a different question. If we can identify barriers to those markets emerging and developing, we would want to know about the difficulties to help to deconstruct those barriers.
Indeed. The opportunity for councils to make income from that would be useful in this difficult time.
What measures is the Government taking to ensure that a properly managed network of landfill sites is maintained as Scotland adopts the zero waste agenda?
That is a very important point. Obviously, we have to manage our legacy as we move towards sending much less to landfill, and SEPA is heavily engaged in that process. Perhaps there will be fewer opportunities for commercial operators to make money in the traditional ways from landfill operations, and the nature of landfill will change. There will be a move to filling with inert materials essentially, as we are taking all the biodegradable stuff out of landfills. Therefore, there will be a significant change in how landfill will operate, and the commercial operation will change.
We have the existing landfill sites, and areas have been identified for landfill sites in future, but they might not be used because we are getting better at recycling our waste. Will that be covered in the guidance?
It will be up to each individual council to identify and plan for how much landfill space it will need. It is certainly the case that there will be less landfill. SEPA is heavily engaged in ensuring that landfill sites are regulated in a way that moves from their creation through their life cycle to their closure and the return of the land to other uses. It is a significant engineering task to build a landfill site. It not just a question of digging a hole and throwing things into it. At all the landfill sites that we have, SEPA is engaged in the process that I mentioned.
I turn to another aspect—the diversion of waste. As you will know, in some other European countries there is a lot of thermal treatment, which is sometimes connected with energy. However, there are some concerns from local communities about that, and there are also transport issues for regional sites in relation to climate change, which you focused on earlier.
We continue to stand by that comment, which we made relatively recently. The hierarchy of waste goes from preventing it by reducing consumption to preparing for reuse and recycling things into other uses, and seeking to recover energy from waste through combustion is close to the option of landfill. Relatively little ought to get that far down the chain, so the commercial opportunities will be limited. Frankly, given that there will be a shrinking supply available to plants that rely on waste as a fuel that they can combust and produce energy, it will be increasingly less attractive economically for commercial organisations or councils to make that sort of investment.
On that point, it has been said to us in evidence that some member states are actually quite jealous of Scotland because we will potentially manage to leapfrog a lot of what they are doing that they are not so keen on now. Admittedly, that is perhaps because we started the process later. Other countries have infrastructure in place that they have to feed by importing. In Scotland, we are much better placed, because we can bypass that and have a better approach to recycling. As I say, we understand that other countries are looking at us enviously in that regard.
I suspect that, as a group, we will be able to tolerate the envy of others.
On that point, throughout Scotland, there are numerous applications by various firms to councils for such plants. I take the minister’s point that there is a reducing resource. We hope that we will not get to the nth degree—that point has been well made by other members.
We would be instinctively reluctant to make that a responsibility of Government. Decisions on planning are almost invariably best made by the people who are closest to the effects of the decisions. When I was minister with responsibility for planning, we moved sharply to the position of distancing Government from decisions on planning and from calling in applications unless there were matters of national concern. We would be very reluctant indeed to contemplate changing that.
As part of the on-going reduction in the use of landfill sites, when can we expect the Scottish Government to bring forward legislation to revoke the landfill allowance scheme, in accordance with the zero waste plan?
I knew that Andy Crawley was here for a reason.
Work is under way on those regulations. Subject to ministerial approval, I expect them to be made later this year.
Questions on businesses’ presentation of food waste and the use of food waste disposal units will be led by Alex Fergusson.
Minister—I will bring you back down to your appropriate level; apologies for my previous mistake—we have had a lot of representations from small and large businesses, for all sorts of obvious reasons. Will you say a little about the rationale for the requirement on the presentation of food waste in the regulations? In doing so, will you also say a little about the differentiation that is made between businesses that produce 500kg—in the modern parlance; in my language, that is a hundredweight—or more of waste a week and those that produce less than that, and the timescale for introduction?
We are trying to exempt certain kinds of businesses by making that differentiation. For example, a newspaper shop that has a chill cabinet with a few sandwiches in it for passing trade to buy will find that, inevitably, some of those sandwiches will reach their expiry date and will have to be disposed of. It would be excessive to apply the kind of controls to those businesses that we would apply to producers of larger amounts of waste. We are seeking to take out of the equation the large number of businesses that produce very small amounts of food waste—we can all think of examples that are similar to the one that I gave.
It will come down to 5kg.
Yes.
Clearly, any differentiation of that nature, even when it comes down to 5kg, will involve a great deal of voluntary buy-in. Does the Government have any idea of how it will measure the amount of waste that businesses produce?
It is up to businesses to conform to regulations. There is an enforcement regime associated with the regulations, but I do not expect that we will see SEPA visiting the small shop that happens to put out 7kg of waste. It comes back to education and to working with organisations such as the FSB to ensure that, as part of the services that they provide to their members, they help to guide them through this and the many other elements that are changing in the world of small business.
Annabelle Ewing has a question about food waste disposal units and further business presentation.
On the general issue of food waste and small businesses, the small business representative who came to the committee seemed to indicate that, although there has been a derogation for small businesses until the end of 2015, they would welcome a lengthening of the transitional period.
I am not minded to extend the transitional period, as the whole point of it is to provide a degree of certainty. Nevertheless, we will consult on the subject during the summer. For small businesses that operate with small margins, as for big businesses, there are opportunities in the efficient control and management of waste. Preventing waste in the first place is a key opportunity for every business and for each of us in our personal life.
The other issue that has been raised specifically by business concerns macerators. We had strong representations from the industry lobby, which feels that the regulations are going to be hugely expensive for small business and that there are alternatives. However, we also heard evidence to the effect that there are no alternatives, not least because Scottish Water simply does not have the infrastructure to deal with the waste. In the wider picture, putting everything down the sink and into the sewer is a waste of a resource—we should be talking about resource management, not waste management. Will the minister comment specifically on the issue of macerators?
Many of the issues were identified in the question. The waste water directive has created issues for Scottish Water on the processing side. It is not simply a question of putting everything down the drain. Those of us who live in rural areas and have septic tanks are already operating the kind of regime that we want everybody to operate, choosing carefully what we put down the drain for practical reasons. That is an inefficient way of dealing with food waste.
I am sorry to draw this out, convener, but it is important. The British Hospitality Association gave us further evidence raising its major concerns about the costs that businesses will incur as a result of the regulations. In particular, it refers to food waste disposal units. There is a cost in that there will have been investment in them, and there will be a further cost in removing them once they are banned. The BHA says that it does not think that the costs have been quantified. What is your answer to the BHA? We heard other evidence along similar lines from the Catering Equipment Suppliers Association, and I understand the reasons for its concern. What do you say to the BHA and the committee on that issue?
Just to be clear: the regulations do not ban them. However, it comes back to what is the best way of using the inescapable food waste. I think that, in answer to a previous question that you asked in relation to Dumfries and Galloway, Stuart Greig said that good quality material can be put back onto the fields to re-enter the food cycle. We must do everything that we can to encourage that as a way forward. Large hotel groups, for example, might be able to enter collaborations with others who will regard the groups’ food waste as a valuable input to their processes to produce outputs. They should explore such commercial opportunities.
I want to press you on one point, minister. We have a Scottish Parliament information centre briefing that states explicitly:
I invite Andy Crawley, who is master of the legalese, to comment on that, although Stuart Greig is looking horrified at that suggestion. However, we will see what Andy Crawley has to say.
Thank you, minister.
So you accept that there is a cost to the regulations as they refer to the use of macerators.
I repeat that we are talking about a resource that has value, which can be diverted to other purposes—that is the tension. Almost the first thing that I said in my introductory remarks was that, with increasing demand for a limited supply of resources, the value that we can derive from reduction, reuse and recycling is rising. That is as true in this area as elsewhere.
I am grateful for that clarification. Thank you.
Will the minister comment on a long-established scheme in Austria that zero waste Scotland brought to our attention? The scheme has a high capture rate because hotels, restaurants and commercial kitchens are obliged to collect food waste separately. For other businesses, it is cheaper to dispose of food waste via separate collections rather than as residual waste. If there was an arrangement of that sort here, would it be the answer for many small businesses?
I would not wish to suggest that that would be the answer for everyone. However, we would always wish to look at international examples, just as we are apparently to be the envy of the world in our regulations. We are not so arrogant to imagine that we have every possible answer. I would certainly wish to ensure that we look at examples such as the Austrian one. If it is a good one, I am sure that we would wish to consider it.
That is good. Thank you. We have quite a few other items to get through, so I ask for short questions and answers. Graeme Dey has questions on collections in dispersed areas.
I have three brief questions on this issue. We hear that the plan is that local authorities in dispersed areas will not be required to collect food waste from domestic households if it is not environmentally or economically advantageous to do so. Who will determine whether an area falls under that criterion? Does the derogation on the collection of food waste in rural areas offer sufficient assistance to rural authorities, given the challenges that they will face from the regulations? Will the Government seek to introduce the collection of food waste in rural areas at some stage?
We envisage that the collection of food waste will apply to 80 per cent of Scotland’s population, although the proportion of the area of Scotland will be substantially lower. The derogation applies to what we define as rural areas. We are using the existing definition of rural areas; we are not inventing a new one.
Dick Lyle has a question on issues in urban areas.
Minister, you have partially answered my question. On the collection of food waste from tower blocks and tenements, the Government’s policy statement ahead of the publication of the draft regulations suggested that the requirement on local authorities to collect food waste from high-density housing such as high rises would be removed. However, in its evidence to the committee on 21 March, the Government said that the requirement to collect food waste would include high-density housing. Ian Telford of Glasgow City Council said:
In Edinburgh, which has many similar problems—though perhaps not to quite the same scale as Glasgow—we see what can be done. It is important that local authorities share experience, through COSLA and so on. There is evidence from the Edinburgh experience that models can be developed for collecting food waste from single buildings with dense and varied populations. We would encourage Glasgow to do that.
In my area, once we put recycling bins outside dense tower blocks, they are absolutely full. I take your earlier point about the chilli, and people wanting to use food wisely by eating it all. Is that basically what you are suggesting?
I would not wish to encourage people to eat all of what they currently buy, because there are other issues involved. However, it is appropriate to get a good balance between what one buys and what one consumes. There is a health agenda in there as well—perhaps too many Scots have unhealthy eating habits. Every one of us may eat unhealthily from time to time. We should not do it all the time—a little indulgence, perhaps, but not too much.
The issue of enforcement powers was raised by Colin Clark from Highland Council.
To what extent will getting where we want to go with this issue depend on utilising enforcement powers? To that end, are the powers that are contained in section 34 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 sufficient? Who has the power to enforce the regulations? As I understand it, that is not stipulated in section 34.
Environmental regulations are, essentially, the responsibility of the Scottish Environment Protection Agency. The powers and enforcement capabilities are provided for in previous legislation.
Do you see local authorities and SEPA working effectively in tandem?
The advice and discussions that I have had and the visits that I have made suggest that there is a good working partnership and that each side knows when to call on the other for support. If there are local examples of where that relationship is not working and it is felt that we in government can intervene to assist, we will do so, but the evidence is that SEPA has a pretty good team that is able to respond.
Confusion appears to exist, as the evidence that we took from Colin Clark of Highland Council indicated. In the guidelines that you produce on the zero waste regulations, will you make it clear to local authorities that they can be involved in enforcement, because they seem to think that they might not have a role to play in that regard?
In a consultation, there is almost always a catch-all question such as, “Is there anything else that you want to tell us on this agenda?” We have a working group that is engaging with SEPA, COSLA and others on enforcement, and something will come out of that. We expect the guidelines to respond to what that working group is doing and the input that we get to the consultation process that will take place later this year.
Concerns have been raised by some—although by no means all—of those who have provided evidence about the thoroughness of the business regulatory impact assessment. Although it was felt that it had been conducted well on a macro level, there were concerns that, on a micro level, there were certain gaps, particularly as far as catering services were concerned. Will you comment on that?
All that I can say is that I am satisfied that the impact assessment was drawn up appropriately and consulted on appropriately. We have certainly not formed the view that there are any substantial difficulties with it.
In one respect, the calls to carry out case studies would have been difficult to meet, because each case will probably be quite different from the next one.
Zero waste Scotland has provided information to the committee; I referred to that earlier. We also have a number of briefing notes of one sort or another, one of which is a zero waste Scotland support to business briefing note, which I hope will be of assistance. It makes the point that the member has just made when it says:
I want to expand on that briefly. The British Hospitality Association is adamant that the regulatory impact assessment assumes only savings and does not take into account the costs to small businesses in particular. Annabelle Ewing was quite right to say that this issue affects small businesses in particular. In taking into account the costs to the small businesses of implementation and complying with the new regulations, can you assure us that there will be some flexibility in the transitory arrangements that will allow those concerns to be addressed and allayed?
We have created time in the timetable. I am not minded to change that timetable because it is necessary to have certainty so that investment can be made knowing that there is such a timetable. The ban on materials that are collected separately for recycling going to landfill or incineration will come in 2014, which is a couple of years away. We think that the timetables that we have come up with provide time to work with industries—the hospitality industry being but one—and we and zero waste Scotland will support them to work through and understand how we can do it.
My concern is about very small rural businesses such as exist across my constituency that are not in a position to bear any increase in costs at this time. I understand your aims and I understand that we cannot bring about change without cost. I am gratified to hear your assurance that zero waste Scotland and the Government will work with such businesses to ensure a peaceful transitory experience, if I can put it that way.
In the first instance we will probably seek to work through representative bodies such as the FSB. Because of the diversity of businesses, we might not be able to have someone going to every door, but we wish to respond to issues that are brought to our attention.
The Subordinate Legislation Committee has raised a point with us. It drew our attention to the new waste management strategy duties created by the regulations, and how the failure to discharge those duties could result in a criminal offence. How will the code of practice that is being drawn up be rolled out so that people will know how to avoid committing a criminal offence in this case?
Like many others, the code of practice will not be part of statute law but the courts will take it into account when considering whether there has been a breach of regulations. It is therefore part of the legal system and it will determine the outcomes of legal cases, but that is generally where these things sit and that is the intention in this case.
How soon will it be available, given that we might pass the regulations today, if members so wish?
In the summer.
Thank you.
I apologise, convener, but it is important that I have this question answered. I do not wish to oppose the regulations. I have a lot of concerns about them, although I am content with the answers that the minister has given so far. However, I want to raise one issue that was raised with us by the campaign for real recycling, which involves a number of bodies, including Friends of the Earth. The issue was that the collection regulations are inconsistent with the revised waste framework directive in a number of ways. Can the minister satisfy me on that score?
I will invite Stuart Greig to comment, if I may.
I had an interesting meeting with members of the campaign last week. They have been worried about how DEFRA has dealt with the transposition issue. Just yesterday, the Resource Association, which I mentioned earlier and which represents all reprocessors—the real recycling campaign is a kind of subset of it, as it involves some reprocessors—said publicly that it thinks that DEFRA should look to Scotland to see how we are dealing with collection, commingling and everything else. The association has seen that our approach is a model for dealing with the difficult issue of providing flexibility around collection, but in a way that maintains quality. The directive is about getting good-quality recycling materials, and that is what we want to try to do. I was heartened by the discussion that we had with them.
Are you telling us that the campaign would now not say what it said in its evidence to us, in which it urged the Scottish Parliament not to make the draft regulations into law?
The reality is that the campaign is in a difficult position because it is dealing with DEFRA on the same issue and it cannot step back from the position that it has had for a while. However, the campaign has seen what we have been doing in Scotland. I get the strong feeling that it wants to work with us on the approach that we are putting in the regulations and not to fight it. That is definitely what is coming through, which is heartening.
We have dealt with a lot of the details, so it is time to move to the second agenda item, which is the formal debate on motion S4M-02613, which calls on the committee to recommend approval of the affirmative instrument. I invite the minister to speak to and move the motion.
We have had a useful hour and a half and covered a lot of ground, so I will confine myself simply to moving the motion.
Do any members wish to speak?
When I asked my final question, I indicated that I have considerable reservations about parts of the regulations. However, I believe that the aims are noble and just and I do not wish to stand in the way of the regulations. Many of the concerns that have been raised, particularly by business, have justification. I do not doubt Mr Greig, but I hope that he is right that, legislatively speaking, this is all above board and that the concerns that were raised with us by the campaign for real recycling are not justified. With those reservations, I am content that we recommend that the regulations be approved.
The minister has spoken with passion and I am impressed with his comments. I certainly support the regulations.
As no other members wish to take part, I will put the question. The question is, that motion S4M-02613, in the name of Stewart Stevenson, be agreed to.
We will record the result and confirm the committee’s report on the outcome of the debate.
Previous
AttendanceNext
Peatlands