Official Report 242KB pdf
Item 5 is stage 1 consideration of the Climate Change (Scotland) Bill. Our focus today is on sections 52 to 61, which deal with waste reduction and recycling. Although we are a secondary committee on the bill, we are the only committee to take evidence on this chapter.
Thank you, minister.
Minister?
Convener.
You are rising rapidly, convener.
Everyone has zero waste as an objective, but is it doable? Can we achieve it in the real world?
I guess that all the witnesses will have something to say about that.
Zero waste has its origins largely in New Zealand and Australia, where many of the initiatives started. Its purpose is to decouple waste growth from economic growth and to move us away from dependency on landfill and incineration. The debate often focuses on whether we should send waste to landfill, but zero waste is properly defined as trying to reduce consumption and the production of waste, followed by recycling, so that, in effect, society does not produce waste in the first instance. Zero waste is quite an emotive term and people tend to be polarised on the question of whether it is doable, but everyone acknowledges that we should aspire to achieve it.
I see zero waste as achievable. The CRNS has tied its colours to the mast of zero waste but, if that is to be achievable, we must move away from the notion that it is about managing waste and recognise that it has implications for the whole economic system—it is about how we design, produce and consume our products. If we look at zero waste in a comprehensive sense, it is achievable, but in Scotland the concept is seen as being about preventing landfill, which reduces its ability to make a significant contribution and to be achievable.
It is important to make the point that the owners of most small businesses are just people who share the environmental concerns of the public at large. There is a general desire among businesspeople to reduce their businesses' carbon and environmental footprints, but zero waste is a concept that does not seem particularly realistic to many small businesses. We have suggested that a more helpful approach with small businesses is to promote the resource efficiency angle of waste reduction.
Scotland is already falling short of meeting its obligations to divert a certain amount of biodegradable municipal waste from landfill by 2010, and the European Union waste framework directive that was put in place at the end of last year will apply further specific recycling targets to Scotland. In that context, it is probably more helpful to focus directly on the European target, certainly in legislation, than on a phrase such as zero waste, which has a slightly different meaning as used by the Scottish Government from the meaning that environmentalists originally gave it.
Is the current waste infrastructure sufficient to meet current and future waste policy?
There is nowhere near enough waste infrastructure anywhere in the United Kingdom to comply with existing European obligations. In Scotland, we need to accelerate our transition from a disposal to a recycling society, but to do so requires more infrastructure. It also requires much stronger green public procurement to give an impetus to recycling markets—there is a bit of provision for that in the bill, but it is anaemic.
Does anybody else want to comment on that aspect? You do not all have to.
The question is whether current waste infrastructure is sufficient to deliver for the future.
I agree with Dirk Hazell that the current infrastructure is insufficient and, ironically, that is probably particularly the case outside the municipal waste stream. There has been a focus on that infrastructure at the expense of construction, demolition and private-sector waste, but wider public sector bodies have invested insufficiently in managing and reducing their waste. I welcome the Waste and Resources Action Programme anaerobic digestion grants for food waste in particular because there is no doubt that the methane produced when organics are put into landfill has a significant effect on greenhouse gas emissions. We need to get to grips with that aspect, which has been a poor relation up to now.
Let me respond to SESA's comment about the zero waste concept being unhelpful. Any waste is a measure of inefficiency in society, whether it comes from a small business, a home or a big business, and when we attempt to deal with that, it means that we are all engaged in the process. When we try to communicate policy initiatives that have been introduced by the current and previous Administrations, it is useful to engage the public through the concept or brand of zero waste, which I think is a helpful device. The Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and the Environment has set targets that go beyond the European waste framework directive, which means that, in many ways, we lead the UK and Europe in setting demanding drivers on waste.
The FSB has been involved in the issue of recycling waste for several years, investigating possible further options for small and medium-sized businesses, but we keep coming back to the same problem that there are no facilities for SMEs to use. The committee will see that point running through our written response. It will not be remotely possible to implement many of the bill's measures unless we make progress with facilities, and the local authorities' comments about why their waste services for businesses are limited bring us back to the lack of resources for infrastructure. Unless that central problem can be solved, we fail to see how parts of the bill can be implemented.
We have heard that the zero-waste initiatives target the end product rather than the start of the process. We have also heard, from producers, that if we do not use packaging we will end up with more waste because more products will be damaged. Is there a balance that needs to be struck?
Packaging exists for a reason: it protects products and ensures that, for example, our fruit and vegetables arrive in the shop safely. If we were simply to bundle apples into a big box, more would get bruised and subsequently thrown away. We fully accept, therefore, that there is a role for packaging.
Tesco would argue, rightly, that there is a spoilage rate of about 30 per cent in food that has no packaging and, given what we were just saying about methane being dangerous for greenhouse gas emissions, we have to take cognisance of that.
Last October's European Union waste directive indicated that there should be a hierarchy of ways of dealing with waste, with prevention being the most desirable method, followed in descending order of desirability by reuse, recycling, energy production and landfill. Do you agree with ministers that the bill takes sufficient cognisance of the EU framework, which will come into legislation in the next two years?
The bill clearly does not take sufficient cognisance of the EU framework.
There is an interesting point in that, although Governments and Administrations have tended to focus on challenging local authorities to deliver on recycling, this bill tries to address the other major part of the waste stream, which is commercial and industrial waste. It also picks up on fairly innovative ways in which we can move towards the aspirational, longer-term, 70 per cent recycling target. As members know, the bill is an enabling bill, so at some point the Administration will have to come back to the Parliament to define other measures.
Do you take issue with Dirk Hazell's comment about the Scottish Government's lack of courage?
SESA is making a point about capping energy from waste. A dash for incineration would be the simplest solution for all of us, but when we start to consider how to drive forward recycling and waste prevention, we might be right to temper our enthusiasm for energy from waste.
Is that not in accordance with the view in the waste directive, which puts recovery of energy in fourth place out of five approaches to waste?
Indeed. We are talking about a hierarchy, and we should focus on prevention, reuse and recycling. The current Administration has taken a policy decision on capping energy from waste.
I do not want to monopolise the discussion, but I want to ensure that what I have said is clear. The bill should use the term "recycling" in the same way that the waste framework directive uses the term. The WFD gives a precise definition of "recycling": putting material back into the economy for productive reuse. The word should not be a cover for other things that are not recycling, as using a very wide definition of so-called "recycling" softens the target for the Scottish Government. Scotland is twinned with Bavaria, which has a recycling rate of around 75 per cent. In that context, we are not being ambitious.
Am I right in thinking that the waste framework directive does not have to be transposed until 2010? Are you saying that if we pass the bill in its current form, we would be in breach of that directive, which was finalised only in October?
My point is simple. European law is a statement of what states such as Bavaria—with which Scotland is twinned—achieved some time ago. European law sets a waste target that is difficult for us to reach because waste has been ignored for generations. We have had cheap landfill for a long time and we must make huge investment in infrastructure.
I want to pick up on a couple of points that Dirk Hazell made in his first comments, in case we do not return to them. They are quite important from our perspective.
I would like to return to the point that has been made about infrastructure, which is relevant to Susan Love's point about uncertainty arising from the enabling nature of the bill. Obviously, we have come quite a way from being extremely far behind in our recycling rates—I think a current rate of around 30 to 32 per cent has been suggested. I am interested in whether that kind of percentage is locked in. I refer to SESA's evidence on section 58, which is on deposit and return schemes. There is a suggestion that, under the bill, the Government might take decisions on deposit and return schemes that will divert infrastructure investment and that any gain may come at the expense of losses in other areas. Could decisions result in zero-sum games? I am interested in Mr Hazell's comments and those of the rest of the panel on that.
That is a very pertinent question. From an appallingly low base—lower even than that of England, which was quite difficult to achieve—there has been a 500 to 600 per cent increase in recycling in Scotland since devolution. That is a very short time, and the increase has been achieved much more quickly than anything that has been done elsewhere in Europe. It has been achieved on the basis of some investment and some assumptions. By and large, the strategy has been to try and persuade most householders to think of themselves as recyclers and, through their collection system, to increase recycling progressively.
There are concerns about that proposal. I can see deposit and return schemes impacting on kerbside collection, with people making additional journeys to return containers because of the financial incentive. That could undermine the kerbside recycling schemes that have been set up.
We were relatively relaxed about the deposit and return idea when it was first being discussed by the Government. The more we consider the evidence, however, the more we are becoming concerned that it might not be an appropriate approach, particularly because we are trying to push the message that the schemes that have worked for households have involved making recycling as easy and accessible as possible for people. Some elements of deposit and return seem to reverse that. It does not seem to make a great deal of sense.
I wonder how easy and accessible householders think the various schemes are, and are becoming. I have seen some very complicated calendars for various pick-ups, and it is easy to understand why people have become confused and fed up with the whole process. I wonder what would happen if we went even further with separation at the household level—I wonder what kind of resistance we might start to hit. That in itself might become a barrier.
When local authorities roll out new kerbside services, there is rarely an intensive awareness-raising campaign. People might get something through their doors to say that the council is now picking up paper fortnightly on Tuesdays, for instance, but that misses the point that behavioural change is difficult to achieve. People need consistency, and there needs to be a relentless effort to get them to appreciate what is being done.
The system in South Ayrshire works very well; the council is second-top of the league for recycling and the complicated planners that the convener mentioned seem to work. Here in Edinburgh, however, I do not quite know how to go about recycling. I am an avid recycler, but I do not know how to do it here.
Susan Love and Pauline Hinchion have made entirely valid points, but it is necessary to be pragmatic, rather than dogmatic. Different collection systems will work well in different places. What works in an urban area where there are tenements will be a very different collection system from what might work well in suburbs, where people have front gardens and live on quiet roads.
I return to the point about undermining the existing infrastructure. One of the challenges for Edinburgh, for example, is that only 100,000 households can get a box collection service. Another 100,000 at least—perhaps 130,000—cannot. Much of that is to do with property types. We want measures to be introduced to make it easy for all of us to engage in recycling. I would not wish to deny people living in flats and multirise premises the opportunity to recycle. If they can go along to their local Tesco or Asda and use a deposit and return system, that is great, and that should be welcomed. Recycling on the go, at events and so on, should be in place, too.
We need to move on. We have done quite a lot on that subject, and we need to get through some more.
I wish to hear some comments from Pauline Hinchion and Professor Baird on the point that Dirk Hazell and Susan Love have covered, about the sections of the bill that deal with waste—sections 52 to 59—and the extensive enabling powers that are being sought. Is that the right way to proceed, as a matter of principle? Do you have concerns about that? Do you see any disadvantages in that approach? Dirk Hazell and Susan Love have already made known their points of principle in that regard.
I cannot comment on the parliamentary process and, therefore, the benefits of taking significant powers and introducing secondary legislation later. We have focused on municipal waste in the past, but we also need to target business, commercial, industrial and other waste streams. We acknowledge that our data and ability to target those waste streams are a little bit restricted because of limited policy levers. I broadly support the fairly ambitious and innovative steps that are proposed, particularly if they target waste prevention. One reason for encouraging businesses to measure their waste is that if they cannot measure it, they cannot manage it; measuring it is the first step in trying to reduce and recycle business waste more effectively.
In one sense, the bill is really ambitious. It gives people powers finally to take control of the situation. Ultimately, if we are to achieve an 80 per cent reduction, somebody has to manage the process. In that sense, it is good. However, there is a danger that everything will become instrumental and the concerns of small businesses or householders will be ignored. When people are given so much power, it can become all about delivering on the powers, the control and actions.
I did not understand that point. You said that, under the bill, it would probably be better if the people in Shetland shipped the glass to Alloa. Are you saying that their net use of energy would be less if they shipped it to Alloa?
Yes.
That is nothing to do with what the Government says; it is just a fact.
No—I am sorry, I meant that it would probably be easier to achieve an 80 per cent reduction if they just shipped the glass to Alloa than if they continued to collect and reprocess it, but there is a job creation and social side to that activity as well.
Some work that we have done at Glasgow Caledonian University shows that, if we move towards the levels of recycling targets that we are talking about and crack waste prevention, the waste sector could contribute around 6 per cent of the 80 per cent reduction that you want for 2050. That is a significant contribution towards achieving the carbon reductions.
I am sceptical, because I have yet to see many powers that have been taken not subsequently being used when Governments want to make annual reports and show that they have taken action. The Federation of Small Businesses in Scotland is nervous about powers being taken with the assurance that they might not be used.
I agree with much of what Susan Love said. We warmly welcome what we assume to be the principal intent of the bill. Our industry is about helping to make the planet more sustainable. We exist only because of regulation—our job is to provide what is safe for the environment and human health. However, as Susan Love said, the bill is very imprecise; it has not been thought through in the way in which one would have wished. If we as an industry are to be on the receiving end of some of the powers that are being sought, we would like to know that at the primary legislation stage, so that we can demonstrate outside. It is much more difficult to do that at secondary legislation stage.
Some organisations have indicated to us that they object to the use of enabling powers—they want powers to be enacted through the bill. You appear to take the opposite view—you would be even unhappier about that than about the inclusion of enabling powers in the bill.
As an industry, we would be happy with clear regulatory powers for collection of data that applied on a level playing field—which is more than we have at the moment—and were enforced. That is our basic position. Our secondary position—this is where Susan Love and I part ways—is that the primary duty should be on the waste producer, rather than the waste manager.
At this stage, we are talking at a slightly higher level. The bill includes enabling powers that may or may not subsequently result in subordinate legislation. I take on board Susan Love's scepticism and her suggestion that if the Government can do something, it will. However, I suspect that if she were to look at some of the legislation that we have passed over the past 10 years she would find that that is not the case. Some organisations have lobbied against the use of enabling powers that would allow us to do one or another or everything that the bill mentions at a future date; they say that we should do those things right now. Do you not want that, either? Dirk Hazell appears be saying that the bill is flawed to the extent that none of the enabling powers should be enacted in the way in which they are being presented at the moment.
I am saying that, if we want to create new criminal offences with unlimited financial liability, the primary legislation should say who the guilty people will be.
So you do not want the powers to be enacted as they are in the bill.
The bill should say who the guilty people will be.
Right—you do not want the powers to be enacted as they are at present.
We want more precision.
We do not want them to be enacted because the bill does not say exactly what the Government wants to do. The proposed powers are so wide that it would be hard to say what we would be putting into legislation if we enacted the bill as it stands. That is the problem.
So you would rather not have to wait for the subordinate legislation—you want the details to be in the bill.
If we are to have an argument about whether the provisions on waste plans will apply simply to construction sites or to every business premises in Scotland, I would rather that the Government was clear about its view and that we had a debate among our members, rather than have me fight it out with an official behind closed doors.
I have concerns about enacting the powers as they are drafted, because, as Dirk Hazell pointed out, the term "recycling" is used in the bill for recovery and reuse. Reuse should be higher up the waste hierarchy. It seems that many processes have been concertinaed into the term "recycling". That will not allow for the infrastructure that is required for reuse or for the way in which re-usable material is procured compared, for example, to the procurement of recyclate.
I am broadly supportive of the measures. If we are challenging ourselves to deliver more and better reuse, waste prevention and recycling, the powers in the bill are the kind of powers that we should take. The bill is written in a language that is so broad that it is difficult to understand where the responsibilities will fall. However, I broadly accept that that is the way in which Government legislation works. The broad powers are taken and then there is a debate and argument about how they are delivered. I hope that several of the measures will be taken at the earliest opportunity.
We need to move on. Elaine Murray has some questions, although she may feel that some of the issues have been covered.
Yes. Dirk Hazell touched on the media coverage of piles of recyclable material sitting in warehouses. On the news last night there was another item showing vast stores of recyclable paper and plastic. Strangely, a UK Government adviser implied that the carbon footprint of recycling means that it is not worth doing and could actually have a deleterious effect. Will you say a bit more about the current economic situation? Will you also talk about the science and the arguments on whether some things that we do when we attempt to recycle do not do as much good as we hope they do?
I will add a point that follows on from Elaine Murray's question. A personal bugbear of mine is that an awful lot of recycling is predicated on people loading stuff into their cars and then driving it to a central point. When I have queried that in the past, I have found that nobody ever factors that into the equation. That takes us back to points that Pauline Hinchion made earlier.
If I may say so, you have hit on one of the most important points underlying the debate. Every time we talk about the environment, we are in the area of theology as much as substantive science. It is difficult for you as public leaders to do the job that you are asked to do without knowing what the most sustainable route is. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development—an international organisation that is based in Paris and which the UK is a member of—has for years tried to get internationally agreed measures of sustainable conduct. The typical pattern is that a particular Government says to the OECD, "We want these figures, because they make us look really sustainable."
I will let the experts next to me comment on the science. On the economics, though, the situation has deteriorated significantly since we started talking about the bill. We have made the point to the Scottish Government that, given the potentially vast costs to businesses of certain provisions in the bill, we do not think that this is the time to send out the bill's message to business.
To me, there are two sides to the question. One side, with reference to section 53, is about data quality and how we standardise the various accounting mechanisms that are in place. Every time I go on to the internet there seems to be a new carbon accounting tool. The issue is how we ensure that we measure in the same way and are not comparing apples with pears. There are therefore problems around data quality, the type of data that are collected and, more important, how we measure data—I think that that was Dirk Hazell's point. Instead of everybody using their own carbon accounting tool, we must get agreement on how we measure data.
I have two points: one on environmental impacts and the other on paper. Through the remade Scotland programme, which the Government funds, we did some work with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities on the drop in prices since August. There has been a significant drop, but material continues to flow. In particular, in local markets for recyclate such as glass, which is largely dealt with in Scotland and in the UK, prices have held up. Prices have also held up for materials flowing into the compost market. Paper prices have partly held up because we have domestic demand for it, but we ship some paper to China and other places overseas. Because there have been collapses in some areas, we have a fragile economy that is trying to establish itself. It is a little bit vulnerable, but material is still flowing. It is therefore a pity that the media choose to present it in a negative way.
I want to ask about the reliance on voluntary agreements. We are probably achieving the targets that were set for last year, but future targets are pretty ambitious. At the moment, things are being left to local authorities. However, in the same way as issues arise internationally, issues may arise to do with the way in which local authorities count their contributions towards reducing their greenhouse gas emissions. People in local authorities sometimes consider issues in silos and say, "Once we give it to somebody else, it doesn't really matter."
I will ask Susan Love to answer that one.
From a grass-roots business perspective, I cannot see any point in a stick being used if there is nothing that businesses can do. You cannot force businesses to recycle if no recycling facilities are available.
I was thinking more about the responsibilities of local authorities in achieving the targets.
I am sure that COSLA will give you a good response to that next week.
In 2003 and 2004, I worked with most Scottish local authorities to help them to decide how to spend the strategic waste fund that was available at the time. I remember sitting down with many councils and trying to figure out what recycling could be achieved for the available money. At that time, we were planning for 25 or 30 per cent. We are now going through another exercise with councils, and this time we are thinking about achieving 52 or 54 per cent.
I agree with both the previous speakers. We believe that the landfill tax is proving to be quite a good driver, and we think that by 2011, when the tax reaches £48 a ton, it will begin to be quite an effective driver of business behaviour in particular. The tax works on the polluter-pays principle, and it sends a long-term, clear signal. All our leading members believe that it will drive higher levels of recycling within the business community.
I agree with Elaine Murray—once we get beyond the easy hits on recycling, and we talk about a figure of 80 per cent, significant cultural and societal change is necessary. We all think that it will be enough simply to increase recycling, but it will not: it will require much more than that. One of the great things about the bill is that it includes aviation, which is an area in which we will require big cultural and societal changes.
Some of the submissions have suggested that there may be policy divergence between Scotland and England. What might be the impact of the possible divergence in waste policy in Scotland from the policy in the rest of the United Kingdom?
I suspect that you would get a different answer from us than from the Confederation of British Industry Scotland. Most of our members operate within Scotland, so they would not be subject to two different regimes. The issue arises of putting businesses at a competitive disadvantage if they are required to comply with more onerous regulations—and their associated costs—than are businesses south of the border.
Coca-Cola, for example, has concerns about there being different policy in that area in different parts of the United Kingdom.
I agree with Pauline Hinchion's final comment—we need a cultural change. In particular, we need stronger laws on producer responsibility: there is a generic provision in the new waste framework directive for extended producer responsibility. When you talk about waste policy, you are talking about European Union law and global markets for materials.
Under English law, provision is made for site waste management plans that cover construction sites. England has chosen to go it alone on that one.
It is all very well for us to talk about comparing the situations in England and Wales and in Northern Ireland and southern Ireland, but what about comparing the UK or England and France? Will there be uniformity, or could we be putting retailers at a disadvantage? For example, will international retailers buy into what we are doing in Scotland as opposed to what is being done in France, Italy or wherever?
We have struggled to get consistent product labelling from retailers at the international level. Challenges lie ahead in that respect. Europe is coming at the issue slightly differently from the way in which Scotland is doing things. Europe has an established mix of energy from waste, recycling and landfill. Given that Scotland has less of an appetite for energy from waste, we have to compensate by focusing on the recycling and recovery side. That said, in fairness to Europe, it is pushing hard on recycling.
There will not be uniformity through the European Union. When the waste framework directive was being negotiated, countries made clear their national interests. For example, Germany has gone for a high-end, value-added process, but there is no realistic prospect that any Government of any party in any part of the United Kingdom will go down that route.
I thank you all for coming. There will be another evidence session on the bill on 4 February, when the cabinet secretary will join us. Some of the issues that we have discussed will come up then. If any of the four witnesses wants to forward further evidence to us as a consequence of our discussions, please do so, bearing in mind that we need such information quickly, because the next evidence session will take place next Wednesday morning. We would appreciate further written evidence being provided as timeously as possible.
Previous
Marine and Coastal Access BillNext
Petitions