SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE
Health and Community Care
Carers
To ask the Scottish Executive how it is working in partnership with national health service bodies, local authorities and other agencies to help to assist and support carers. (S2O-8389)
We are working with partners to support carers in a number of ways, including the preparation of the care 21 report on the future of unpaid care in Scotland, which I helped to launch in Inverness in September. We will respond to the care 21 report early next year.
I draw the minister's attention to the wonderful exhibition of photographs of carers by Fin Macrae—commissioned by the Princess Royal Trust for Carers—which will tour the Highlands over the next few months and, I hope, reach the Parliament in due course. I understand that Highland Council will no longer centrally fund the Highland Community Care Forum, at whose recent conference the minister was the keynote speaker. As a result of that decision, concerns have been expressed to me about future support for carers organisations in the Highlands. I know that that decision is for Highland Council, but I ask the minister to keep an eye on the situation.
I am aware of the good work that is done by the Princess Royal Trust for Carers and other bodies that are involved in the Highland Community Care Forum. Although Maureen Macmillan is right to say that the position on the Highland Community Care Forum is under review, I understand that Highland Council and NHS Highland will make a decision this month. Clearly, it is for them to make the decision, but I agree with Maureen Macmillan that it is good practice for local authorities and health boards to involve service users and carers in the planning of local services.
The mental and physical health of young carers is a high priority on the Executive's agenda but it does not appear that there is sufficient support. What is the Executive doing to help young carers? Can the minister explain why, in Aberdeen this year, 160 of the referrals that professionals have made to young carers projects have had to be refused? We should be encouraging growth in that area.
As I said in my reply to Maureen Macmillan's supplementary question, responsibility in local areas lies with local bodies. Nanette Milne and I both had the opportunity to visit the Princess Royal Trust voluntary service Aberdeen young carers activity centre last week and to hear some of the concerns that were expressed. It is noteworthy that the recommendations in the care 21 report include a call for a national young carers strategy. We are all aware of the significant role that young carers play. As I said in my answer to Maureen Macmillan's question, we will respond to the report early next year. When we do, we will pay close attention to that recommendation.
NHS Lanarkshire Acute Services Review
To ask the Scottish Executive what action it will take to ensure that any changes to health care resulting from NHS Lanarkshire's current acute services review will not have a negative impact on patients in the NHS Greater Glasgow area. (S2O-8385)
The National Health Service Reform (Scotland) Act 2004 places a duty of collaboration on NHS boards to ensure that service change proposals are not developed in isolation. That emphasis is reflected in "Delivering for Health"—the report sets out a number of specific responsibilities for regional planning groups, which will require further strengthening of the regional planning mechanisms and arrangements. NHS Lanarkshire has assured me that it has had on-going discussions with NHS Greater Glasgow and the west of Scotland regional planning group as it has developed its proposals for the future configuration of health care services throughout Lanarkshire.
I am sure that the minister is aware of my continuing involvement in the acute services review in Glasgow, under which two accident and emergency and trauma units will cover greater Glasgow. Will he assure me that those changes will be fully taken into account when he considers the proposed reduction in accident and emergency facilities in Lanarkshire and, in particular, the role that Hairmyres hospital plays in that regard?
I am well aware of Janis Hughes's views on those matters. Of course, no decisions have been taken even on what will be consulted on in Lanarkshire and beyond. Lanarkshire NHS Board advises me that the consultation will begin in January and that all points should be raised during that process. As I have said today on another matter, regarding Argyll and Clyde, patient flows must be respected and must continue regardless of the configuration of services. We must respect patient choice in the health agenda and I expect there to be such choice as part of the proposal to reconfigure services.
Will the minister ensure that, before NHS Lanarkshire makes any recommendations to him, it takes fully into account the deprivation and needs of people who live in the northern constituencies of the Lanarkshire area in particular? I am thinking about the need to access good health services and the shocking record of health inequality in those constituencies.
All boards in Scotland must address the Kerr agenda—I mean Professor David Kerr's agenda, of course—and the "Delivering for Health" agenda, which I set out in the chamber. Recognising that health improvement and inequalities are important and that they will be the key driver for the future development of the health service in Scotland is integral to addressing those agendas. The need to stream and organise patients effectively has also been recognised in order best to meet needs. I want there to be appropriate care that is as local as possible and that specialises where that is necessary. On the specific issue that the member raised, we must drive our health care services into the communities in question to prevent rather than treat health inequalities. That is the agenda of the Government in Scotland.
Insulin Pump Therapy
To ask the Scottish Executive whether it considers that insulin pump therapy offers an improved quality of life for type 1 diabetes sufferers. (S2O-8356)
NHS Quality Improvement Scotland has endorsed an appraisal by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Effectiveness on continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion for diabetes. The NICE report recommends that insulin pump therapy be made available as a treatment option for patients with type 1 diabetes for whom multiple-dose insulin therapy has failed and who are willing and able to use insulin pump therapy effectively. We expect national health service boards to implement the recommendations of that appraisal.
When does the minister expect the health boards to accept those important recommendations? I am sure that the issue is not unique for constituents in my area and that it has been raised with other members. Given the approval that has been mentioned, is it not sad that only 0.19 per cent of sufferers in the United Kingdom currently receive the treatment? We are lagging pitifully behind Germany, where the figure is 10 per cent, and Sweden, where the figure is 12 per cent. Will he carefully consider the figures, including the number of patients who have indicated that they would like to have that system of treatment, and confirm that financial pressure will not constrain provision?
The issue is not financial in the way that Margaret Ewing's final point might imply. Essentially, the position is that my officials wrote to NHS boards in February to remind them of their obligations to implement the guidance. However, it is important to say that the therapy is not appropriate for all sufferers of type 1 diabetes. Insulin pump therapy can be dangerous if the patient does not, or is unable to, monitor it carefully and frequently. The criteria that are used are that multiple-dose insulin therapy must first have been tried and must have failed and that the patient must have the commitment and the competence to use the therapy effectively. Therefore, I regard the matter not as statistical, but as clinical—clinicians must make proper clinical judgments in each individual case. The guidance to boards does not require clinicians to prescribe the therapy, but says that, if a clinician judges that such treatment is the best treatment, the board must fund it.
Taser Guns
To ask the Scottish Executive what guidelines it has issued to health services on the treatment of people shot with Taser guns. (S2O-8417)
The use of Tasers is conducted under strict police guidelines following rigorous testing, including independent medical assessment. The Executive has not issued guidance to health services, but the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland has provided information to general practitioners and hospitals on the treatment of people who have been subjected to Tasers.
Given the alarming increase in the number of deaths following the use of Tasers in other countries in which they have been used for rather longer than they have been used here and the relative recency of their coming into use in Scotland, will the minister take into account the lack of experience that health services are likely to have in treating people who have been shot with Tasers and the complex relationships that there can be between drug and alcohol use, heart defects and 50,000V? In the light of the rather alarming increase in the number of deaths in custody in other countries, will he ensure that work is undertaken to dismiss the notion that Tasers are non-lethal weapons?
I recognise that caution is required in those circumstances, which is why the police use Taser guns cautiously and only when they are the best option available to officers at the time. I welcome the information that ACPOS has provided to practitioners in the health service to ensure that they are aware of all the issues that the member mentions.
Given that Taser guns have been involved in 74 deaths in the United States and Canada and have seriously injured many more, will the deputy minister say whether he or the Minister for Health and Community Care was consulted before the Taser was issued to Scottish police forces? Why was the approval of the Parliament not sought for the issue of such lethal weapons?
I am sure that Dennis Canavan appreciates that those are matters for the Minister for Justice and the Justice Department. I have no doubt that they carried out their responsibilities in the usual way and in the best interests of justice and of the citizens of Scotland.
Does the minister consider that, from a health viewpoint, wounds suffered in attacks by knives and guns are far more serious than the injuries inflicted by Taser guns, which are used as a deterrent? If so, does he welcome the use of Tasers, which are, in the main, a non-lethal weapon?
Phil Gallie makes an important point. It is worth noting that Tasers have been used on two occasions in Scotland. Sadly and tragically, the use of knives and guns in the committing of crime is far more frequent. That is an issue that all members of the Parliament should address as a high priority.
National Health Service Boards (Consultations)
To ask the Scottish Executive what influence NHS board consultations have on the decision-making processes of NHS boards. (S2O-8345)
My response to the Kerr report, "Delivering for Health", is explicit: we will work with NHS boards to ensure that there is a constant effort to make certain not only that the interests of patients are paramount in the design of services but that every reasonable effort is made to explain the impact of service changes to patients and local populations and to involve patients and the public in the consideration of options for change. We will continue to give patients an influential voice in the future of the health service and in their own care. NHS boards will be asked to demonstrate how they are working to achieve year-on-year improvements by involving the public in service delivery and in individual decisions about their personal health care. The new Scottish Health Council will have a central role in holding the NHS to account for its performance on patient and public involvement.
Does the minister agree that consultations must be both genuine and thorough and must take into account the views of NHS staff, health professionals, stakeholders and others before a decision is made? Does he share my concern that, before the start of the consultation on the future of accident and emergency care in Lanarkshire, a televised news report announced that NHS Lanarkshire intended to have two accident and emergency hospitals and one elective one?
I am afraid that the member cannot hold me to account for the behaviour of the media—although that subject is one that I would love to undertake and deal with more effectively. However, that is not the case. What is the case is that NHS Lanarkshire is involved in a wide range of consultations internally on the options for choice for accident and emergency hospitals. It will issue a consultation paper in the new year on any proposals that it has for the reconfiguration of services in Lanarkshire. That paper has not yet been issued, so I would await the outcome of the consultation process before commenting on the substantial matters that the member raises.
I was heartened to hear the minister say that any reorganisation of health services should be driven by improving public health and by addressing health inequalities. Does he agree that it is often the most deprived communities, and the communities with the highest levels of ill health, that are the least likely to engage in a formal consultation process? Will he ensure that, in any formal consultations, due weight is given to the views of such communities so that they can participate fully in the process?
I would hope that any NHS engagement would take cognisance of that point. My experience to date, and the comments that we have received from the Scottish Health Council, suggest that that is the case. We have had difficulties in the past, but the focus that the chamber has put on the conduct of the NHS in the engagement that the member describes has been significant. Standards are set out for consultations and there are issues that we have to take account of in the provision of services. I am confident that the consultation in Lanarkshire will meet those high and rigorous standards. I am sure that the member will keep me up to date with her views on the matter.
NHS Argyll and Clyde<br />(Transfer of Responsibility)
To ask the Scottish Executive whether it will set out the transition arrangements for the transfer of responsibility from NHS Argyll and Clyde to NHS Greater Glasgow and NHS Highland. (S2O-8373)
Following formal public consultation—which I argue was effective—I announced today my decision on the boundaries of the two boards that will assume responsibility for the planning and provision of health care services in Argyll and Clyde. The matter will be the subject of an Executive debate this afternoon.
The minister will be aware that many people are not happy with the decision on boundaries. However, the real debate is about services. He will know that local people are concerned about the range of services available at the Vale of Leven hospital. Both he and Professor Kerr have encouraged the proposals for integrated care at the Vale of Leven, so will he agree that now is the time to go further, beyond the warm words, to robust action? Will he repeat the welcome commitment made to my constituents this morning about the Vale of Leven hospital—a commitment that will effectively stabilise services and from which all Scotland can learn?
It was very useful to meet Jackie Baillie and her constituents this morning on the matter. I thought that it was right and appropriate to make that announcement, to meet people personally and to give—I hope—some strong reassurances on the point that she makes. The issue is about services. The organisation of boundaries and the management structures in the NHS respect and will continue to respect patient flow and patient choice.
New Victoria Hospital
To ask the Scottish Executive which additional services will be provided in the proposed new Victoria hospital in Glasgow which are not currently provided at the Victoria infirmary. (S2O-8383)
Over £100 million is being invested in the new Victoria hospital for additional services. It will be a substantial facility offering state-of-the-art health care services in a fit-for-purpose environment and it will cater for around 85 per cent of the current hospital attendances in the old Victoria as we know it now. I understand that NHS Greater Glasgow plans to offer a number of day-case and out-patient services at the new Victoria hospital that are not currently available at the Victoria infirmary. Those include magnetic resonance imaging scanning, haemodialysis, day chemotherapy and an extensive range of day surgery and endoscopic procedures.
In the light of Greater Glasgow NHS Board's current in-patient bed modelling exercise, is it possible that, in addition to providing modernised services and new services, the new Victoria hospital will have in-patient beds?
That issue has been raised frequently in relation to the new Stobhill hospital. Let us put the matter in context. The new Victoria hospital represents a highly significant investment. It will be a three-floor facility that will provide an area the size of five football pitches in which the additional services can be delivered. I am pleased that NHS Greater Glasgow is involved in a bed modelling exercise, part of which involves working up proposals to provide the beds to which the member refers. I have not seen the conclusion of that work, but there is a commitment to include in-patient beds in the model of care that the new hospital will provide.
Environment and Rural Development
Air Pollutants
To ask the Scottish Executive what measures are being taken to monitor and measure air pollutants caused by road transport in rural areas. (S2O-8347)
All local authorities are required by the Environment Act 1995 regularly to monitor air quality in their areas. The type of monitoring that is undertaken depends on the particular local issues that they identify. Monitoring is also undertaken by the Executive, in partnership with the other United Kingdom Administrations, at a range of sites in both urban and rural areas.
People are encouraged to cycle despite the fact that, since 1998, levels of pollution in rural areas have been higher than those in urban areas, according to the measurements of the headline air quality indicator. Given that recent research has shown that outdoor pollutants are linked not only to respiratory disease—an obvious connection—but to cardiovascular disease, how can the Executive make councils adhere to the advice of the Scottish Environment Protection Agency?
The long-term trends on the presence of pollutants in the atmosphere are downwards. Emissions are falling because of tighter industrial regulation and increasingly stringent emissions and fuel standards. However, there are particular concerns in some areas. The member may be interested to know that East Dunbartonshire Council's review and assessment work has indicated that the nitrogen dioxide and particles objectives will not be achieved in parts of Bishopbriggs by the due dates of the end of 2005 and the end of 2010. In both cases, the issues are transport related. Following consultation, the council has announced plans to declare a single air quality management area covering both aspects. That will come into effect on 23 December. The council will now be required to undertake a further assessment of air quality within 12 months of the declaration and to produce an action plan.
Energy Efficiency
To ask the Scottish Executive how its climate change strategy is promoting energy efficiency. (S2O-8376)
Energy efficiency is a key component of our current climate change programme and will be central to our revised programme, which is to be published early in 2006. Along with a number of socioeconomic goals, climate change is an important driver for the promotion of energy efficiency and the current review of the Scottish climate change programme is helping to inform the development of an energy efficiency strategy for Scotland.
Is the minister aware of the European Union's estimate that we could reduce our energy demands by 40 per cent if we adopted radical energy efficiency measures? What targets for domestic and business energy efficiency will he set and what incentives for them to be met will he put in place? How will he deliver the win-win that can be achieved for taxpayers if all public sector organisations reduce their energy bills and their CO2 emissions and make the best use of our renewables technology by adopting an integrated approach?
I am aware of the EU study that has shown the dramatic gains that can be achieved through energy efficiency. As I said in response to the member's initial question, it is clear that a crucial part of the Executive's review of the climate change programme will be the promotion of energy efficiency, not just in the private sector but in the public sector, in which, as she rightly said, tremendous gains can be made. That point was highlighted in the Environment and Rural Development Committee's excellent report on climate change, which advocated that we produce a road map on how to make progress. That is what we ought to do and what we will do when we publish our revisions to the climate change programme.
Two weeks ago, the Executive rejected an amendment to the Housing (Scotland) Bill that was lodged by my colleague Patrick Harvie, which would have established a statutory target for energy efficiency. That has already been done in England and Wales. Will the minister and his colleagues make a commitment to setting a voluntary target for energy efficiency in households? If so, will he say what the target might be?
I am not in a position to do that and I think that the member knows why that is the case. What I have undertaken to do as part of the climate change review is to work out, and be clear that we have a handle on, Scotland's share of carbon emissions. We need to establish what targets we might place on each sector that would be achievable and consonant with our aim of achieving our share of the required reduction in carbon emissions, in line with the Kyoto commitments.
Waste Oil
To ask the Scottish Executive whether it considers that waste oil should continue to be incinerated under the Waste Incineration (Scotland) Regulations 2003. (S2O-8339)
Waste oils can be recovered through regeneration into usable oils or incinerated as a source of energy. I am satisfied that the Waste Incineration (Scotland) Regulations 2003 are necessary to protect human health and the environment where waste oils are incinerated.
Is the minister aware that the cost of the part A provisional licence that is now required to incinerate waste oil is £10,000 in Scotland but only £300 in England? Does she agree that, rather than face the increased costs of disposal that will be incurred under the new regulations, businesses such as small motor garages will be sorely tempted to dispose of their waste oil in a considerably less environmentally friendly manner? I am thinking of the current practice of a constituent of mine who gathers waste oil from neighbouring small garages and incinerates it to heat his business premises.
I am aware that there are differences between Scotland and England in how the cost is collected, but the cost in Scotland does not exceed the cost in England. I would be very disappointed if any operators were to dispose of waste oil in a way that could damage the environment and human health.
Is the minister aware of the situation of small garages on Shetland? Currently, small garages on the island can burn oil in a very small heater to heat the premises. They will now have to send the waste oil off the island and import oil on to the island to heat their premises? That neither fulfils the proximity principle nor makes environmental sense. Surely the minister can find a way to allow those businesses to continue with the practices that they have carried out until now.
Operators will have to arrange for waste oil to be collected either by the local authority or by a properly licensed waste management company. In most cases, collection of waste oil is carried out free of charge or at low cost. I am happy to keep in touch with the member on the issue. That said, the regulations will come into force on 28 December and all operators will be required to comply with them.
Renewable Energy<br />(Scottish Executive Buildings)
To ask the Scottish Executive what action its Environment and Rural Affairs Department will take to encourage the use of Executive buildings for generating energy from renewable sources, such as solar panels, for the benefit of local communities as part of the Executive's strategy on climate change. (S2O-8364)
The answer is in two parts. As the member may be aware, all the electricity that is used in Executive buildings is already supplied from renewable sources, so we currently have no plans to install on-site renewable energy generation at any of our buildings. However, we will consider the inclusion of micro-renewables where appropriate and are supporting the development of a small-scale renewables market in Scotland through the Scottish community and household renewables initiative.
That is encouraging, within limits. A large building such as Victoria Quay—let alone the Holyrood building—could not only supply its own power but power most of Leith if only small windmills, solar panels and so forth were to be used. Surely the Executive and the Parliament should be setting a lead. We should be visible in getting stuck into renewables.
We are stuck into renewables by virtue of the fact that we have a contract of some duration for the supply of all our electricity from renewable sources. I take the point that the member makes about community issues. That is a matter that would also require the consideration of community generation, which we very much wish to promote. Whether it would always be the case that an aesthetic Government building was the appropriate location for such structures is, of course, not a matter for me to comment on but a matter for the planning authority.
European Union Subsidies (Appeals)
To ask the Scottish Executive whether it has any plans to review the system for appeals against penalties applied to EU subsidy claims submitted under integrated administration and control system and agri-environment schemes. (S2O-8360)
I have no plans to review the European Union agricultural subsidies appeals procedure which, as Jim Wallace is aware, was set up in November 2000 to review decisions in relation to the refusal, recovery and reduction of a producer's EU subsidy.
The minister will agree that the introduction of such an appeals mechanism has been welcome, but he will also agree that there is sometimes frustration with the fact that the scope for determining appeals is often limited because the minister does not have much discretion or flexibility. I am sure that other members have raised with the minister constituency cases in which farmers and crofters who are hard-working and honest have nevertheless been penalised because of errors, oversights or delays in submitting applications. Can he assure us that he is taking all steps possible to get more flexibility and discretion to deal more justly with such cases?
I am grateful for Jim Wallace's acknowledgement that the implementation of the appeals system through the Scottish Executive Environment and Rural Affairs Department has greatly improved the sense of justice, but I wholly agree with him about the lack of flexibility and the sometimes disproportionate level of penalty that is applied to cases where no proof, or even suggestion, of dishonesty has been found. I continue to raise at European level the issue of whether greater flexibility could be granted to member states and to legislative regions within member states. I regret to say that the auditors of agricultural subsidies are not an easy group to deal with—flexibility does not appear to be their watchword—but the Executive is anxious to remove some of the anomalies and I will continue to press the issue.
I concur with Jim Wallace's comments. The minister will be aware that I, too, have made representations to him on a number of occasions, in connection with cases in the north-east. It is perceived that the current regime does not take into account the possibility of innocent errors and that the penalties are often draconian and disproportionate. I understand—perhaps the minister can confirm this—that the Irish have shown a willingness to raise the subject in the European Union. Will the minister give us an update on the progress that is being made on the Irish representations, say whether he is of a mind to work jointly with the Irish to pursue the issue with the European authorities, and undertake to report back to Parliament on the progress that is made?
As I indicated in my response to Jim Wallace, the difficulty is neither a lack of willingness on the part of member states nor a failure on the part of the United Kingdom to recognise that, where there has been no dishonesty, the level of penalty that is applied is disproportionate. The argument on the other side is about the level of auditing that is conducted by the EU in relation to what are substantial sums of money. However, we continue to press the issue of errors that are a result of accident or omission and that ought to be dealt with differently. I have raised that matter. I am well aware of the Irish situation; both our countries are pressing the issue, as are other member states. It is not a question of reporting back; we are simply hoping that we can get some movement, but it is not an easy matter, because of the range of farmers who are engaged, the number of applications and the quantum of the amounts at stake.
Litter Reduction
To ask the Scottish Executive whether it considers that adopt-a-road schemes could help to reduce litter. (S2O-8330)
The Environmental Protection Act 1990 places a statutory duty on various bodies to keep roads clear of litter. The Scottish Executive is always interested to hear any suggestion on improving the environment and cutting down on litter. However, I should point out that an adopt-a-road scheme would have clear health and safety implications, which would need full consideration before any scheme could be adopted.
Litter on roads is clearly a problem. Many councils do their best to fulfil their statutory obligations, but they are fighting a losing battle and their efforts put a considerable burden on council tax payers. Schemes seem to be successful in some parts of other countries, notably the United States, where communities can be given incentives to adopt specific roads; there does not seem to be a safety problem in that jurisdiction. Does the minister believe that those activities could be encouraged in a more structured manner than they are at present?
As I said to the member in my opening answer, I am always keen to consider anything that might improve our environment or assist local communities to participate in litter collection. The central issue is that we have explicit health and safety requirements for any form of litter collection and would have to take that legislation into account when considering any scheme. I am happy to meet the member to see whether there is any way of taking the matter forward constructively.
Biofuel Crops
To ask the Scottish Executive what support is available to farmers to encourage the production of crops for biofuels. (S2O-8361)
Three schemes in Scotland provide aid for growing energy crops for biofuels. Farmers can claim aid on industrial crops, including energy crops that are grown under contract on set-aside land. A flat-rate supplement of €45—around £30—per hectare can be claimed for crops that are grown under contract for energy purposes on other land. In addition, the Forestry Commission Scotland provides grant aid to farmers to establish short-rotation coppice—willow or poplar—as an energy crop under the Scottish forestry grants scheme.
Will the minister put resources into assisting the farming industry to develop and promote the business case for processing those crops and producing biofuel in Scotland—preferably in the north-east, which could be a main growing area for biofuel crops?
I am already in active discussion with a range of bodies to address both sides of the equation. First, the member alludes to the question of what the incentive is for Scottish farmers to grow crops for biofuels. The decision to grow such crops depends ultimately on whether a processing plant is available and—for both the farmers and the biofuel industry—whether it would be economically viable to do so in Scotland. The member will be aware of the Scottish Agricultural College report, which indicates that at present Scotland would have difficulty even in producing enough crops to make the activity viable. However, I am in active discussion with both the biofuel industry and the farming unions. The recent announcement at Westminster of a requirement for 5 per cent of motor fuel to be biofuel will, of course, help greatly in improving the market for the product and assist us in taking the matter forward in Scotland.
I am sure that the minister is aware that in certain areas there is impatience among farmers and potential investors to become involved in the production of biodiesel. Can the Executive reduce confusion by providing a formal gateway through which those who wish to invest in that can approach the Executive to seek support in the form of resources and guidance?
The matter is not only for me; we need to talk to the farming unions. There is impatience because there are indications that some of the crops might be more viable economically than some of the existing crops in rotation. However, we must be careful. Some of the prices that have been mentioned in the press recently are not prices at which current biodiesel producers would buy the crops, because at those prices it would not be competitive with other forms of fuel, such as animal residue. An issue both for us and for industry representatives is to produce guidance that would assist farmers to take such decisions in a more rational way.
Question 8 has been withdrawn.
Recycling (Local Authority Targets)
To ask the Scottish Executive which local authorities are successfully meeting their recycling targets. (S2O-8391)
The Scottish Executive has set an all-Scotland target to recycle or compost 25 per cent of biodegradable municipal waste by 2006. No targets are laid down for individual local authorities in the national waste plan, but when strategic waste fund awards are made, authorities commit to achieving specific recycling targets.
Will the minister join me in congratulating Fife Council which, due to an award from the Scottish Executive, has not only met but significantly exceeded its target? Will he also join me in recognising the achievements of Smith Anderson paper-makers in Leslie for its securecycle scheme? When he is next in Fife, will he join me in visiting some of those recycling projects? Can he confirm that the Executive continues to urge and assist local authorities to recycle and compost more of their municipal waste?
I confirm the last point. We have at present a target of 25 per cent for next year, but we have to raise the game and push towards 40 per cent. We will continue to support that. I am happy that Fife Council's recycling and composting rate, as reported in the Scottish Environment Protection Agency's most recent quarterly return is 34.3 per cent, which is highly commendable. I am pleased to acknowledge the contribution of Smith Anderson.