National Waste Strategy
The first item of business is a statement by Sarah Boyack on a national waste strategy. There will be 20 minutes of questions after the statement, so the statement should be heard without interruption.
I am glad that members have made it to the chamber this morning. I know that waste is not as high up the agenda as housing, education, health and transport, but we must face up to its links with all those issues. Over the years to come, we must address the issue effectively, as a political priority. This statement is intended to start off that process.
In our everyday lives, all of us produce waste—a staggering amount of it. In Scotland alone, we produce around 3 million tonnes of household waste a year. That is more than half a tonne for every person. Put another way, every one of us puts something like 10 times our weight in our dustbins every year. Shops and offices produce another 2 million tonnes, and industries another 7 million tonnes per year. The cost of dealing with waste is huge—much greater than it needs to be. If we can cut down the amount of waste we create, we can save money and, at the same time—which is hugely important—reduce the harm we do to the environment.
Waste means that we are using natural resources that we could have saved. Everything we throw away represents a waste of resources. Waste going to landfill also means risks for the environment. As waste disintegrates, it produces polluted water, which can pollute watercourses if it is not controlled. Waste also produces gases, mainly methane, which contributes to air pollution and climate change. In addition, the transportation of waste when it is collected and disposed of uses significant amounts of energy and produces carbon dioxide.
We cannot go on wasting resources as we do now. Our programme for government commits us to working for the efficient use of waste and resources. A radical approach to waste is a central component of our emerging strategy for sustainable development. A raft of legislation that has already been agreed to, or is in process in Europe, will require us to change. I cannot pretend that Scotland is leading the field on this matter. We are a long way behind our counterparts in Europe.
We need a systematic approach to tackle the problem. The Scottish Environment Protection
Agency has produced a national waste strategy for Scotland, which gives us that. I hope that members will have the time to read it and consider its local implications.
When the Executive published "Making it work together" in September, we promised to adopt a national waste strategy by the end of the year. I am pleased that my statement today effectively means that we are adopting SEPA's national strategy for waste. It has given us a framework for action and a document against which we can measure our progress. It sets out a number of key principles, which we must follow.
We should minimise our waste. If we cannot minimise it, we should re-use things rather than throw them away. If we are forced to dispose of things, we should seek to recover value from them through recycling, composting or energy recovery. Disposal of waste to landfill should be an option only if none of the other options is possible.
At the heart of the strategy is the proposal that area waste plans should be prepared by groups of local authorities working with enterprise agencies and consulting waste producers and the waste industry. Eleven areas are proposed, most of which cover several local authority areas. The groups will plan how waste should be dealt with in their areas, and SEPA will facilitate that work. Grouping local authorities should help to create economies of scale and enable the planning of joint waste facilities when that is the best way to proceed.
Participation in the waste area strategy will be voluntary, but I hope that all local authorities will participate in a positive spirit. They may want to group themselves in combinations different from those suggested by SEPA. That is their choice, but I want early progress. I am inviting local authorities to complete their first area waste plans by the end of next year. If satisfactory progress is not made by then, we may have to consider imposing statutory requirements for the plans to be produced. Planning authorities will also be expected to adopt structure and local plans that are in line with the agreed waste plans.
This strategy will set out targets that we are under a legal obligation to meet. They include targets for recycling packaging and restrictions on landfill. The strategy also suggests several voluntary targets, for example reduction of industrial and municipal waste. Further targets for recycling of household waste and construction and demolition waste will be developed following research.
In Scotland, we currently rely almost exclusively on landfill sites to dispose of waste. Many of our sites are old-fashioned and in need of modernisation. We are currently consulting about how we should implement the EC landfill directive, which sets out targets for the amount of biodegradable municipal waste sent to landfill. The first of those targets is that by 2006 we must reduce the amount of biodegradable municipal waste going to landfill to three quarters of what went to landfill in 1995.
We all know that none of the ways of disposing of waste is particularly popular. My postbag and, I suspect, those of other members is testament to that. People who live near landfill sites often complain about the problems that they can cause, although they should be minimised through proper management and effective regulation. Other people are concerned about incinerators.
Our strategy makes it clear that, on present trends, several major treatment facilities or a larger number of smaller facilities will need to be developed in Scotland. The strategy does not specify what sort of facilities should be provided— that will be a decision for local authorities.
We must be clear that if the targets that we have to meet under the landfill directive cannot be achieved through waste minimisation, the development of composting, recycling and recovery facilities, we will not have any option but to pursue the development of some large incineration plants. That is what we face. If we produce waste, we must deal with it. The more we can minimise waste, or re-use and recycle it, the less we will have to deal with it through landfill or incineration.
We must move away from our existing practices. A move away from our reliance on landfill will cost money. The Scottish Executive has had discussions with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and agreed that, in the first instance, additional local authority expenditure will be required from next year for preparatory and planning work on implementing the strategy. I am pleased to announce that £2.5 million per annum will be available for this, starting next April. I have also announced plans for extra funding for SEPA in future years, to allow it to increase its work on implementation of the national waste strategy.
We are working in partnership with SEPA, COSLA and others to identify the full implications of the strategy, in which SEPA proposes a number of changes that might require primary legislation. I will consider those carefully before deciding whether to recommend them to my colleagues and Parliament.
We are looking for change from local authorities and commercial and industrial waste producers, but we need to change our attitudes as private individuals. We are probably all guilty of throwing things away without a thought: a complaint that I frequently hear is that the dustbins that local
authorities provide are not big enough.
We have to change our attitude. Education has a role to play in letting our children grow up with better habits than we have. However, we have to change everyone's awareness of the waste that they produce. We cannot wait until the next generation. Our landfill directive targets must be reached.
One of the commonest complaints in my postbag is about the lack of recycling facilities. There is not enough recycling in Scotland. Many local authorities have tried to get schemes off the ground but given up when they have been unable to find markets for the materials they have collected. We are trying to do something about that.
In the summer, I was delighted to launch a new initiative, the recycling market development project, which is aimed at demonstrating the value of materials produced from recycled waste in Scotland.
We cannot make much progress on recycling unless we have the facilities to separate out waste. Last month, I was pleased to be at the opening of Glasgow's new materials recycling facility at Polmadie, which is the first facility in Scotland that deals with separated household waste so that it can be recycled. It is part of Glasgow City Council's integrated recycling programme. I hope that the scheme will be the first of many in Scotland.
It is clear that SEPA's national waste strategy is only the framework for major change that requires action from a large number of actors. We are only at the beginning of delivering that national waste strategy and we need to do a great deal of work before we can reach our targets.
The Executive is committed to playing its part, but change can be achieved only through partnership. I want to work with SEPA, local authorities, the waste management industry, waste producers, members of the public and the voluntary sector to tackle waste in a radical way that will not leave a harmful legacy for the future.
As many members want to speak, I will give priority to those who were present for the whole of the statement.
Very wise, Presiding Officer.
The only mention of funding in the statement was of the £2.5 million that local authorities will be given to help them to prepare and plan. Extra funding for SEPA was mentioned, although it is noted that that organisation has had a 6 per cent cut in funding.
It might be better for the £40 million a year that goes to the Exchequer from landfill tax—80 per cent of which is ring-fenced for a reduction in employers' national insurance contributions—to be used to expand recycling and an alternative waste strategy in Scotland. Would it not be better if the minister kept her £2.5 million and allowed local authorities and the operators to use the £40 million that they currently send south to promote recycling and a new strategy in Scotland?
Members will not be surprised to hear that I do not agree with Mr MacAskill. He has raised the fact that the landfill tax is a reserved matter. While I am happy for him to do so, I think that the landfill tax is hugely important. One of the key points about our waste strategy is that people who produce waste must account for it and include the real costs of it in their operations. Landfill tax lets us do that. By allowing employers to reduce their national insurance contributions, we give them a practical benefit for focusing on reducing their waste.
Extra money is going to SEPA and to local authorities. In addition to the resources that SEPA will have, it will increase its fees for monitoring and dealing with waste management applications. That will allow costs to be met and it is important. Local authorities need some extra resources to let them get on with their task, which is huge. I have no doubt that, in future years, we will examine further how local authorities can deal with their task.
We need the economic instrument represented by the landfill tax to ensure that we can deliver practical reductions in waste creation. To give the example of construction and aggregates, a landfill tax pushes developers towards recycling materials. The benefits of that are a cut in the pressure on new aggregates quarrying and the re-use of materials in building. We need a critical mass so that the elements reinforce one another: economic instruments; the use of our national agency, SEPA; the positive actions that local authorities can bring to bear. That is the right approach.
I welcome the thrust of the minister's statement and wish to ask her about the substantial differences between paragraph 3.32 in the draft and the parallel section in the final report, on lack of investment.
I welcome the £2.5 million for preparatory work, but where does the minister suggest councils should find the resources for new infrastructure to allow a switch from mixed waste collection to separate collections systems, which are not specifically mentioned in the new text? How will the Executive enable councils to afford the higher waste charges that the draft made clear they will face if they do not move towards separate collection systems and meet their recycling
targets?
Will the Executive confirm that today's statement drops SEPA's original proposal for ring-fencing local authority waste budgets? Has the minister diluted the draft SEPA strategy to the point of stultifying it, or is she simply passing enormous burdens to councils without resourcing them to carry those burdens?
Local area waste strategies are the key place to decide the most cost-effective way in which to manage waste disposal and recycling.
One of the key points that I made, which is accepted by everybody in the waste industry, is that there are insufficient incentives for recycling. Many local authorities have gone down the recycling route only to find that they cannot sell the products of recycling. That is the point of the REMADE project; we have to change the economics of the collection and use of waste. The idea of area waste plans is that they will allow local authorities to get together. The £2.5 million that I am allocating from April next year is intended to let them get on with that process.
I do not want anyone to be under any illusion. The production of the waste strategy today is not an instant solution to the problem of waste. It will be a long-term process; this is the start of our tackling the legacy of the waste we produce. In terms of local authority expenditure in future, the work that is done in local authority waste strategies will inform our future resourcing to local authorities. That has to be looked at now.
I refute the suggestion that the draft strategy has been diluted. Implementing SEPA's strategy will require radical change on the part of local authorities, developers and society as a whole. We have not really got to grips with the fact that the waste that we produce is an inheritance for the future. The people who live around existing landfill sites know the issues that exist; the question is what we do with our future landfill targets.
From the Liberal Democrat benches, I welcome the strategy that has been announced this morning, particularly the move towards Liberal Democrat targets for recycling and waste minimisation. Does the minister accept that Scotland's record on recycling is pretty woeful: 5.48 per cent in Scotland compared with 34 per cent in Norway and 58 per cent in Switzerland? How will the minister ensure that the plans that emerge from the strategy will be implemented and benchmarked against the performance of other comparable European nations?
Will the minister consider the strategy when she assesses the varying performance of local government throughout Scotland, the need to develop integrated waste management strategies and the setting of a timetable for the finalisation of those strategies?
I agree with Mr Scott about targets. We are looking for further advice from SEPA about what would be realistic. We could have an aspirational target of 25 per cent, as has been mentioned in the past, but we are nowhere near meeting that. It comes back to the points made by Mr Tosh about local authorities being able to get to grips with recycling. This strategy is hugely ambitious and we are way behind our European counterparts. The challenge is to learn from what they and other countries have been able to do. The REMADE project, which involves recycling facilities, is informed by the experience of Seattle, where recycled waste provides economic benefit, as other products can be made from it.
There are many key issues that need to be addressed in implementing this strategy. A more integrated approach, in which local authorities work with SEPA and waste producers, will allow us to deal with, dispose of and recycle waste intelligently—in an environmentally friendly and cost-effective way. We are not there yet, but I hope that the national waste strategy will begin that process. This is an issue that we must all address urgently.
I broadly welcome the thrust of the strategy—I do not disagree with any of it—particularly the acknowledgement of waste minimisation and the value of recyclable materials, but hard-pressed local authorities may take the cheapest option and still end up setting fire to most of the waste.
Does the minister agree that we need greater input from Government, in terms of funding, if local authorities are to be able to make the best choice—for waste minimisation and recycling as opposed to incineration?
I thank Mr Harper for his overall support. Creating incentives for the move towards waste minimisation is critical and must be addressed. It is possible to re-use waste through incineration and waste energy schemes, but such schemes are expensive. That is why we want to bring local authorities together to work out deliverable strategies.
Investment in new plant is hugely expensive. Before this morning's meeting, I was talking to my colleague, Mr Scott, about the Shetland issue. The capital expenditure required is considerable, although the money comes back if waste is re-used as an economic resource. That is why we need collective strategies between local authorities. It is the Executive's job to encourage that and to give a realistic time scale—the end of
next year—to get the discussions going. Local authorities will have to review their positions.
I welcome the minister's statement and her refreshing honesty. Everyone recognises that there is a lot to do to implement the national waste strategy.
What efforts has Ms Boyack made to ensure that companies—particularly in the construction and demolition sector—dispose of their waste properly, rather than dump it or transfer it for collection by local authorities? Is she satisfied with the environmental projects that commercial operators sponsor with landfill tax rebates, given that few of them are geared towards recycling and that the commercial interests of many such companies lie in maintaining waste volumes for disposal rather than reducing them?
That is where several different Government mechanisms must come into play. The landfill tax provides incentives for local authorities and waste producers in the commercial sector to reduce the amount of waste. If they do so, it also provides a benefit in the form of reduced national insurance contributions.
There is a particular issue about construction and demolition, as I said earlier. Through our planning guidelines, we are encouraging the re-use of existing buildings—something with which most of us agree—and the recycling of construction materials. Landfill tax provides an economic imperative, planning guidelines give encouragement and the monitoring of landfill sites is an important part of the strategy.
People must have permission to put material into landfill sites and it must be monitored by SEPA. We have to ensure that monitoring is rigorous, open and transparent so that people who live near landfill sites are confident about the process. SEPA is currently considering that. It is a question of using all the different mechanisms at our disposal. At the end of the day, it is about common sense, particularly in relation to construction and demolition materials. We need economic instruments, planning persuasion and appropriate facilities to deal with the issue.
I agree with the minister that waste going into landfill sites means risks for the environment. Will the minister therefore consider using some of the £40 million that is taken from Scotland and sent to London to compensate local authorities that pull out of any landfill operation and move towards recycling? The Cathkin Brae landfill site in the East Kilbride constituency was approved by Mr Dewar earlier this year and is only at site preparation stage.
The problem of waste creation does not stop at the border. The whole point of the landfill tax is that it provides an incentive across the United Kingdom. If a firm operates in Scotland and in England, should it pay a different tax for its use of different landfill sites? There is a strong argument for us to take responsibility at a UK level.
The national waste strategy that SEPA has produced for Scotland, and that I am commending to Parliament, states that there are particular things that the Scottish Parliament can do to encourage local authorities and to allow SEPA to address the issue properly. Pretending that this issue stops at the border, or that there should be a different landfill tax north and south of the border, is ridiculous.
Like everyone else, I broadly welcome the strategy that has been outlined in today's statement. I draw the minister's attention to the paragraph that highlights the proximity principle for waste disposal. It rules out lengthy transport of waste across the country, and states that wastes should be managed as close as possible to their point of origin. Will the minister look into the planning application that Dumfries and Galloway Council has received in relation to a waste-burning plant at Newton Stewart, with a view to calling it in and ensuring that any decision on it is taken in the light of her statement today?
I will note the comments that have been made about that planning application, but—as Mr Fergusson will understand—I will not comment on it directly as it will have to be considered by Scottish ministers.
Mr Fergusson has raised an important question about the proximity principle. How does that principle apply in rural areas? If in urban areas waste has to be disposed of because we have not managed to recycle it or to minimise the amount being created, it may be possible to carry it over relatively short distances. In rural areas, however, there is a particular problem of economies of scale. There are no easy solutions to that: that is why we need to emphasise the importance of waste minimisation and recycling and why I want local authorities to get together to find the most cost-effective way of tackling waste management. In rural areas, the proximity principle is more difficult to apply and must be weighed up against landscape and environmental issues.
Mr Fergusson can rest assured that, if there was a simple fix, I would be recommending it. This is an issue that every local authority will have to wrestle with, unless we begin to tackle waste minimisation, re-use and recycling.
I thank the minister for her statement. I would like to ask a
question on the more local issues of dealing with landfill sites with perceived problems. Landfill technology has moved on over a number of years and it is arguable that modern sites provide a more reliable environmental service to the community. However, older sites present a problem. We must consider how retrospective we can be in taking action on existing sites with waste management problems. I would like to hear the minister's views on that.
I have personal experience of the economics of recycling, from my time at Glasgow City Council. I put a plan to the council to introduce a recycling project for waste newspaper. The plan was accepted, but by the time I got the leaflets back from the printers, a selling price of £100 per tonne had changed to minus £15—a charge for the waste to be taken away. How do we deal with such variations in the market for recycled products?
SEPA acknowledges the problem with landfill sites that have been in existence for some time. I have received parliamentary questions and letters from several members on that issue. In addition to recovering an appropriate amount of money from waste operators to enable it to monitor effectively, SEPA is considering prioritising the monitoring of individual sites. Some sites—the older ones— clearly require more monitoring. Our standards are now higher than they were when those sites were created. Monitoring, its regularity and its prioritisation are important issues. SEPA has to make those judgments, taking into account local concerns. There must be dialogue and communication with local residents; SEPA is keen to improve that.
As for the economics of recycling, I was hugely impressed this summer by the work of Scottish Conservation Projects in the east of Scotland, which it is managing to carry out because the deal was negotiated several years ago. The challenge is that the price of recycled materials goes up and down. By getting local authorities to work together, and with the fruits of the REMADE project, we hope to be able to stabilise the market and provide a much stronger economic incentive for recycling materials.
I am sure that the minister accepts that, although the landfill tax is a reserved matter, the suffering of Scots living near some dumps is not. Many people are living in absolute misery, unable to enjoy their homes freely.
Although the minister has referred to the 3 million tonnes of household waste that is produced annually in Scotland, is she aware that, in Glasgow, 500,000 tonnes, including industrial waste containing asbestos, cyanide and so on, goes into just one dump—Paterson's tip at Mount Vernon and Baillieston? That grotesque intake has been criticised by Glasgow's public health department, which also criticised smells that it found to be "literally breathtaking".
Is the minister also aware that local people have given written testimony about being unable to sit in their gardens or to hang out their washing on days when those appalling odours are at their worst? Furthermore, is she aware that Paterson's tip is the only high-level toxic dump that is licensed to take up to 27 poisons and still operating inside an urban boundary anywhere in Scotland after 40 years? Finally, is she aware that local people have no confidence in SEPA, which they find to be a very secretive quango?
Order. Questions and answers have been far too long this morning. I call Sarah Boyack.
I take your point, Presiding Officer, and I will be brief. The question raises two issues. The first concerns existing landfill sites. I acknowledge what Dorothy-Grace Elder says about local people's concerns about the sites that are being operated. SEPA should consult people and ensure that waste operators are carrying out operations to the right standards. Any such exercise should be done transparently.
The second issue touches on the future of landfill sites. We already have landfill sites; the question is what we can do now to prevent future landfill problems. Although that is partly an issue for SEPA, it raises the wider issue of the waste that society produces, which is a problem with no easy solutions.
My question concerns the rail movement of waste. The minister will remember last week's spurious story about the closure of the line north of Inverness. Will she make representations to all agencies that waste should be moved by rail, as that will be an important part of any strategic approach?
We can investigate that possibility. We need to consider whether to have landfill or waste disposal sites dispersed around the country, which makes it more difficult to get economies of scale to use rail, or whether to concentrate facilities. There is no short answer to that pertinent question.
I welcome the minister's statement and merely seek clarification on targets. Is the initial 75 per cent reduction in landfill a hard-and-fast European target that must be delivered UK- wide? Where does Scotland stand in relation to that figure, which is for 1995 to 2006? Finally, how many recycling targets are there and are they
simply a matter for this Parliament rather than Europe?
Mr Chisholm is absolutely right. The target that he mentioned is a European requirement that will have to be met under the landfill directive. However, that is not such a challenging figure; the 50 per cent reduction that will be brought in after 2006 will be very challenging. That long-term issue concentrates my mind and the challenge now is to put in place a robust strategy to meet those long-term objectives.
Although I said that we did not have current targets, we have had aspirational targets and many people are aware that local authorities have fallen behind in dealing with recycling targets. We need to change the economics of this issue and I look to SEPA to give us realistic targets to concentrate everyone's mind. It is hoped that the combination of local authorities working together in groups and SEPA's work will inform the discussion. More work has to be done to identify not only realistic targets, but targets that will persuade us to take difficult decisions.
The end of dumping human waste at sea has led to an increase in the spreading of such waste on land. Is the minister aware of the problems that that causes for villages such as Blairingone, which suffer not only the smell, but— as SEPA has said—the risk of pathogens being present? The regulations are widely unenforceable and, if spreading reaches maximum levels, waste can be spread up to 6 in high.
The minister will know that Richard Simpson has had a question down on the subject for some time, which she has said she will answer as soon as possible. In view of her statement that she wants early progress, can the minister give some indication this morning that she will introduce measures to ensure that spreading is safe and regulated by controls that are enforceable?
I am grateful to the member for that question. The issue is how we tackle untreated sewage waste, which we are committed to phasing out by the end of 2001. The agriculture industry is examining the issue very carefully.
Another issue is the need to treat sewage waste. The member is right: waste was previously dumped elsewhere without further thought. Higher environmental standards are having an impact in ways that were not initially intended. We will need to consider the application of sewage on agricultural land.
Research is being done into the matter and I look forward to the results. Sewage sludge can also be burned, which is what happens in some countries. There are a variety of choices and the problems need to be addressed.
Despite the fact that I have allowed questions to overrun, five members were not called. I apologise to them.