National Waste Strategy
The next item of business is a debate on motion S1M-3105, in the name of Ross Finnie, on the national waste strategy, and two amendments to that motion.
Waste, rubbish, refuse, or whatever one calls it, is not a glamorous issue, but waste of resources is one of the most pressing concerns that we must face up to if we are to achieve or move towards sustainable development.
For decades, reducing Scotland's waste has not been a priority. There have been laudable efforts to promote recycling, but it is regrettable that the vast bulk of household waste—92 per cent of it in 2001—is simply sent for landfill.
The Executive is committed to achieving sustainable waste management. We want Scotland to be a cleaner, safer and healthier place to live, and a place where squandering resources is unacceptable. In our first programme for government, we said that we would have a national waste strategy. A partnership approach to waste planning was established, which involved the Executive, local government, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, industry, the community sector and other stakeholders.
The principles of our strategy are simple. Reducing waste is the best approach. The reuse of items that are currently consigned to the bin is the next principle of our strategy. Recycling materials or composting them into a useful product is the third option. Only where that is not possible is the extraction of energy recommended—I do not want incineration to be used as an easy alternative to landfill.
I welcome what the minister says about recycling. Does he agree that the application of the waste electrical and electronic equipment directive—the WEEE directive—is a huge task? Is he aware of McSence, the community business in my constituency that recycles computers? Would he or Mr Wilson be prepared to visit that business to observe the good work that it does?
I would have a genuine interest in seeing computers being recycled. I can think of nothing better than for many of the computers with which I have associations to be recycled. I am sure that Mr Wilson will be interested in taking up that offer.
The core of the strategy is the identification of the best practicable environmental option—the BPEO—for long-term waste management. That involves arriving at the right mix of techniques and taking into account all the relevant social, economic and environmental factors. Local knowledge is vital, as is participation by stakeholders. Therefore, local area groups were established to develop area waste plans.
The past two years have seen slow but steady progress in that regard. After careful analysis, discussion and public consultation, I am pleased to say that all 11 area waste groups have now produced their draft area waste plan. We have established the strategic waste fund to help local authorities to implement those plans. Many authorities have developed and expanded recycling and composting projects as a result of initial support from that fund, with encouraging results. Details of all 11 draft plans are now publicly available on the SEPA website. The draft plans emphasise waste reduction, recycling and composting. I repeat and emphasise that there will be no rush to burn waste.
The next step is the integration of the 11 plans into a national waste plan, which will include national targets against which progress may be assessed. That is not just a matter of adding together the 11 plans. It is vital to ensure that the plans are compatible, that economies of scale are secured, and that national goals are achievable. Integration is being co-ordinated by SEPA, which will prepare the plan for my approval by the end of this year. The Executive has established a group representing the Executive, SEPA and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to oversee the process, but just as area waste planning has involved stakeholders, it is vital that the finalisation of the national plan is an open process. As part of that, an integration progress report has today been published by SEPA on its website.
I have made it clear on other occasions that I will not simply pluck targets out of the air. I intend to base targets on thorough analysis of the best practicable environmental options that have arisen from the preparation of the 11 area waste plans. On that basis, the national waste plan will set challenging recycling and reduction targets for municipal waste and, subject to Parliament's approval of provisions for integrated waste management plans in the forthcoming local government bill, those targets will be mandatory.
The Tayside area waste plan sets out plans for the next 20 years. The minister will be aware of the problems with the Baldovie energy-from-waste incinerator, over which a major financial question mark is hanging. Should the situation go badly and the plant not survive into the near future, what is plan B for the Tayside area waste plan?
There are two elements, as Shona Robison is aware. The first is to take the area waste plan and study its component parts. Shona Robison should remember that, we have not authorised any of the plans; we have not yet authorised the extent to which any energy-from-waste plan will be approved. The particular problem with the Baldovie incinerator is that it uses fluidised bed combustion techniques, which are interrupted by uneven flows of material. There are serious technical problems. We are aware of the situation. It is not just a question of balancing the total capacity of the plan. I am much more interested in authorising what is actually required, given that we have set a hierarchy, within which extraction of energy has a low priority. I will address that later.
If I may, I will make progress before taking a further intervention.
Many people are concerned that incineration could be grabbed as the quick fix to reduce landfill. As I have stressed, that is not our policy, and it is not what is emerging from the majority of the draft area waste plans. Our position is that energy from waste can be considered only as part of an integrated waste management solution. SEPA has today published draft guidelines on energy from waste, which set out how it will regulate energy-from-waste plants under the pollution prevention and control regime. In effect, that will mean that such plants will be granted authorisation only where their development complies with the national waste strategy.
I am grateful for that information, but I have some concerns. Does the minister share my concern that even with energy-to-waste plants, in effect we are burning the earth's resources? Can he guarantee that no recyclable material will enter energy-to-waste plants?
I am happy to respond to that. If Bruce Crawford refers to the guidelines he will see that mixed waste cannot be considered as part of energy waste plans. That is the whole purpose and thrust of the guidelines; I was anxious that that should be included. I think that it gives SEPA a much harder tool to apply to the test. There is not just a hierarchy of waste, but the requirements for that hierarchy must be met. As Bruce Crawford suggested, someone should not be able to lump recyclable materials into mixed waste and then say that they have got rid of the problem. According to SEPA's hierarchy, there cannot be mixed waste, because mixed waste would include recyclable material, which must be extracted. The guidelines that SEPA has published today should be studied—the member may wish to come back to me on that issue. We have made a serious attempt to address the member's question.
So far, the emphasis has been on municipal waste, but we recognise that sustainable waste management must address all types of waste. We now have the 11 area waste plans and are moving towards the completion of the national waste strategy. To recognise the wider implications, I have established the Scottish waste strategy advisory group, which will comprise representatives from COSLA, SEPA, the Scottish Environmental Services Association, the enterprise agencies, the Institute of Wastes Management, Scottish Environment LINK, the Confederation of British Industry, the Recycling Advisory Group Scotland and REMADE Scotland. The group will meet for the first time in June to consider wider implications. That consideration will be based on the work that has been done.
I want to mention some problems, the first of which is the development of markets for recycled materials. The Executive supports REMADE Scotland and the Waste and Resources Action Programme in promoting recycling businesses. Today, I saw recycled glass being used as an advanced water filtration medium and achieving results that appeared to be as good as those obtained with traditional methods. We need more innovation in how we can use and harness recycled materials.
Engaging the business community in the national waste strategy is another challenge. Next week, a major new business waste minimisation project will be launched in north-east Scotland. Such initiatives clearly demonstrate that good waste management can also make good business sense.
Another issue is public awareness. We will depend on people to reduce, reuse and recycle. We know that the Scottish public want change. Recent surveys suggest that 83 per cent of people would be willing to participate in kerbside recycling. We need to capture that enthusiasm. The Scottish waste awareness group is doing an enormous amount and I look forward to seeing its campaign build on that work later this year. Members know of the Scottish Executive's do a little, change a lot campaign, which covers certain aspects of our lives, but we want to move forward and concentrate on waste.
The national waste strategy has set the framework for achieving sustainable waste management in Scotland. A key milestone will be passed with the completion of the national waste plan—the fruit of a partnership between the Executive, local government and SEPA—which will be vital.
I hope, now that area waste plans have been published, that all members and all who are engaged in the process will study the draft plans carefully and that there will be debate, consultation and input as we try to bring them together into a national waste programme. I hope that all members, in all their constituencies, will take on the cry that if we are to achieve the aims and objectives of the national waste strategy, we must make it clear to every constituent that they have a role to play in the process. They have a role to do a little and change a lot in respect of the appalling image that Scotland has and its recycling record, which is one of the worst. The Executive is determined to turn that around.
I move,
That the Parliament supports the Scottish Executive's commitment to sustainable waste management; commends the progress being made towards the establishment of a National Waste Plan by partnership working between the Executive, local government, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency and other stakeholders; welcomes the preparation of draft area waste plans to establish the best practicable environmental options for municipal waste management, and notes that all have a part to play in the reduction and better management of Scotland's waste.
Members will be conscious that the debate is tight for time.
It was interesting to listen to the minister. He made a wide-ranging speech in a short time about where the Executive is going in respect of waste management in Scotland, and particularly in respect of issues relating to waste minimisation and kerbside collection.
I listened carefully to what the minister said about the area plans, which have just been finalised in a number of areas. I have in my hand the Tayside plan, which clearly says that, as far as Tayside is concerned, traditional mixed waste will go straight to the Dundee Energy Recycling Ltd energy-from-waste plant in Dundee. Perhaps the new regulations that are being sent to SEPA will sort that out. If those are the circumstances, Tayside's waste plan does not meet the criteria that have just been set by SEPA. It will be interesting to see how that develops.
It is a pity that much of what the minister said today, and the way in which he delivered it, was not reflected in the sense of his motion. When I first read the motion, I did a bit of a double-take. The question that it raised in my mind was, "Do ministers read what their civil servants prepare?" After listening to what the minister said today, I wonder how much attention was paid to the motion before it was lodged.
More important, do the ministers consider whether their motions reflect reality? Is it a prerequisite for ministers to believe what is written in their motions? Frankly, the Executive motion attempts to air-brush out of the picture any foundation of reality, unlike the minister's speech. The motion ignores the almost complete inertia that there has been in the United Kingdom on managing waste since the 1975 EEC waste directive. Of course, we had the 1999 EU landfill directive but it was the 1975 directive that dealt with the introduction of measures for the recovery of waste through recycling, reuse and reclamation.
Will the member outline the Scottish National Party's position on recycling aggregates? Will he confirm whether the party's stance is the same as Alex Neil's, which is that the money should be used to improve the environment, or is it the same as Alex Salmond's, who said that the aggregates tax is
"a poll tax on chuckies"?—[Official Report, House of Commons, Westminster Hall, 13 March 2002, vol 381; c 308WH.]
Anyone in Scotland who is prepared to support the aggregates tax does not understand the damage that it will do to the long-term sustainability of the environment. The number of road miles will increase as a result of the aggregates tax and that will create real difficulties.
Why does it take so long for this country to implement EU environmental directives to which it has signed up? If the problem is not with recycling, it is with the fridges mountain. In future, we will no doubt have similar problems with the directives on end-of-life vehicles, or waste electrical and electronic equipment—the proposed WEEE directive.
It is correct that we should recognise that partnership working has been going on. However, it is another thing to commend progress, as the motion does, particularly when that progress has been painfully slow. The minister accepted that today. It is also correct to welcome the preparation of waste plans to establish best environmental practice and the other motherhood-and-apple-pie ideas in the motion. It is a different matter to ignore the fact that the time scales for the production of area waste plans have slipped and slipped. I am, however, pleased that we now have draft plans in all areas.
To accept the terms of the Executive's motion, we have to divorce ourselves from the reality that is staring everyone in the face. There has been some progress on recycling, but it has been patchy and driven by leadership from individuals and individual communities instead of being led by the Government. There has been additional Government support, but it pales into insignificance when set alongside the £50 million per annum of landfill tax that wings its way out of Scotland to the UK Treasury.
The most startling fact about the Executive's motion—unlike the minister's speech—is that there is not the slightest recognition that Scotland is at the bottom of the European recycling league. The Executive's commitment cannot be taken seriously until it demonstrates an appreciation of the scale of the challenge that Scotland faces to change its image as the rubbish coup of Europe.
That image has only been strengthened by the importing of waste from Northern Ireland to a landfill site near Lendalfoot. That flies in the face of the proximity principle, which says that waste should be treated or disposed of as close to its source as can be achieved, and which encourages communities to accept that the waste that they produce is their problem. Incidentally, that principle is at the forefront of the national waste strategy that the Executive signed in 1999.
To begin the process, we need mandatory targets as early as possible. I see from SEPA's national waste strategy integration progress report that SEPA has set a target that the minister could use as a mandatory target. We need to do more than just consider mandatory targets. Why cannot we consider establishing a recycling pathfinder scheme for Scotland that is based on an area waste plan area? That would allow test bedding of the most appropriate and cost-effective kerbside collection system and the development of recycling markets.
Further measures could be taken to stimulate the recycling market and deal with waste minimisation. For instance, obligations on producers could be introduced to increase the amount of recycled material that is used in products. A requirement could be placed on major waste producers to develop and introduce waste minimisation studies and report to SEPA on the waste that they produce. Obligations could be placed on companies to ensure that the design of products incorporates at the development stage waste minimisation principles, including the capacity to repair, reuse and recycle.
Those measures would begin to make a difference not only to the level of recycling, but to the market for such products. Much more can be done on waste minimisation, packaging, reuse, refurbishment and composting. All that we have called for requires more ambition and boldness than the Executive has displayed. We have been asked to settle for a wishy-washy motion that is divorced from reality.
I move amendment S1M-3105.1, to leave out from "supports" to end and insert:
"notes that in February 2000 the European Commission applied for a declaration that the UK had failed to fulfil its obligations in particular under Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste, and that the UK accepted this failure and the European Court of Justice found the UK (including Scotland) in breach of a number of waste related Directives; further notes that the National Waste Strategy was published in 1999 together with a commitment to the production of Area Waste Plans by the end of 2000 and that this target date was subsequently extended to a final deadline of March 2002; is concerned with the slow progress being made towards the better management of waste in Scotland, and believes that in order to speed up progress the Executive must firstly introduce mandatory targets, on an all Scotland basis, of 30% to 35% for recycling and composting of household waste by 2010."
We must examine why we need a national waste management plan. The reasons for that are not hard to find. In 1998, Scotland produced 15 million tonnes of waste, and that figure is rising. In 2001, only 6 per cent of waste was recycled, and the bulk of the rest went to landfill. Landfill resources are a scarce and declining asset in Scotland, so something must be done.
In 1991, the then Government set targets for waste recycling in the UK. One target was for 25 per cent of household waste to be recycled by 2000. We recycled 4.5 per cent by 2000, so not much progress has been made. The UK and Scotland are so far behind that it is possible to claim that that is an advantage. Scotland need not test strategies to address its problems—as we are so far behind, we can look around the world and copy best practice from pioneers.
We are playing catch-up with our waste strategy, which we must get right from now on. We and the Executive must seize the initiative and put in place targets and policies. We can no longer afford the luxury of fridge mountains rusting away all over Scotland in heaps that are the size of Holyrood. We must no longer encourage the incineration of waste, as time and technology have moved on, and better practice is available. Incineration must become the last resort for waste disposal. I welcome the minister's comments on that.
Instead, we must examine ways of reducing waste and dealing with it as a valuable commodity that is to be recycled, recovered or composted. To achieve worthwhile waste reduction, we must first note European policy and the European Union's environment action programme—the latest is called "Environment 2010: Our future, Our choice".
In practical terms, businesses will have to embrace the development of an integrated product policy that will minimise the life-cycle impact of products. That covers all stages in the product life cycle, from the extraction of natural resources, design, manufacture, assembly, marketing, distribution, sale and use, to eventual disposal as waste or as recycled or recovered material. Businesses throughout Scotland must react to the challenges that that presents, but more important, to the job opportunities that recycling and recovery offer.
The Waste and Resources Action Programme—WRAP—is exploring the potential for markets for recycled or recovered materials throughout the UK. In that context, the concept of sustainable growth parks for recycling and waste recovery, which have been promoted by Alba Resource Recovery Ltd, must be carefully considered and evaluated.
Will the minister give way?
Since the member has called me a minister, I will give way.
I am sure that the member does not wish to be associated with the Government on this occasion.
Do the Alba projects stand by the proximity principle that is laid down in the national waste strategy of 1999?
I am reluctant to discuss the detail of a company in the Parliament. However, I believe that what the company proposes bears further examination.
Local authorities need to be offered encouragement in terms of guidance to help them address their problems. They also need to be given financial backing to help them to achieve solutions to them. Eleven draft area waste plans will need to be progressed in the context of the national waste plan. Perhaps we should be having the debate not today, but at the time of the publication of the national waste plan in the autumn.
Will the member take an intervention?
I am sorry, but I would like to get on.
You have just over one minute, Mr Scott.
The £50 million strategic waste fund that was given to local authorities to develop their area waste plans has to be recognised as a first step only—it is a building block. It is important that, wherever possible, key decisions are made at local level. That will bring into being a policy that has been created from the grass roots up, rather than one that was imposed by Holyrood.
Of course it is true to say that parliamentarians have to set targets and create the overall strategy. The Executive has been found wanting in that respect in the past. However, the really important players in the strategy are not Governments, businesses and the local authorities; they are ourselves—the people of Scotland. Individually, we have to want to make the strategy work. Individually, we have to be prepared to take our bottles to bottle banks. We also have to be prepared to take our plastics, waste paper, old clothes and wood to the relevant recycling points.
In the near future, we would expect local authorities to be geared up to help us with that task. In the meantime, those of us who are committed to recycling have to set an example. Individually, yet collectively, we have to take ownership of the problem of waste disposal in order to deliver sustainable solutions. We have to be prepared to start to sort out our waste and our rubbish and start to treat it as an asset. By doing that, we will foster not only a sense of ownership of our problem, but a sense of ownership of our cities, towns, villages and countryside. The real prize will be a stronger sense of community. In turn, that will lead to stronger communities in which there is less vandalism, street crime and litter. A sense of pride in our environment and ourselves will come from the feeling that we are doing something to help the environment. That lesson can be observed across the world. That is the sort of leadership and example that Scotland wants from Holyrood. The Executive must not delay any further. It must start to get the show on the road.
I move amendment S1M-3105.3, to leave out from "commends" to end and insert:
"welcomes the preparation of draft area waste plans; regrets the slow progress being made towards ambitious recycling targets being set in the National Waste Plan; notes the need to build on work done already by local authorities, and recognises the need for community involvement and ownership of the problems of waste disposal at all levels to make a National Waste Strategy effective throughout Scotland."
We are beginning to see the way in which all the parties in the Parliament are developing their green credentials. Some of the parties are more convincing than others. The conversion of the Conservatives to more green and sustainable policies is welcome. I recognise the long-standing green credentials of Robin Harper, the colleague who is sitting two rows in front of me. I also recognise the recent green credentials of the SNP, which has various recycling policies.
Can I have a translator for Bristow please?
Bruce Crawford should not get too relaxed. I was thinking about the SNP's recycling of its 1970s policies and in particular the recycling of the "penny for Scotland" policy for every one of the SNP's current policies. This week's SNP policy is to recycle its leaders.
First, we have to consider why the debate is required. Several other speakers have recognised that Scotland's record on waste management compared with that of the vast majority of the developed world is poor. By 2001, only a little over 6 per cent of our waste, as collected by local authorities, was recycled or composted. That record is well behind the UK average—which is itself poor—and well outside the record of the United States, which is 30 per cent, and those of countries such as Germany, Switzerland and Austria, which are just below or just over 50 per cent.
John Scott said that, back in 1991, the Government set a target for the UK of recycling 25 per cent of household waste. It is quite obvious that Scotland, in common with the rest of the UK, has failed dismally to get anywhere near to achieving that target. At present, 92 per cent of household waste in Scotland is disposed of in landfill sites.
The figure of 92 per cent illustrates that we are recycling very little of our waste. We also have to think about why recycling is important. The answer to that question is that not to recycle would be to waste our limited natural resources. The decision not to recycle can cause considerable pollution and it contributes to the need to extract more minerals in certain parts of the world than would otherwise be the case.
The First Minister set an agenda recently to deliver environmental justice for communities in Scotland. In many cases, that is not happening at present.
The minister's strategy is right and entirely consistent with the policies of the Labour party, as recently reaffirmed in our environment and transport policy document. However, I want to comment on some areas in which we need to move more quickly. The policy of adopting the national waste strategy is correct, as are the development of area waste plans and the commitment to set mandatory targets for local authorities so that they can reduce landfill and increase the use of recycling and composting at local level. That commitment is important and builds on existing overall targets for municipal waste reduction and landfill use.
In explaining why we must move faster, I want to draw on some of the existing experiences, particularly in local authorities, on which much of the debate has concentrated. At the moment, only seven of our 32 local authorities achieve even 10 per cent recycling of household waste and a couple more are approaching that level. I commend those councils.
I would like to draw to members' attention a local authority that has had a fairly poor record in that regard in the past—the local authority in my own area, West Lothian Council. By 2001, the council had achieved only 3.4 per cent of recycling or composting. Having highlighted that poor performance, I would like to mention a pilot project that the council embarked on in 2001, which is supported by the Executive and which points the way forward. Around 7,500 West Lothian households are now using a three-bin system—one for plastics, papers and cans, one for compostable waste and one for general household waste. As a result of that system of separating waste at household level and collecting and recycling it, more than 30 per cent of waste from those households is now recycled.
Given the shortage of time, I will not be able to address the question of businesses. However, I would like to ask the deputy minister to respond to my concern that we do not have time to wait until all the current area plans are assessed before we support the fuller development of initiatives such as the one that I have highlighted. If we support those projects earlier, we can move towards achieving the aspirations of many within and outwith the Parliament and of many environmental organisations. If we can deliver resources to local authorities to allow them to develop waste strategies, we can deliver true environmental justice in Scotland.
I am grateful to those members who have withdrawn from the debate. Even so, we are terribly pressed for time, with only eight minutes for three speakers, so speeches should last a maximum of three minutes. I call Robin Harper.
I would like a commitment from the Executive to have a much longer debate on waste management before Christmas. It is simply not satisfactory to have a debate lasting only one hour on a major paper that has been available for a day and a SEPA paper that we first saw at 2 o'clock this afternoon.
The main problem is the production of waste in the first place. I would like the minister to consider adopting a zero-waste strategy in the national waste plan. The Executive should set out now to work steadily towards reducing the generation of waste at source and to increase the amount of waste that is recycled. Incinerators cannot be a part of that. I certainly welcome the publication by local authorities of their area waste plans, some of which, particularly Highland Council's, are very good indeed. Several of those plans clearly demonstrate the economic and environmental benefits of waste minimisation and recycling as the alternative to incineration and dumping in landfills. Other plans are not quite so encouraging.
I am concerned that there has been insufficient guidance from the Executive, both for local authorities and for SEPA, that would ensure that we get a national waste plan that is based on truly sustainable options. As soon as the minister mentions the phrase "economies of scale", the hair on the back of my neck starts to bristle, because that means incinerators and energy to waste. Instead, the Executive's current approach may result in the amount of waste that we have to deal with increasing still further. We are importing it from Ireland at the moment, for goodness' sake. That approach may result in the building of new waste incinerators across Scotland and continuing low levels of waste recycling.
In January, I used the only parliamentary debating time that the Green party has had this year to raise the issue of the massive jobs potential that would exist if the Executive were to facilitate the transition from a throwaway society to a genuinely resource-efficient society. I am pleased to hear that the Executive has finally come round to the idea of national targets and is preparing to legislate for them. I hope that there will be a nationwide target and that the target set will be comparable to those in other parts of Europe and will be linked to waste reduction targets.
The Executive must send a clear message to all local authorities that they must increase their recycling rates. I ask the minister whether he will set a mandatory target for local authorities to recycle at least 35 per cent of household waste by 2010, and increase that target. I believe that the National Assembly for Wales has set a target of 60 per cent recycling by 2013. If Wales can do that, we should be able to do it.
I am most concerned that community recycling stakeholders, such as McSence and the British Trust for Conservation Volunteers action recycle programme, are not sufficiently funded or sufficiently consulted on the national waste plan. As far as I can see, the SEPA progress report that was published two hours before the debate fails to mention—unbelievably—the Community Recycling Network Scotland. Communities currently provide the bulk of recycling in Scotland. The national waste plan must include mandatory consultation with the community-based recyclers and they must have access to the strategic waste fund. That fund must be increased, I suggest to at least £150 million. I ask the Executive whether they are prepared for the huge volume of car tyres and electronic goods that will come our way very soon.
I will be as brief as possible.
On Thursday 9 December 1999, Sarah Boyack, then the Minister for Transport and the Environment, stated that, as far as waste was concerned,
"We are a long way behind our counterparts"—[Official Report, 9 December 1999; Vol 3, c 1342.]
Regrettably, we are still nowhere near catching up with our European counterparts. We have moved very little since the minister made that statement. Some may say that things have got worse since that statement was made as we now accept waste from other parts of the UK. I have recently corresponded with the minister on the waste that has been transported from Ireland to a landfill site at Lendalfoot in South Ayrshire. He informed me that that is outwith his control, as it is perfectly acceptable for waste from other areas of the UK to be transported and dumped in Scottish landfills. I believe, as do many others, that that makes a mockery of the national waste strategy for Scotland, which, along with the waste management strategy in Ireland, is based on the proximity and self-sufficiency principles.
What is the point of Scottish councils and consumers cutting down on the waste that they dispose of by landfill and engaging in more recycling when we can be used as a dumping ground by other areas of the UK, especially when those areas have their own capacity to deal with waste and should be doing so? I urge the minister to look into the situation at Lendalfoot and particularly to consider whether the company is complying with the conditions of its licence.
The so-called Alba Resource Recovery proposals also cause me deep alarm. Interestingly, Alba Resource Recovery is a subsidiary of the well known opencast coal mining operator, Scottish Coal. I presume that the link between coal mining and waste disposal is a large hole in the ground. The prospect of massive waste management centres being established in East Ayrshire and in Fife horrifies me. Huge quantities of municipal waste from several councils would be transported to one local site for waste treatment and disposal. I suppose that it has the attraction of improving recycling rates at one fell swoop. However, that type of initiative will do nothing to change behaviour in the way that is needed to minimise waste at its origin. It will also visit more environmental injustice on areas such as Cumnock and Doon Valley, whose development opportunities have been and continue to be blighted by environmentally damaging economic activity. No jobs or dirty jobs—that is some choice.
We have not been short of targets or pious aspirations on waste management since 1975. However, we have been short of progress towards achieving some of the targets. The national waste strategy and, in particular, the progress on the area waste plans represent the first positive sign in dealing with what Robin Harper rightly highlighted as being a poor situation in Scotland.
We need a blend of legislative requirements and economic incentives if the strategy is to work effectively. Talking about the strategy has not achieved much; we need levers to force change.
Will the member give way?
No, I have only a few minutes.
One measure is to find better strategies for avoiding waste in the first place. We need to consider how to minimise the packaging that we receive in supermarkets or when we buy any kind of commodity. The issue is not just about making biodegradable packaging; we should ensure that a minimum amount of packaging is used and that there are strategies at stores to recover packaging and to dispose of it before it gets to people's houses. We need practical strategies for recycling. What is the point in separating out our rubbish if it is all gathered together and chucked into the back of the same van? We might have different coloured bags, but if they all go into the same vehicle to be taken to a landfill dump, that does not make any practical difference.
I represented the Summerston ward in Glasgow, which is where most of Glasgow's waste is buried. The problem is not just what to do with the waste this year, next year and the year after. There is the serious issue of how to deal with the dumps that already exist. Waste is not only a problem for the future; there is a problem with the accumulated waste from the past.
There are new measures that we can take to dispose of waste. Not all incineration is wrong. There must be a blend of different approaches to waste removal. The strategy of chucking waste on to the back of a lorry and then into a landfill site is no longer viable. We must change our mindset and engage people, individually, in communities and at local authority and national levels. I want the minister to reassure me that SEPA will pull the approaches together and begin to make a real difference. A lot of progress is required.
I was born just after the war, but I can remember rationing and the mindset that nothing should be wasted. During the war, everyone on the home front understood that waste was an issue and took pride in actions to prevent or avoid waste, because those actions were contributions to the war effort. We are still fighting a war—it is a war against climate change and the irresponsible depletion of the world's resources. Somehow, we must re-engage the individual in that war. The front line in the war is the top line in the waste hierarchy—the battle to reduce waste. The next line of defence is the local authorities, which have the task of dealing with waste, and SEPA, which must ensure safe waste disposal. I commend the Scottish Executive's methodology in putting together a national waste plan by starting at local level with the area waste management plans and building the national plan from them.
I want to flag up three matters of concern. The first is a failure in the system that was set up to tackle excessive packaging. The Wastepack Group Ltd, which runs one of the major Scottish compliance schemes for the packaging waste regulations, failed to meet its targets by a huge margin. The company dealt with less than 60 per cent of the waste tonnage with which it should have dealt. That was bad enough, but it has emerged that the company could not have met its obligations even if it had purchased all the spare packaging waste recovery notes that were available in the marketplace. That is possibly why SEPA did not exercise more stringent sanctions against Wastepack, but other waste compliance companies are understandably aggrieved that a competitor seems to have got away with thousands of pounds' worth of obligation.
The second matter of concern is that it seems to be commercially attractive for a council in Northern Ireland to ship its waste to an Ayrshire landfill site. Why is that and what needs to be changed? The situation flies in the face of the proximity and self-sufficiency principles.
The third matter of concern is whether anything is being done to prepare for the implementation of the end-of-life vehicles directive. We were caught on the hop with fridge-freezers; I would hate to see stockpiles of cars waiting to be dealt with. It may be that someone somewhere is well on the way to setting up the structures that we need to avoid stockpiles, but I would be a lot happier if I knew about it, particularly as I am the owner of a G-registration Fiat Uno, which—touch wood—continues to run, but which cannot go on indefinitely.
There are hopeful signs. Producers and manufacturers are beginning to identify what they are wasting and what it costs them. That is a real driver for change. If we go with SEPA's suggestion that waste collection and disposal charges be identified separately on council tax bills, householders will begin to realise that what they put in their bins costs them. That too will be a driver for change.
We have an appalling record at the moment, but it is a starting point. Where can we finish? The United States of America is not necessarily an environmental model, but it went from 8 per cent recycling in 1990 to 32 per cent in 2000. New Jersey went from less than 10 per cent recycling to more than 60 per cent in 10 years. If it can, we can. In current parlance, it is doable—let's do it.
Argyll and Bute Council was one of the first to finalise a proper waste plan, which it is now implementing. That has been an enormous task, but it appears to have been successful because there has been good leadership and all concerned have worked as one. The benefit of having a single area plan is enormous, but it will take a big culture shift to make producers of waste accept the responsibility for dealing with it.
We must realise that the full costs of providing modern services are not recoverable. Efforts must be made to persuade private companies that, by altering their production to a sustainable approach with less waste, they might achieve savings for their businesses. Public companies must set an example—less waste, more profit.
The strategic waste fund is clearly inadequate to fund all area waste plans. Does the Executive intend to provide the funding that is necessary to implement the plans in full later this year? The plans need to be closely scrutinised to ensure that local authorities with large rural areas are not unduly penalised.
In my speech in the debate on environmentally sustainable employment and recycling on 24 January, I echoed the words of Hendy Pollock of Highland Council: "no targets without markets". It may be that those markets are now coming. Glass is being used for aggregate instead of smelting. There is a genuine, worldwide market for recycled paper products, although prices are extremely volatile, which makes budgeting difficult indeed. Recently, recycled cardboard rose in price overnight from £20 to £30 per bail, but the price can fall just as easily.
At £100 per tonne, the cost of landfill is expensive, so other methods must be used. Western Isles Council is doing a great job. It is using recycled products and creating jobs in the islands. At Bennadrove, the council has a new machine to bail old cars, which get sent to the fragmentiser in Inverkeithing. It has an accredited glass reprocessor and recycled glass is being used as bedding for land drains. Its recycled paper is sold to crofters and farmers in the islands for animal bedding. Recycled cans are bailed and sent away. Aluminium cans fetch 10 times the price of steel cans—there is surely a message for drinks producers in that. Polythene and plastics are the most difficult to get rid of. When will someone produce a biodegradable plastic bag?
New regulatory standards may make current landfill sites prohibitively expensive to sustain in rural areas. Are those standards truly necessary in some Highlands and Islands areas in which they have never been needed before? I suggest that imagination should be used in their interpretation. Otherwise, unrecyclable rubbish will have to be transported at a very heavy cost to the public and the environment.
I agree with Robin Harper and a couple of other speakers that the debate is far too short. The topic is far too important for us to try to cram it into one hour. On the other hand, I ask the minister why, exactly, we are having the short debate today. When I saw it in the business bulletin, I thought that the Government might give us its targets at last. We have been waiting for those targets since the Executive published its waste strategy in 1999. Three years on, the minister says to us, "Maybe by Christmas, maybe by the end of the year I will give you some targets." We are having a very short debate on a very important topic, but we are not moving the issue on one iota.
The topic is very important. It is estimated that each household in Scotland produces 1 tonne of rubbish per annum—an enormous amount. As the minister pointed out, something like 94 per cent of that household rubbish goes straight into holes in the ground. That is not a sustainable way to manage our country's waste. It raises health concerns, of which I am sure the minister is aware. At least two reports have been produced recently on the effect that living near a landfill site has on health, especially the health of children. That is one of the drivers for saying that we must move on from landfill. There are also many worries about environmental degradation and damage, with leachates from landfill sites going into our water courses.
It is not only an important topic, but an urgent one. The landfill directive has to be met by 2010, which is less than eight years away. The minister and his colleagues have been the Government for three years, but we have not moved forward at all, so how can we expect him to make such a huge leap in the next eight years?
The Lothian and Borders draft area waste plan states:
"By 2020, municipal solid waste in the Lothians and Borders could increase by 60%".
For that reason, we cannot keep putting things off, talking about next year or next month. We are already living with the consequences of failing to understand the EC directive on fridges: we have a fridge mountain.
I ask the minister a simple question: with the commitment to waste minimisation and to moving away from landfill, why is Scottish Enterprise not actively seeking to support facilities here in Scotland in order to deal with those fridges? We have a nonsensical, absurd situation in which fridges are sent from, I think, either Aberdeen City Council or Aberdeenshire Council down to Manchester, but not to be disposed of—simply to be stored. We must do something about that. The minister's record is not great, nor is his leadership.
Neither Fiona McLeod nor Bruce Crawford has mentioned targets. In its amendment, the SNP makes some play of the
"mandatory targets … of 30% to 35% for recycling and composting".
How did the SNP arrive at those figures? Where did it get its information?
That information is based on international evidence of what countries such as Switzerland and Denmark can do. As the minister said, we are fortunate in Scotland in that we have 11 area waste plans and a lot of effort has been put in to examining the problem. A 30 per cent to 35 per cent mandatory target is entirely achievable, but if that is not made a target, nobody will work their plans to achieve it. That is why I say that targets are so essential.
At the moment, 4.5 per cent of waste is recycled, which is a completely and utterly unsustainable amount. The minister used his lovely wee slogan, "do a little, change a lot." I would say that the slogan for the present Government should be "do a little, change not a jot." We need action, not never-ending consultation. We do not need empty slogans. Also, we need to keep revenue from landfill tax here. Spending £50 million per annum on looking into recycling would ensure that we achieve something here in Scotland.
I call on Allan Wilson to wind up for the Scottish Executive. You have seven minutes, minister.
I will do my best. I start with the caveat that in seven minutes I cannot cover all the points that have been raised, but I am happy to visit projects wherever they be—in Midlothian, Dundee or elsewhere—to see for myself. There is no monopoly of wisdom within the Scottish Executive on waste management policy and procedure. I am happy to learn, as is my colleague Ross Finnie, of successful recycling schemes and to roll those out as best practice.
Two themes have emerged, which I would like to stress: progress and partnership. Contrary to the previous speech, the Executive has a thorough grip on the waste issue and is delivering incremental progress. I think that Bruce Crawford admitted as much in his contribution, if grudgingly.
The Executive delivered a national waste strategy in 1999, as promised in the first programme for government. We have established the strategic waste fund to help local authorities implement their plans. Eleven draft area waste plans are now available, and the national plan, which is awaiting ministerial approval, will come out later this year.
I will respond to the requests of Robin Harper and other members for further debating opportunity. We welcome that. We want to debate progress towards our targets.
Could the minister tell me how many deadlines were set for the production of area waste plans?
The point that I am making, which I hope will be appreciated throughout the chamber—even if not by Bruce Crawford—is that we are making progress towards the delivery of our national waste plan and our national strategy. That is delivering progress, which I think is accepted outwith the chamber, if not by the nationalists.
Will the minister give way?
I cannot allow myself to be diverted from the important issues that other members have raised to chase the nationalists' red herrings.
I emphasise the partnership element in the work that we are discussing. The development of the national waste strategy has been and is an inclusive process. Before preparing the strategy, SEPA consulted widely. The area waste plan process involved a wide range of stakeholders in decision making. I welcome the contribution that members have made to that process. The Executive would like important issues such as waste to be dealt with in that way. If we are to improve our performance on waste, everybody must be involved.
Critically, that means that the Westminster Administration must be involved. There is no nation-state solution to this problem. Later I will deal with Northern Ireland, to which Fiona McLeod referred. I refer members to the work that we are doing on the end-of-life vehicles directive. The Executive will shortly reduce the 71 days' notice that local authorities must give before removing an abandoned vehicle. It is true that the UK has missed the transposition deadline for the directive, but there is no nation-state solution to that problem. If more rigorous controls were introduced in Scotland, Scotland would simply become a depository for end-of-life vehicles from England. We must work in partnership with the Westminster Government on that.
The same applies to compulsory deposit schemes. Realistically, those can be implemented only on a UK-wide basis. We must examine carefully the detail of any scheme to ensure that it complies with UK standards [Interruption.]
There is too much chatter and burbling. I ask members to keep the noise level down.
The introduction of a plastic bag tax would have implications for the UK as a whole. We are watching developments in Ireland closely. I discuss with Michael Meacher and other ministers with responsibility for the environment the prospects for greater efforts being made in Scotland on that score. However, wholesale recycling cannot be achieved overnight.
Cattle incineration has not been mentioned in the debate. Does the minister approve of cattle being incinerated in the heavily populated east end of Glasgow? There is officially a high risk that those cattle are infected with BSE, and there have been 100 pollution incidents in 10 months. Will the minister urge SEPA to stop allowing persistent offenders to reopen their facilities? Will he declare against cattle being incinerated in Glasgow, the only city on which that practice has been foisted?
I have been in correspondence with Dorothy-Grace Elder and with the constituency member for the east end of Glasgow, because I share many of the concerns that have been expressed about the operation of the incinerator to which she refers. I take on board the points that the member makes and I have been in contact with SEPA about them. SEPA will not renew licences or grant authorisation for incineration unless it is convinced that appropriate environmental measures are being taken to protect the health of the citizens of the east end of Glasgow. I would expect nothing less from that organisation.
Several members have mentioned Northern Ireland. The transport of waste within the UK is perfectly legal. Waste is a commodity, like everything else.
Does the minister accept that in some island communities the new standards for landfill sites may make burying waste so expensive that it would be cheaper to export it by ferry, and that that would be a daft solution to the problem?
Yes. As I said, the transport of waste within EU member states is perfectly legal. The Executive is committed to the principle of proximity. The Northern Ireland Administration's waste management strategy contains a similar commitment. I understand that the necessary treatment and disposal capacity will become available once regional waste plants have been established in Northern Ireland. There is a solution to the problem that members have highlighted and progress is being made towards achieving that.
John Scott and other members mentioned the Alba proposals for major waste recycling centres. The guidance on best environmental practice states that, if new proposals are in force that have not been considered in an area waste plan, the developer should carry out an assessment to show that its proposals are better. However, when we integrate the area waste plans to produce the national plan, we will also consider the potential for such schemes.
Bristow Muldoon raised an important question about how local authorities will access the strategic waste fund. Local authorities can already apply for access to that fund. Indeed, some have already done so. However, as we must be sure that the plans fit in with best environmental practice, we will need to consider in each case whether the application must wait for the national plan to be finalised.
The same principle applies to the Executive's position on the pathfinder waste reduction schemes. Bruce Crawford is simply wrong. In 2001-02, we distributed £3 million to local authorities to fund pathfinder recycling schemes.
In the limited time available, I am unable to deal with the many contributions that were made during the debate, but I will be happy to take up Robin Harper's suggestion that we return at a future date to debate the issue more thoroughly.
Let me conclude on this note. It is right that waste is an issue about which we should all be concerned. Waste is crucial to sustainable development and to environmental justice. Dorothy-Grace Elder's point about landfill sites was well made. Landfills tend to be sited nearest to those who are already disadvantaged. There is a social justice element to the issue that we must include in all our considerations. That is why, instead of the arbitrary targets that are promoted by the nationalists, we have stressed that we need a defined process to identify the best environmental option. I commend the motion to members on that basis.