Waste Disposal (Incineration)
We move to the members' business debate on motion S1M-2088, in the name of Irene McGugan, on waste incinerators. It would be helpful if those who want to take part in the debate would press their request-to-speak buttons now. Those who are not staying for the debate should please leave us as soon as possible and do so quietly so that we can begin the debate.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament notes with concern that at least five large new incinerators are being planned for siting around Scotland, despite the growing evidence that they may frequently emit a cocktail of toxic chemicals which breach legal pollution limits and raise health concerns; further notes that the defect ridden Baldovie incinerator in Dundee reported 18 separate breaches of safety limits within a five week period earlier this year, which more than justifies the concerns of communities in Aberdeen about the planned Altens incinerator; is concerned that although 60% of the waste produced in Scotland is biodegradable, only 6.6% of it was recycled last year, thereby placing Scotland at the bottom of the European recycling league; commends the first area waste plan in Scotland which opts for the recycling of waste rather than the burning of it, and believes that the Scottish Executive should implement policies which promote a resource efficient, recycling society.
There is widespread concern that the headlong rush to build incinerators may not, if fact, be the best long-term solution for dealing with Scotland's waste, for a number of reasons. First, studies have shown that incinerators produce toxic fumes and—
I am afraid that you have gone off microphone. You are now back on.
Thank you, Presiding Officer. Should I start again?
You were clear up to that point of interruption. Just carry on.
Many people who live and work near incinerators suffer serious health ill effects from the toxic fumes. Recent studies in The Lancet confirm that those fumes could be causing harm to children in particular. There is also growing evidence that incinerators frequently emit a cocktail of toxic chemicals that breach legal pollution limits. I accept that new incinerators must meet strict emission standards, but in real life things have a habit of going wrong. Things went very wrong at two of Britain's most modern incinerators 183 times between 1995 and 1998. An incinerator at Edmonton in London was the third worst polluter in a 1995 Environment Agency league table.
The experience of Scotland's only large-scale operating incinerator at Dundee, where there have been numerous emissions of poisonous chemicals, simply fuels further concerns. The company that runs the Baldovie plant in Dundee notified the Scottish Environment Protection Agency of 18 separate breaches of the limits between 20 April and 28 May 2001. Those breaches included releases of nitrogen oxide, hydrogen chloride and volatile organic compounds that included dioxins. There was a further serious incident in June.
Despite that, at least five massive new waste incinerators are planned in Scotland—in Inverness, Fife, Ayrshire, Lanarkshire and Aberdeen. Aberdeen City Council has signed a 25-year deal with SITA—a waste management company—to incinerate 125,000 tonnes of domestic refuse. That total is far in excess of what is generated by the city alone and the deal is in conjunction with the company that not only managed the Edmonton incinerator but was implicated in the use of toxic fly ash in building and construction materials.
A planning application for a site between Torry and Nigg to the south of the city is to be considered in the next few weeks. Residents are extremely concerned at that and have mounted a vigorous campaign against the proposal. Their primary concerns are pollution and health implications for local residents.
Aberdeen should emulate other Scottish cities and increase its efforts to promote recycling rather than lock the council into the use of one technology—burning waste—for the next 25 years. The council's draft waste strategy document sets out a minimum target of 25 per cent recycling and composting by 2005. There is much to do, as Aberdeen recorded a recycling total of just 4.3 per cent this year. Local people and academics have argued that the construction of an incinerator undermines the city's chance of developing a sustainable waste strategy.
The nationwide plans have health concerns and are contrary to the national strategy to reduce and recycle more waste. Although around 60 per cent of our waste is biodegradable, Scotland recycled just over 6 per cent of waste last year and widely missed the target of 25 per cent by 2000, which was set by the UK Government. That compares with Switzerland's achievement of 52 per cent and the Netherlands' of 45 per cent. Scotland is at the bottom of the European recycling league—it is therefore arguable that we need more incinerators.
In Scotland, 11 area waste plans are being developed to deal with the waste that we dump in landfill sites. Under European Union law, that option is rapidly vanishing.
Forth Valley Area Waste Group recently announced a strategy that opts mainly for recycling and composting. Targets have been set and mass-burn incineration has been rejected. That has surprised some local authorities, but it is hoped that others will follow suit.
The plan also recommends structured research on the applicability of advanced thermal treatment systems such as gasification, which is a cleaner method of treating waste to retrieve energy. Currently, such techniques are more expensive, but further research and development should reduce that financial burden. I hope that the Executive will pick up on that and commission research and development before it is too late and new incinerators are built.
If councils opt for waste incineration, they will put the health of their communities at risk. They should aim for waste reduction, recycling and composting. Dr Richard Dixon, who is head of research at Friends of the Earth Scotland, has said that the choices we make in the next 12 months will determine whether we spend the next three decades in a polluted, wasteful Scotland or change to the kind of resource-efficient, recycling society that we deserve in the 21st century.
I urge the Scottish Executive to acknowledge that with the development of cleaner technologies to deal with waste and a strong emphasis on recycling there is no need for further incinerators in Scotland.
There will now be an open debate and contributions should be kept to three minutes.
I congratulate Irene McGugan on securing this debate. My thoughts are similar to hers.
I have lodged parliamentary questions on dioxins, which are central to the debate. One asked
"the Scottish Executive what measures are in place to minimise public exposure to endocrine disrupters and other dioxins."— [Official Report, Written Answers, 22 August 2001; p 707-08.]
The minister's response—Rhona Brankin is here tonight—rightly mentioned the legislation that is already in place. It includes the municipal waste incinerators directives that came into force in 1996 and the Pollution Prevention and Control (Scotland) Regulations 2000. She also pointed out that the Food Standards Agency runs a programme of research and surveillance and that it will conduct additional research into the safety of dioxins in foodstuffs through the committee on toxicology.
However, there is still growing concern about the release of dioxins, about the measurement of releases and about that information being made available to the general public. Friends of the Earth states that there is a need for a factory pollution inventory such as is available in England and Wales. Other literature makes it clear that dioxins are released not only by incinerators, but by chemical and fertiliser manufacturing plants. I ask the minister to comment on the development of a factory pollution inventory for Scotland similar to that south of the border.
Through parliamentary questions I have raised issues about cement manufacture—which is much more topical—and the use of cement-making kilns to incinerate waste. Again, a substantial amount of information is developing—latterly in the press—about Blue Circle cement and the possible use of cement in the new Parliament building. I am still awaiting a response, but I ask the minister to consider the work that is being done south of the border by the Environment Agency and how regulations might be made north of the border to help in that respect.
The first area waste plan was launched in Forth Valley, as Irene McGugan mentioned. In Stirling, we are proud that the Stirling Council biodiversity action plan—I have Robin Harper's copy—was inclusive of that area waste plan. It is clear from that that the people say yes to recycling, yes to composting, yes to minimising waste and no to mass-burn incineration.
As our area waste plan reminds us, we all have responsibilities for recycling and composting. I received my composting bin last Saturday, but I do not know whether many other members who are in the chamber have one.
I do.
One. The Deputy Minister for Environment and Rural Development and the Scottish Executive have a responsibility not only to give direction, but to give the necessary investment. I ask the minister to think, today or later, about an advertising campaign to get over to the public the importance of recycling, which includes composting. It is important that supermarkets and industry start to minimise waste. Councils are an important factor, but they cannot succeed alone—all of us must be involved.
I congratulate Irene McGugan on securing an important motion for debate. The motion mentions future plans for incineration in Scotland. I will cast my eye over recent events at the Baldovie incinerator in Dundee and offer some thoughts on how we can proceed.
Dundee has a long and troubled history of municipal waste incineration. The city had an incinerator to handle municipal solid waste in 1979, but that plant at Baldovie closed at the end of 1996 when stricter European Union emissions limits came into effect. Four years before the December 1996 deadline, Dundee City Council had to choose between upgrading the old plant to meet the new standards, building a new facility or revising its waste management strategy to increase its reliance on landfill. The council opted to construct a new energy-from-waste facility and entered into a joint venture arrangement with the private sector using the private finance initiative.
Despite the closure of the old plant five years ago, the fallout from the emissions continues. A heated debate has continued in the city over how to investigate the health impact of the emissions. Residents in the areas beside the site of the incinerator have genuine concerns. Theories abound about clusters of cancer and other impacts on health. Finally, after much debate and pressure from local residents, the administration in Dundee agreed to carry out a health study. I hope that, whatever the findings of the study, concerns can be abated and fears can be laid to rest.
The establishment of the new incinerator could have marked a fresh start for Dundee. Unfortunately, the promises of openness and transparency seem to disappear whenever a problem occurs. The recent batch of problems, which Irene McGugan highlighted, include 18 separate breaches of safety limits. When breaches occur they should at least be publicised immediately, with an appropriate explanation as soon as that is technically feasible. Unless that happens there is a culture of secrecy, which does nothing to allay fears because people think that there is a cover-up. That is what happened in relation to the breaches of safety that Irene McGugan mentioned.
On a more positive note, I have been told that the operational problems with the new incinerator have—in the main—been resolved and that electricity production is on-going. That is welcome, but it is up to all of us to keep an eye on the Baldovie incinerator. We will certainly do so.
I will concentrate on the positive aspects of the alternative to incinerators, which is intensive recycling.
Products that come from an incinerator include toxic ash, which must be landfilled, carbon dioxide and occasionally dioxins if the incinerator is not worked properly. Incineration is also capital-intensive; it locks up capital for at least 25 years and does not create a tremendous number of jobs.
I will give figures from research done in London. One tonne of mixed municipal waste that is sent to an incinerator—some of it landfilled and some burned—will produce £27-worth of electricity. One tonne of mixed municipal waste that is recycled will produce up to £720-worth of reusable goods: that is waste that is recycled and remanufactured at the highest possible level. That is the possibility created by recycling municipal waste.
Intensive recycling creates more jobs and involves more people and communities. It is dispersed rather than concentrated, and is ideal for Scotland. It is no surprise to me that Aberdeenshire Council—in a rural area—wants to go down the intensive recycling route. It is a surprise to me that Aberdeen City Council, with a town plan, layout and construction that would lend itself to intensive recycling, has elected to propose to go down the incineration route for the majority of its municipal waste.
It is highly desirable that we have intensive recycling. What percentage is it realistic to recycle? What can we do with material that cannot be recycled, given the pressure on landfill?
I will give Brian Adam an example. On Monday night, I listened with intense interest to a programme on BBC Radio 4. It was broadcast from the village of Wye in Kent, where 80 per cent of the municipal waste is recycled. The village is moving towards recycling 90 per cent of its municipal waste. Only a tiny fraction of municipal waste would go to landfill. It is clear that a certain amount of waste will continue to go to landfill. We are talking about reducing that to an irreducible minimum as soon as possible.
Ten years ago, the United States started on an intensive recycling programme roughly from the same appallingly low recycling base of 6 per cent that Scotland has. After going down that route, the country has now reached 30 per cent recycling, and the idea of incineration is now anathema in many US states and across Europe. Every incineration proposal in the US is being blocked.
Finally, why has the Executive still set its mind against setting mandatory targets for recycling? The measure was introduced in England, and the country is now way ahead of us as far as recycling is concerned. If we let them do it voluntarily, a higher imperative will always get in the way.
I broadly welcome Irene McGugan's motion and compliment her on securing the debate. Waste incineration ought to be a good idea. At first sight, the ability to extract energy from a waste product and to reduce the mass of the remainder significantly is an attractive proposition. However, things are not always as they seem and, like Robin Harper, I feel that waste incineration flatters to deceive.
Despite new technology and state-of-the-art filters, too many dangerous chemicals and by-products are still being released into the atmosphere in the form of heavy metals, unburned toxic chemicals and pollutants such as dioxins. Different combustion processes produce different problems. One that has already been highlighted is the burning of waste materials in cement-making kilns, which results in polluted cement. As Sylvia Jackson has pointed out, there are question marks over the cement being used at the Scottish Parliament, and I also want to find out whether we will be living in a sick building. However, that is probably a question for the Holyrood progress group.
Like other members, I want to nail my colours firmly to the recycling mast and to promote the elimination of waste at source by improving product designs. Like Robin Harper, I have been struck by how far behind we are with recycling measures when compared with America, which I have recently visited, and I know that all parties in the chamber accept that this is the way forward. Given that we have been able to land men on the moon for the past 30 years, it should not be beyond us to recycle our reusable products such as paper, plastic, glass, textiles, metals and compost materials.
Does the member agree that setting targets to increase recycling is fine, but unless those targets are enforceable and local authorities receive appropriate funding, we will not make the progress that everyone wants?
Once we examine the idea of targets, it becomes clear that they are to everyone's benefit. Local authorities do not need specific funding for recycling because, as Robin Harper pointed out, the measures are self-financing and they can make money out of them.
It should not be beyond us to start eliminating waste by improving product and packaging design; indeed, it is vital that we eliminate waste at source.
I honestly feel that we no longer need to debate this matter or even to think it through. We need only to recognise that recycling has been tried and tested and found to be cost-effective in almost every developed country in the world except Britain. All we need to do is find the best model, discover the best practice and copy them.
As a first step, the Scottish Executive must brief and encourage our councils and councillors to start serious recycling programmes. Indeed, the Scottish Executive must be proactive on the issue and MSPs should extol the virtues of the policy and help to move it forward. Unless and until we do so, our children and our children's children will accuse us of dithering and of social and environmental irresponsibility.
I support Irene McGugan's motion.
I also thank Irene McGugan for securing this evening's debate, which raises an important and topical issue.
As the motion points out—and as Irene McGugan and Sylvia Jackson ably highlighted—there are concerns about the health and safety aspects of incineration. I want to examine another cause for concern, namely, the fact that the incineration of domestic waste is a viable option only when it deals with very large volumes of waste. Going down the route of incineration does absolutely nothing to encourage responsible attitudes to waste; it does not encourage people to minimise waste, reuse or recycle. Indeed, incineration could offer an incentive to do the reverse.
Scotland produces 3 million tonnes of domestic waste a year, 60 per cent of which is biodegradable. Yet, as the motion says, last year only 6.6 per cent of that waste was recycled. South of the border the situation was slightly better, but other European countries do significantly better and recycle between a quarter and half of their domestic waste. Our record on recycling is pathetic, and that is only the third tier—if I can put it that way—of the so-called waste hierarchy.
The motion mentions local concerns about the proposal for an incinerator at Altens. My colleague Nicol Stephen, who is the local MSP, and Kate Dean of Aberdeen City Council can confirm that those concerns are real and widespread.
The issue is of huge concern to many of my constituents. As Irene McGugan has rightly said, many of them feel strongly that the council's decision to enter into a long-term contract that involves the building of a major waste incinerator—or energy-from-waste plant, as it is called—before the area waste plan was agreed was putting the cart before the horse. Does Nora Radcliffe agree that the key is to have area waste plans with ambitious recycling and composting targets in place in advance of those applications?
I agree whole-heartedly with Nicol Stephen. Fortunately, the proposal is still just a proposal and will have to go through the planning process. I hope that the incinerator will never be built. The best way to forestall it and all the other proposed incinerators is to change radically our attitude to waste and to recognise the cost of waste, both direct and indirect, in monetary terms and in terms of pollution.
Some waste is unavoidable—Robin Harper's "irreducible minimum"—but the level of waste that is currently produced and projected levels of waste production are not inevitable. Government and local government can provide incentives to business and structures to help the individual to deal responsibly with waste, for example, by collecting separated waste or initiating composting schemes. Manufacturers and businesses also have a role to play, through the design and packaging of goods. However, the responsibility for tackling waste rests fundamentally with the individual. An ounce of awareness of our wastefulness in this throwaway society could save a tonne of domestic waste. Recycle, yes; reuse, even better; minimise—in other words, do not create waste in the first place—best of all.
I also congratulate Irene McGugan for securing this debate on an important issue for the future of our environment. The issue will become increasingly important to political debate in Scotland as time goes on.
However, I regret the specific reference in the motion to the waste energy plant at Baldovie in my constituency. I am not an enthusiastic supporter of that plant. I have serious reservations about the fact that it was built under a public-private partnership that contains contractual terms that have a presumption against recycling and which therefore make it difficult to head towards the kind of recycling future that was described by Robin Harper. However, when concerns exist about a specific plant in a specific location, it is important to investigate those concerns before making any kind of public statement about it.
That is why I and the MP for Dundee East, Iain Luke, recently visited the plant at Baldovie to speak to officials and directors of Dundee Energy Recycling Ltd, the company that runs it, about the emissions that Irene McGugan referred to. That is also why we organised a meeting with officials from the Scottish Environment Protection Agency to discuss the problems, and why we will meet Friends of the Earth to discuss the same problems and speak at a public meeting in the area and talk to local people about their concerns about the plant.
Finally, that is why we support the local monitoring committee, which was set up by DERL with local representatives, and which is advised by Friends of the Earth to keep people informed of what is going on in the plant. That is the right approach to take. We should not rush to judgment or make any public statement that is likely unnecessarily to raise concerns among people in that community.
I am concerned that the motion uses phrases such as
"emit a cocktail of toxic chemicals"
and "health concerns", and that it talks about
"the defect ridden Baldovie incinerator".
From talking to SEPA officials, I am not led to believe that there is any emission of toxic chemicals from the plant or that there are any health concerns. In fact, the SEPA officials described the emissions as purely technical and said that they present no health threat to anybody in that area.
I am not trying to make a party-political point. The new waste-to-energy plant at Baldovie is a PPP and exists on the basis of long-term contracts with local authorities. It has a contract to incinerate Dundee City Council's waste over the next 20 or 25 years, but it also has a contract to incinerate the waste of Angus Council, which is as close as we have to a one-party SNP state in Scotland and which is quite happy to have its waste incinerated over the coming years by DERL. The situation must be investigated thoroughly before alarmist statements are made.
I agree with Robin Harper: the future is reusing and recycling. I want a zero-waste Scotland. In the meantime, however, we have masses of waste that must be dealt with either by landfill or by incineration, before we can put into place the structures, the mechanisms and the market that can lead towards the zero-waste future.
The discussion should take place in the context of the area plans. We should ensure that, within every area plan in Scotland, there is a strategy that can help us move from our current position to where we want to be. Robin Harper is right to say that, unless the Scottish Executive sets out mandatory targets, we will never reach that future.
I support both recycling and Irene McGugan's motion, but I would like to add one or two caveats.
The minister might be aware that it was recently proposed that the town of Lochgilphead in Argyll and Bute should have a new compostor. The original plan was that rubbish would come from Oban, which is 30 miles away, from Campbeltown, which is 50 miles away, and possibly also from Dunoon. That would make Lochgilphead the dump town of the west. Obviously, there was a lot of ill-feeling about that, especially when it was shown that that idea was in opposition to Executive guidelines, which say that rubbish should be dealt with where it is created and that it should not be transported too far. That is a notion that was particularly resonant in that case, because a decision had recently been made to cease transportation of timber by lorry, which had done a lot of damage to roads in the area, and to start to transport timber by boat. The previous reform reduced the number of lorries, but the new proposal would increase the number of lorries coming to the site.
Does the member agree that Campbeltown should build on the experience and success of the Campbeltown Waste Watchers project?
I agree entirely.
Some of the problems of Lochgilphead have been solved by the fact that there will now also be a compostor in Oban. The only problem that the residents now perceive is that the compostor will be situated in a beautiful area on the coast and will be seen by residents and tourists. I ask the minister to reconsider the siting of Lingerton waste disposal site. In future, will the minister ensure that new compostors are not put bang in the middle of beauty spots outside conurbations?
I thank Irene McGugan for securing this important debate. Soon after I was elected to the Scottish Parliament, I met a man on a train from London to Edinburgh. He sold incinerators and passed the journey trying to convince me that incinerators were a good thing, that the emissions were minimal and that incinerators could be used to run district heating schemes. I was 90 per cent convinced by the time I got to Edinburgh.
However, I also have a friend who is secretary of the Lochaber Environmental Group. She is responsible for promoting the recycling of waste and the minimisation of waste such as newspapers and glass and, of course, she now has me 90 per cent convinced that recycling is the way forward.
I cannot quite bring myself to agree with either side. We have a problem with recycling in the Highlands: distance. It costs more environmentally and in money to take newspapers, glass and other waste to the central belt for recycling than it does to incinerate them on the spot.
It is important that we try to set up local environmentally sound schemes. I know that environmental groups in the Highlands are starting to do that. For example, I know that newspapers, which were taken down to Falkirk—I think—for recycling in the central belt, can now be shredded locally and used for bedding for cattle. Some lateral thinking is all that we need to get schemes going. As with other places in the country, compost bins have been handed out by the hundred and are being taken up enthusiastically. The local authority is also composting its grass clippings. That compost can be sold.
Although I am now 90 per cent convinced that recycling is the answer, I do not know if it can ever deal with all our rubbish. Can it deal with plastic, for example?
The problem in Highland Council's area is that we have almost run out of space in our landfill site and it is proving difficult to find another. At planning inquiry after planning inquiry, people have objected to applications for landfill sites. We have not found one yet. People are beginning to worry that there will be an incinerator and about the sorts of emissions that might come from it. Proposals are in the air for where that incinerator might be sited. People need reassurance about those issues.
I like to think that we could recycle. I would like the Executive to put resources into recycling to take it as far as we possibly could. We also need to put effort into persuading households not to throw out so much. I heard a statistic recently that said that households throw out more food than the food processing industry throws out and supermarkets waste. That is because of our affluent lifestyle. We want everything to be fresh. Unless people are like me and keep mouldy things in their fridge for a long time, they throw away a lot of food, which would have horrified my parents, who went through the war and never wasted a thing.
We need self-education to start with, but we also need support for environmental schemes that will minimise waste.
I welcome the debate on waste incinerators. It raises several important points. I realise that, within waste management, waste incinerators tend to be the most controversial issue and to receive most media attention and public opposition. In my response to the debate, I will refer to energy from waste plants. I do not consider that the mass burning of waste without energy recovery has a place in future waste management.
The adoption of the national waste strategy in December 1999 marked the start of a new era in waste management in Scotland. That new era involves making difficult decisions. As we have heard, 11 waste strategy area groups have been tasked with preparing area waste plans. Those plans are being developed to identify the best option for waste management in each area. They will take into account environmental, social and economic factors as well as practicality. There are no straightforward solutions. We have to perform a difficult balancing act before we can reach conclusions on how to take waste management forward.
The motion asks the Parliament to note
"with concern that at least five large new incinerators are being planned for siting around Scotland".
As far as the Executive is aware, those incinerators are still speculative plans from private sector companies, none of which has been submitted for permission yet. It is also apparent that those companies are changing and adapting their plans regularly. If and when planning applications are received for such proposals, the national waste strategy and constituent area waste plans need to be regarded as material considerations in any assessment by the planning authorities.
In the light of what Rhona Brankin has just said—which I wholly endorse—does the Executive intend to call in all those applications if planning permission is granted?
Applications for planning permission for waste incinerators are a matter for the local authority as the planning authority. I repeat that the waste strategy and area waste plans have to be material considerations for decision makers to take into account when making development control decisions or preparing development plans. Where a local authority is the developer or has an interest in the development, the Scottish ministers might become involved and might have to determine the planning application. However, that would depend on the circumstances of the case.
As I said, the plans that the motion refers to are at the moment speculative. The national waste strategy acknowledges that there may be a role for energy from waste in our waste management system. Where energy from waste is used, I want it to be part of an integrated waste management system. That means doing what we sensibly can higher up the waste hierarchy. We need to work to minimise the waste that we produce—reusing, recycling and composting. Only then would we use the waste that cannot be dealt with in those ways by extracting the energy from it. If an area waste plan clearly demonstrates that energy from waste is a necessary part of the system and is required to meet the strategy's objectives, I will support that decision.
The 11 area waste plans are currently at various stages. Two are complete and out to final consultation. Several others have produced issues papers that aim to gather public opinion on potential options. I was pleased to see that the Forth valley and Argyll and Bute area waste plans have focused heavily on recycling and composting options to enable a shift away from landfill. The point of preparing local plans is to find appropriate local solutions that are widely accepted.
The motion refers to the possible health effects of the chemical emissions from waste incinerators. The Executive recognises the public's health concerns about energy-from-waste plants. However, we want to keep the issue in perspective. Unlike more diffuse pollution, such as that from traffic, bonfires or even firework displays, stringent procedures are in place to allow the Scottish Environment Protection Agency to monitor emissions from energy-from-waste facilities.
Any new plants would have to be licensed under the new pollution, prevention and control regime. Shona Robison and John McAllion mentioned the Baldovie incinerator. As my colleague Mr McAllion said, SEPA is monitoring that closely and will take action if it becomes necessary to do so. The council might have to prepare the waste more before incinerating it.
This morning in Glasgow, I gave the opening address at the National Society for Clean Air conference on sustainable waste management. I made it clear that mass-burn incineration should not be considered a replacement for landfill and that we do not want to move from one form of dependency to another.
Last month, I announced a statutory consultation on the renewables obligation (Scotland). In response to an initial consultation, the Executive decided against supporting the conventional incineration of municipal waste under the ROS. It is proposed that newer, cleaner technologies such as gasification and pyrolysis will be supported where they fit in as part of an integrated waste management system.
Does the minister agree that those systems can be more diverse and would lend themselves to combined heat and power systems?
Yes, indeed. That is why the newer, cleaner technologies can be supported under the ROS.
The motion refers to Scotland's low recycling rates in comparison to other European countries and asks the Executive to implement policies that promote a resource-efficient, recycling society. It is important to assure members that the Executive is committed to implementing such policies through the national waste strategy. Through the strategy, we provide a framework for moving towards sustainable waste management. This is the first time that waste issues have been addressed on a Scotland-wide level. That involves finding the best practicable environmental option for waste.
A strategy would be of little use without financial backing. We have therefore established a new strategic waste fund and £50.4 million has been made available to local authorities over the next three years for the implementation of area waste plans. That money will be available only for the implementation of those projects that are in line with the relevant area waste plan and that therefore accord with the best practicable environmental option.
During the past financial year, £3 million was distributed among all local authorities to allow them to increase their recycling and composting efforts. That funding has been put to many good uses, to establish new schemes or expand existing ones. Interim reports have suggested that many authorities will be able to show significant improvements in their recycling rates as a result of that funding.
Targets were mentioned; I am able to say that we are actively considering the issue. Sylvia Jackson referred to an issue relating to cement-making kilns. As she said, I have been in discussion with her on the issue. She referred to work carried out south of the border. I am not familiar with it, so I invite her to write to me or meet me about it—I will be happy to discuss it. She also mentioned an advertising campaign. I could not agree with her more about that idea. In fact, the Scottish Executive is about to launch a major television advertising campaign on environmental issues. The second part of that campaign will address the whole area of waste. We have to look to the longer term and the need to change public attitudes.
Today's debate has been a welcome contribution to raising awareness of an issue that has the potential to cause great controversy. We have to manage waste somehow and the decisions that are being made now are important. No waste management option will be completely risk-free. The task of each area waste plan is to select the best way forward. The Scottish Executive is committed to changing how we deal with waste and we fully acknowledge that a radical shift in attitude and awareness is required if we are to achieve waste management solutions fit for the 21st century.
Meeting closed at 17:52.