Official Report 716KB pdf
Our second item of business is consideration of the Circular Economy (Scotland) Bill on day 4 of stage 2. Gosh, how time flies when you are having fun.
I welcome to the meeting Gillian Martin, the Minister for Climate Action, and her supporting officials. I also welcome Sarah Boyack, Maurice Golden and Graham Simpson. At last week’s meeting, the committee ended the day’s consideration of the bill having agreed to section 13 and disposed of amendments 66 and 67.
Section 14—Littering from a vehicle
Amendment 119, in my name, is grouped with amendment 120. I will move amendment 119 and speak to both amendments in the group.
I had hoped to get amendment 119 dealt with last week. It is a fairly simple amendment about littering from private vehicles. Before I go into detail, I remind members that, as a farmer with landholdings in Moray, I experience fly-tipping on a regular basis, whether that be from moving vehicles or from other vehicles that just stop and turf stuff out the back. It can be anything from bottles to builders’ rubble. Bottles cause immense problems because they choke and kill my cows and their calves. I am therefore a little bit more bought into this problem, perhaps, than some others, but I know that everyone faces it.
In my lifetime, I have seen various campaigns to stop this, such as the dumb dumpers and don’t be a tosser campaigns. All those campaigns have been to stop people throwing rubbish out of their windows. However, when we go up the A9, as I did on Thursday night, just after the bend on the dual carriageway at Dalnacardoch, there is a phenomenal amount of rubbish, which has obviously accumulated because of people throwing stuff out of windows in places where they think that they cannot be seen, and it is disgusting. We will all have places like that within our constituencies, where people just throw rubbish out of their windows because they do not care.
To my mind, the problem with that is simple. We have to pay somebody to come along and clear it all up, but, because rubbish is dumped in the most dangerous places on the road where there are no sight lines—that is why it is dumped there—we are often putting people’s lives at risk to clear it up. I believe that we should send a strong signal to those people who think that it is appropriate to throw things out of the window that that it is not appropriate. That is why my two amendments are, first, to increase the penalty charge to a minimum of £500 and, secondly and ancillary to that, to make sure that that penalty can be carried through.
People say that the point of the fixed-penalty notice should be that it applies to the act of throwing rubbish out of a window. That can be so, but the beauty of my amendment is that it relates to the owner of the vehicle, too. If somebody gets a fixed-penalty notice, the owner of the vehicle concerned—if it is a commercial vehicle—can be stung for the fine, which makes them responsible for their employees or the person who had the vehicle. That seems a logical move if we are to ensure that we keep our countryside and our cities beautiful by not throwing stuff out of the window.
I am listening to what you say about fining the owners of vehicles, convener, but how on earth could, say, a bus company stop passengers from opening windows and chucking rubbish out? How could that happen with minibuses?
Thank you for the intervention, and I am delighted that you are listening. I do not think that such a fine has to be mandatory; what I am saying is that, where a fine is imposed, the minimum level should be £500 to make it sensible. We also have to take into account the fact that a passenger throwing rubbish out of a window will be slightly different to the driver in a commercial vehicle doing it. Anyway, we all know that this happens, and we see it everywhere we go.
That is the premise of my two amendments, and I am delighted to throw the discussion open to other members.
I move amendment 119.
I, too, have been listening very carefully to what you have been saying, convener, and it must strike a chord with probably every single member here. I have already mentioned litter picking during the course of stage 2. I am sure that most of us will have picked litter, and I recall how, when I was doing so in a wooded area next to the East Kilbride expressway, which is a dual carriageway, I saw litter everywhere. It had to have been thrown from vehicles. Of course, some of it had not been—there were sofas deep in the woods, for example—but a lot of it must have been from vehicles and it was inaccessible to the council. You have said, convener, that somebody has got to come and clear the rubbish up; sometimes that somebody is just a volunteer, not the council, and sometimes the litter, particularly bottles, can be left for years, unless somebody comes along and picks it up.
I do not have a vote on this, but if I had, I would be strongly supporting the amendments for the reasons outlined.
Thank you. If no other member wishes to speak, I will call the minister.
Thank you, convener. I understand the intentions behind your amendments. It is not appropriate to throw litter from a vehicle, and I understand the frustration that we all feel about the amount of litter on our roadsides.
The bill as drafted creates flexibility for the Scottish ministers to set the civil penalty charge at an appropriate amount and will also allow for consultation with local authorities and other stakeholders in respect of the amount. For those reasons, I cannot support the amendments.
Proposed new section 88C(5) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, as inserted by section 14, provides a regulation-making power to ministers to set—and to increase—the amount that may be imposed by way of a civil penalty charge. The civil penalty regime provided for under section 14 allows the registered keeper of a vehicle to be issued with a civil penalty charge where an authorised officer is satisfied to the civil standard—that is, on the balance of probabilities—that a littering offence has taken place from the vehicle.
Amendment 119 would set the civil penalty vastly higher than the current fixed-penalty charge amount for a littering offence; I understand why you would want to do so, convener, but I note that the penalty is currently fixed at £80 and can be increased by secondary legislation to a maximum of £500. The amendment, therefore, would make the civil penalty amount for a littering offence from a vehicle disproportionate in respect of the nature of the offence—
Will you take an intervention, minister?
Yes, I will.
Thank you, and I am sorry to stop you in full flow. It would be helpful for me if, before you concluded your comments, you could give me an indication of what level of fixed-penalty charge would be appropriate for the owner of a vehicle who allowed rubbish to be dumped from it.
As I have already said, the appropriate amount would be determined in consultation with local authorities and there would be a certain degree of scrutiny of that through secondary legislation. It would not be for me to say at the moment what I think the level should be, because that would be determined in consultation. At the moment it is £80. Whether the amount should be higher can be addressed as a result of what we are putting into the bill.
I will leave the matter there, in the interests of time. I am sorry that I cannot support your amendments in this group, convener. I understand the reason behind them, but I believe that setting the minimum charge at £500 is disproportionate.
09:15
Before I do my summing up, Jackie Dunbar wishes to make a quick declaration.
Yes. I should have learned from the previous three days of stage 2 consideration to do this at the start, so my apologies. I refer members to my entry in the register of members’ interests. I was a local councillor for Aberdeen City Council for the first year of this parliamentary session.
Your actions have sparked Douglas Lumsden to follow you on that particular point.
Yes: I will follow Jackie Dunbar on that. I remind everyone of my entry in the register of members’ interests, which shows that I was a local councillor at the start of this parliamentary session.
I will now wind up on this group. At this stage, I am disappointed that the minister is not prepared to give us an indication of what an appropriate level of fine would be. She suggests that going from £80 to £500 is disproportionate and unreasonable, but I would say to committee members that it is clear that £80 charges are not working. If £80 was working, we would not see all the rubbish that we do see along the edge of the road.
I absolutely believe that, by sending out a strong and clear message to people that littering from vehicles is unacceptable—
Will you take an intervention, convener?
I will.
Do you have any idea of how many fixed-penalty notices have been issued over the past five years? Perhaps, because there is not a strong enough deterrent and nobody is getting caught, that is why it happens. Would you agree with that?
I do not know the specific answer, although I tried to do some research on how many fines Moray Council had issued for fly-tipping, and the answer was very few, if any. I do not think that there were any, in fact.
I am happy also to give way to Bob Doris, who wishes to come in.
Like Jackie Dunbar, I have been listening intently. I am wondering whether the relationship with enforcement is not so much about the amount of the fine as about having effective enforcement in the first place. If someone throws something out of a car window knowing that they could be fined £80, they are pretty unlikely to do it. Likewise at £500. However, if they throw something out of the window thinking that they will not be detected, the size of the fine might not be the underlying deterrent. The deterrent is that you may be caught and a fine may be levied. What is your consideration of that point?
You are of course quite right with your comments that it is all about enforcement. That is why I would support more policemen and policewomen on the streets, but if I tried to make that part of the bill, to ensure that enforcement was carried out, I might not get away with it.
I am happy to give way to Mr Doris again, but I will then conclude.
This is really just for clarity. I am sure that you are not suggesting that we should employ more police officers simply to have a force for detecting people throwing litter out of car windows. There may be other uses for police resources.
You are entirely correct but, if there are more policemen and policewomen on the streets, it is unlikely that crimes will be committed in the first place.
My argument is simple, and it is disappointing that the Government cannot support my proposal, especially as rural areas are blighted by this particular problem. There are areas of my farm at home where I do not put young calves next to the road, because the chances are that they will eat plastic bottles and choke on them. If that does not kill them, the veterinary bills will be considerably more than £500.
I will note the committee’s vote but, if the minister is not going to support amendment 119, I ask her to come up with a figure and consider working with me later to work out an appropriate minimum figure.
The question is, that amendment 119 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con
Against
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
The result of the division is: For 3, Against 4, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 119 disagreed to.
My amendment 120 was debated with amendment 119. As that amendment was not agreed to, I will not move amendment 120.
Amendment 120 not moved.
Amendment 115 moved—[Douglas Lumsden].
The question is, that amendment 115 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con
Against
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
The result of the division is: For 2, Against 5, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 115 disagreed to.
Amendment 68, in the name of Graham Simpson, has already been debated with amendment 5. I remind members that amendments 68 and 69 are direct alternatives.
Amendment 68 not moved.
Amendment 69 moved—[Graham Simpson].
The question is, that amendment 69 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con
Against
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
The result of the division is: For 2, Against 5, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 69 disagreed to.
Amendment 70 has already been debated with amendment 5. I remind members that amendments 70 and 71 are direct alternatives.
Amendment 70 not moved.
Amendment 71 moved—[Graham Simpson].
The question is, that amendment 71 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con
Against
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
The result of the division is: For 2, Against 5, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 71 disagreed to.
Section 14 agreed to.
After section 14
Amendment 72 not moved.
Section 15—Powers to search and seize vehicles, etc
Amendment 116 moved—[Douglas Lumsden].
The question is, that amendment 116 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con
Against
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
The result of the division is: For 2, Against 5, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 116 disagreed to.
Amendment 117 moved—[Douglas Lumsden].
The question is, that amendment 117 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con
Against
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
The result of the division is: For 2, Against 5, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 117 disagreed to.
Amendment 73, in the name of Graham Simpson, has already been debated with amendment 5. I remind members that amendments 73 and 74 are direct alternatives.
Amendment 73 not moved.
Amendment 74 moved—[Graham Simpson].
The question is, that amendment 74 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con
Against
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
The result of the division is: For 2, Against 5, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 74 disagreed to.
Amendment 75, in the name of Graham Simpson, has already been debated with amendment 5. I remind members that amendments 75 and 76 are direct alternatives.
Amendment 75 not moved.
Amendment 76 moved—[Graham Simpson].
The question is, that amendment 76 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con
Against
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
The result of the division is: For 2, Against 5, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 76 disagreed to.
Amendment 77 not moved.
Sections 15 and 16 agreed to.
After section 16
Amendment 169, in the name of Lorna Slater, is in a group on its own.
Amendment 169 responds to requests from local authorities for powers to issue fixed-penalty notices in relation to offences and regulations under section 140 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, which ban the supply of environmentally harmful items. That was initially raised in the context of the single-use plastics ban, and it was raised by trading standards during the consultation on the draft regulations banning the sale and supply of single-use vapes.
At present, the only option for local authorities is to report any offences under those kinds of regulations for prosecution. Amendment 169 would add a new provision to the bill to provide a regulation-making power for ministers to enable local authorities to issue fixed-penalty notices to individuals or businesses for offences in those kinds of regulations. It would allow for more effective and proportionate enforcement of those offences and would give powers to local authorities that already exist in the rest of the United Kingdom.
I move amendment 169.
I welcome the amendment and agree with the intention of having more effective enforcement. That theme has come up already in the debate on the bill. What assessment has the Government made of the resourcing requirement around it? We know that additional expectations on local authorities, particularly regarding enforcement, take time and resource on the ground. What assessment has been made and are there opportunities to work a bit smarter in that area?
The amendment is a result of local authorities asking the previous minister to have it in place. As I mentioned, their only recourse was to get the police involved and they wanted to be able to issue fixed-penalty notices. I do not have any information about a resourcing implication arising from that. It was local authorities that came to us and said that they wanted that power, so I am making the assumption that they have the resources in place to do that. They are obviously having things reported to them and they feel powerless.
Trading standards already enforce the powers, but the amendment gives local authorities the tools to do the same. If there were any resourcing implications, I imagine that local authorities would have brought that to my, or the previous minister’s, attention and they have not done so.
Thank you.
No other member wishes to speak, so I ask the minister to wind up.
I was finished already.
Amendment 169 agreed to.
Amendment 170 not moved.
Section 17—Duty to make information publicly available
Amendments 171 to 173 not moved.
Section 17 agreed to.
After section 17
Amendment 174, in the name of Lorna Slater, is grouped with amendment 180.
Zero Waste Scotland is Scotland’s circular economy expert. Over the next decade, it will play a pivotal role in accelerating and inspiring transformation in our economy and society, so that resources are valued to their maximum extent and market opportunities are opened up in Scotland as a result. Zero Waste Scotland will work with businesses, local authorities, public body partners and communities, on behalf of the Scottish ministers, in the development and delivery of key policies, such as those that are set out in the circular economy and waste route map and the circular economy strategy that is proposed in the bill.
Amendments 174 and 180 will ensure that relevant legislation that is applicable to Scotland’s other public bodies will now also apply to Zero Waste Scotland. That follows a decision made by the Office for National Statistics in April 2023 that Zero Waste Scotland be classified as a public sector organisation as it is largely funded and directed by the Scottish ministers. Work is well under way to transition the organisation to become an executive non-departmental public body of the Scottish Government.
The amendments insert a new schedule into the bill to bring Zero Waste Scotland into various pieces of legislation that apply to public bodies and will bring its governance and accountability requirements into line with other public bodies. Those requirements have been agreed with the Zero Waste Scotland board and are consistent with duties placed on environmental and economic public body delivery partners that work alongside the organisation to deliver environment and economy outcomes of the national performance framework.
09:30In particular, Zero Waste Scotland will be subject to the requirements of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002, its ministerial board member appointments will be regulated by the Commissioner for Ethical Standards in Public Life in Scotland and its board members will be required to comply with a code of conduct. It will be required to maintain or improve women’s representation on its board and carry out impact assessments for island communities when exercising its functions. It will also be required to have a records management plan, to provide information on expenditure and the exercise of functions and to comply with statutory public procurement requirements.
It is our intention also to ensure that Zero Waste Scotland is subject to equalities duties, but those cannot be imposed via amendments in the bill and will be imposed separately under secondary legislation.
What is the estimated cost of the transition for Zero Waste Scotland?
I will have to get my officials to give me that information. I am happy to write to you. I do not have information on any cost in particular. Zero Waste Scotland is keen for the transition to happen. I am looking at my officials. [Interruption.] I will write to you.
Thank you.
I would rather that you write not to Mr Golden but to the committee so that the committee can understand the answer. We will ensure that he gets a copy.
Mr Golden has been here so much that I have almost begun to think of him as part of the committee. That is probably what happened.
I move amendment 174.
I underline the importance of Zero Waste Scotland. It is a trusted body that is able to look independently at some of the big issues around how we move to a circular economy. It has done some incredible work.
The move to make Zero Waste Scotland a public body and put it firmly and squarely into the public bodies legislation is good. It underlines the organisation’s status. That is hugely important because, going forward, we will need the independent and scientifically robust work that Zero Waste Scotland does. I know that it works closely with industry on that.
Zero Waste Scotland’s role is critical and it is good to see it being underlined in the bill. I put on record my thanks for the leadership of Iain Gulland, who has been phenomenal over the years.
I am a little concerned that we are about to vote on something that I do not know the costs of. That is an uncomfortable place to be. I agree with the principle of what you are trying to achieve, minister, but I might be concerned if it were to cost the entire Scottish budget. However, you have given us no indication.
This is not something that I had in my notes, but my officials tell me that it is funded via existing grant aid. If there is any more detail that I can get the committee, I will.
I hope that everyone understands the reasons for the change in the status of Zero Waste Scotland. It speaks to the fact that so many amendments that we have had over the past four weeks have sought more accountability. Giving Zero Waste Scotland the status of an executive NDPB will improve accountability for its data and actions.
You have summarised very eloquently why I want to support it. The problem is that, if it is funded by existing grant aid, something else will have to be given up. You cannot get the same service out of a £1 note or a £1 coin.
There are no material additional costs to the running of Zero Waste Scotland. Zero Waste Scotland will just be more accountable, as I set out in my remarks. It will have a duty to have a board that has equal representation, for example, and it will have more accountability and public sector duties associated with it. However, operationally, there will not be additional costs.
When additional duties, responsibilities and accountabilities are placed on public bodies, the answer that we get from the Government all the time is that existing resources will suffice to cover those. Saying that is, therefore, not an unexpected step, but how will the Scottish Government ensure that the body is sufficiently funded going forward? What monitoring process is in place to make sure that there will be no additional burdens? We have been given reassurances that there will not be, but will there be on-going monitoring of the funds of the organisation and would it approach the Government if it felt that it needed additional resource?
I am sorry. I sparked this, and I have done it wrong. As convener, I will take the rap on the knuckle. Questions can be put to the minister and she will get a chance to answer them all when she winds up at the end. That is the way it should have been done. I benefited from breaking the rules myself, so I apologise. I will bring in Graham Simpson and then ask the minister to conclude.
I apologise, convener. I was just—
I know—you were following my lead. I was entirely wrong, Mr Doris, which I have already accepted. Thank you for pointing it out again.
I am with you, convener. I think that we can accept the principle, but it is not really good enough for the minister to come with an amendment that she does not know the cost of. First, she said that she did not know the cost of it, and then she said that it was zero cost. It is a bit confusing. Every bill has a financial memorandum, so you need to know the cost of things. I think that you need to know the cost of the amendment. That is pretty basic stuff when we come to legislating. I imagine that the committee will probably vote for the amendment if it comes to a vote, but process-wise, that is not the way it should be done.
If any other member had lodged an uncosted amendment, the minister would be criticising them—rightly so—for bringing forward uncosted amendments. She would probably have said, “I cannot support the amendment at this stage because we do not know the cost.” I will throw that back at the minister. She has come here with something that is uncosted, and then, when a piece of paper was passed to her by an official, she suddenly says that there is no cost. Which is it, and where is the evidence?
Mr Simpson, I understand your point, and I will turn to the minister. Of course the minister will get bits of paper passed to her—I would expect briefings from my clerks—because she cannot have everything right there. That is the point of having the officials around the table, so I am not going to accept that criticism of her.
Minister, I am happy for you to wind up now.
Thank you for that, convener. Obviously, if there is not a material difference in the budget that is required for something, it will not be in my notes or in the presentation that I give you. The amendment is really about the material difference that it will make in the responsibilities and the accountabilities of Zero Waste Scotland. If there is not an associated cost with that, of course the cost is not something that I will have highlighted. Obviously, convener, you have every right to ask me whether there is an associated cost, and I did not have that in front of me. My officials have very kindly given me detail of that. There will not be any material cost in that change. Zero Waste Scotland receives almost 100 per cent of its funding from the Scottish Government, and operations are based around Scottish Government priorities and processes.
The committee is about to decide on the amendment. As a result of that decision, there will again be a reflection on whether it means a change to the financial memorandum ahead of stage 3, although it is not expected that it will do so.
To reply to Mr Doris, as he and the committee know, the Scottish budget takes into account what is required of public bodies, and budgets are set accordingly during the budget process.
I do not accept Mr Simpson’s criticism of the way in which I work and the interactions that I have with my officials, but I also do not accept that I am putting—
Sorry, minister—
Can I continue?
No. With the greatest respect, I have chided Mr Simpson for his comments, and I do not think that it is up to you to chide him again. I have done it once, so please do not do it again. I am happy for officials to pass you information—that is why they are sitting at the table with you. I have made that entirely clear. I do not think that it is worth continually pushing on that, so I ask you to sum up without further chiding.
I did not intend to chide Mr Simpson; I intended to answer him. If there was any material difference as a result of the amendment, I would have brought that to the committee. There is not and, therefore, I did not have the information in front of me. I hope that the committee is now satisfied that it has all the information that it needs to make a judgment on the amendment.
Thank you. I assume that you are pressing the amendment, minister.
Yes.
Amendment 174 agreed to.
Amendment 207, in the name of Maurice Golden, is in a group on its own.
Amendment 207 is on waste reprocessing infrastructure. I should point out that, for the amendment to take effect, legislation is not required, but it is in the spirit of the Scottish Government’s bill, which introduces legislative requirements on, for example, the circular economy strategy, even though that does not require legislation.
The background is that the Scottish Government commissioned an excellent review of incineration by Dr Colin Church. I would like that to be mirrored across all waste reprocessing infrastructure. The review on incineration was conducted too late, but it identified overcapacity for Scotland. There is an opportunity to widen the scope and to commission an independent expert or somebody else to look at opportunities on which Scotland can capitalise, and then produce a report. For example, there could be anaerobic digestion linked to feedstock mapping. There could be a focus on our island communities such as Orkney, which would be a prime example—the report could identify an opportunity for an AD plant there.
Does the member agree that part of the issue is that some aspects of waste processing have naturally fallen more in the realm of the energy strategy and thinking about how we meet energy needs—that is particularly the case with energy from waste—and less in the circular economy space? Historically, the issue has fallen between the stools of energy and waste, but you seem to be suggesting that it should absolutely be seen as part of waste processing infrastructure.
Yes—definitely. Scotland can send a signal to the market. For example, if the Scottish Government report that is proposed in the amendment said that, due to its analysis, there should be a plastic recycling facility, that would send a signal. I would suggest that we should have such a facility, but it would be down to the experts to focus on that. The report could be on an electric arc furnace or turbine refurbishment. There are a host of opportunities in this space, and the Government guidance could ultimately influence the market. There is clearly a gap.
We know that there is enough plastic in Scotland to work with a plastic recycling facility, but we do not have one, so let us get experts to guide the market in that space.
09:45
I wonder whether the report could set out what is being recycled now and what is not. Mr Golden and I are aware that certain products that people put in their recycling bins are not actually getting recycled. I wonder whether the report could go into that level of detail. If it did, it would be of great interest to the public and it would help us to address the gaps.
Definitely. A good example of that is absorbent hygiene products. Is there enough capacity in Scotland for a plant that recycles them back into food-grade plastic? I do not know the answer to that, but that is what I would like the amendment to achieve.
There are policy decisions layered on that. As we have discussed, within the scope of absorbent hygiene products, for example, the Scottish Government might look at that and say that we could have a recycling plant but, from a policy perspective, it would like to have real nappies, so it is not keen to pursue a recycling plant. Alternatively, the ideas could dovetail and work together. Until we have the information, it will be very difficult for the Government to make those policy calls, but it would be an excellent starting point to move up the waste hierarchy and allow investment—whether it be private sector or Government investment—in jobs, ultimately.
If we follow the let-the-market-rip approach, we will not have the job and climate change opportunities here in Scotland and we will end up with unintended consequences.
I move amendment 207.
Thank you very much. I am just looking around to see whether any other member wishes to contribute.
I will comment very briefly, convener. I thank Maurice Golden for acknowledging Lorna Slater’s work in commissioning the review on incineration. That came on the back of a lot of cross-party frustration that, about five or six years ago, the Government did not have a handle on what was coming in terms of incinerators and what the demand was in Scotland, given that they have a role but it is very much at the bottom of the waste hierarchy rather than the top. More planning on infrastructure is needed.
I would be interested to hear the minister’s response to the amendment, because I am sympathetic to legislating for something in that space in the bill. I am not sure whether it should be in the exact form of words that we are considering at stage 2, so I will listen to the minister’s view on that. If it is not, something could be proposed at stage 3 that is perhaps a little bit more elegant and gives a little bit more flexibility for the Government to respond.
The basic point is that we absolutely need to be planning for the future in terms of waste and energy.
Thank you very much, Mark. No one else wishes to speak. Minister, would you like to respond?
Yes, thank you, convener. I listened carefully to Maurice Golden and I respect the intention behind amendment 207. I support the ambition to increase the visibility of existing and planned waste reprocessing infrastructure. I can see the benefits that it can bring for drive and investment but, at the moment, I do not consider that, as it is drafted, the requirement should be in the bill. I would value having time to consider the amendment more carefully, including evaluating costing, timing, the feasibility of developing a report, the impact on other commitments and whether commissioning an independent review would be a more appropriate strategy.
We mentioned the report that was undertaken in relation to incineration that was referred to by a couple of members, particularly Mr Golden. Within the draft circular economy and waste route map, data and infrastructure are identified as key areas of focus that will underpin the circular economy transformation that we need to deliver. That underlines the importance of identifying future strategic infrastructure requirements for Scotland as a whole and, taking a place-based approach, for local needs. That is linked to national planning framework 4.
It sounds as though the minister will not support amendment 207. However, from listening to Maurice Golden, I think that it is important to set out exactly the direction of travel, so that people can make investment decisions. If that is not going to be in the bill, can the minister say when that information will be forthcoming? I think that it is needed, and that it would bring a lot of investment.
I will come to that, but I would rather address the issue at the end of my response to Mr Golden. I hope that Mr Lumsden is happy with that.
Recycling co-design is an example of our approach. Local government will give explicit consideration to future infrastructure requirements to support the delivery of high-performing services, alongside there being an assessment of the potential for multiple local authorities to collaborate or partner and an assessment of the potential efficiencies and economies of scale that are on offer, which is relevant in relation to attracting further inward investment. That is part of the recycling co-design process, which is fundamental and runs throughout the bill. That will complement the development of Scotland’s residual waste plan to 2045, which will investigate and make recommendations on Scotland’s long-term infrastructure requirements to manage waste. There are processes and collaboration in place that address the issue directly.
If Mr Golden does not press his amendment today, I would be happy to work with him to consider the merits of publishing a report such as the one that he mentions. I am not yet convinced that a provision for that has to be included in the bill, but I am willing to consider whether such a report is required as part of our broader work on the circular economy.
I call Maurice Golden to wind up and press or withdraw amendment 207.
Mr Ruskell was right to point out that, during the previous parliamentary session, the Greens and Conservatives voted for a ban on incineration—I think that, later in the session, Labour came on board, too. It was Lorna Slater who commissioned that excellent report from Dr Colin Church, which is part of an evidence-based approach to waste reprocessing infrastructure. However, I would suggest that what was done came a decade too late. That was not the minister’s fault; it was a matter of timing. Timing is critical. If we are in a climate emergency, we need to act quickly.
I thought that one option would be for the infrastructure report to perhaps be given to Zero Waste Scotland, as additional duties will not cost anything.
With regard to the overall thought process, the minister said that the issue that we are discussing is a key area of focus. However, I worked on a 2015 bioeconomy report in Orkney and, almost a decade later, there has been no progress on establishing an AD plant for Orkney. Many communities throughout Scotland are missing out while we appear to be asleep at the wheel.
The other aspect that I would point out, which the minister raised, is that the issue needs to be above local authority level. If an individual local authority is considering having, for example, a plastic recycling facility, it will conclude that it does not produce enough plastic to warrant a plastic facility, even if it collected all of it. I say that with no disrespect to local authorities, because the fact is that, for such a facility, you need a scale of supply above that which a local authority will be able to collect, which means that a local authority will not make a decision to establish one.
It is possible that Mr Golden missed what I said about an assessment of the potential for multiple local authorities to collaborate or partner, in order to avoid the scenario that he described.
I accept that, but many pieces of waste reprocessing infrastructure would require a Scotland-wide approach, so “multiple” would have to mean around 25 local authorities. I am not saying that local authorities should not be involved—they very much should be involved—but the issue must be managed at a very high level. That is not a requirement for every facility, because something like an AD plant could be managed at a local or even community level. It would be useful to give local authorities an indication of what is achievable in their area, and they should be very much part of the process in relation to such facilities.
However, for certain other facilities, you are really looking at a Scotland-wide scale, and—let us be brutally honest—in relation to many of those facilities, Scotland will be competing with Birmingham, Manchester and London for the finance to build them. That is why the gap must be bridged through the use of private finance—which I think that the report that my amendment proposes would help to secure—or through the Scottish Government using taxpayers’ resources to provide grants.
You mentioned materials recovery from disposable nappies as being something that could be done in a nationwide facility. Could you reflect on the facility in Fife that was developed to deal with soft plastics—the kind of plastic films that are extremely difficult to recycle and reuse? The facility was developed on the back of a contract with Fife Council, but it perhaps did not receive the scale of material that it would if it were working on a national basis. Perhaps that is another example of a situation in which it might be useful to have a report that looks at the national infrastructure that is required for a problem that all local authorities have, as well providing a more detailed regional consideration of AD and other facilities that councils could collaborate on.
That is an excellent point. Fife has been in the vanguard of rolling out recycling facilities, right back to the start in 2005. There are two parts to the issue. The first concerns the evidence: on the point about soft plastics, we need to know what sort of scale of material is required for such a plant. The second part to the issue is the requirement, once we have that information, for a policy decision to be made. That is where advice needs to be given to local authorities because, on a tonnage basis, local authorities might decide that they do not want to collect soft plastics because they get less per tonne for that waste. However, if there is an ability to recycle that material, the decision perhaps goes beyond the financials.
The Scottish Government or Zero Waste Scotland have a key role to play in guiding local authorities and the market in terms of the Scottish Government’s vision for Scotland in relation to what infrastructure and jobs can be provided. As the member points out, where the decisions are left to local authorities, the situation can be very difficult. I do not know the finances regarding the Fife facility, in particular, but perhaps it would have made a meaningful difference if Clackmannanshire, Stirling and Dundee had also been part of that consortium. That is an example of a situation in which it would be helpful for Government to get involved and provide a signal not just to the market but to local authorities.
I have heard the minister’s comments and I would be delighted to work with her on the issue. Therefore, I seek to withdraw amendment 207.
Amendment 207, by agreement, withdrawn.
Section 18 agreed to.
Section 19—Commencement
Amendment 175 moved—[Maurice Golden].
The question is, that amendment 175 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con
Against
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
The result of the division is: For 2, Against 5, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 175 disagreed to.
Amendments 176, 78, 177 and 178, 79 and 179 not moved.
Sections 19 and 20 agreed to.
At an appropriate place in the Bill
Amendment 180 moved—[Gillian Martin]—and agreed to.
Long title agreed to.
Thank you very much, minister, and thank you to your officials. The bill will now go to the chamber for stage 3 consideration on a date that is yet to be determined.
We will have a short pause to allow a change of witnesses.
10:01 Meeting suspended.