Waste and Emissions Trading Bill

– in the Scottish Parliament at 12:21 pm on 28 November 2002.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of George Reid George Reid Scottish National Party 12:21, 28 November 2002

The next item of business is a short debate on motion S1M-3649, in the name of Allan Wilson, on the Waste and Emissions Trading Bill, which is UK legislation.

Photo of Allan Wilson Allan Wilson Labour 12:29, 28 November 2002

The motion asks the Parliament to agree to the introduction of the Waste and Emissions Trading Bill, which would enable us to do three things. First, it would make us better able to achieve our targets of increasing recycling and composting and reducing waste that is sent to landfill. Secondly, the bill would fulfil our European obligations. Thirdly, it would enable more effective operation of emissions trading schemes. As members know, the Executive moves a Sewel motion when it proposes that the Scottish Parliament agree that the Westminster Parliament should consider proposals for legislation in a devolved area.

As its name suggests, the bill relates to two policy areas. I will begin by discussing the emissions trading element of the bill. As part of the UK climate change programme, to which the Scottish Executive is committed to making an equitable contribution through the Scottish climate change programme, the UK Government established a UK-wide emissions trading scheme. The purpose of the scheme, which has been operating across the UK with the agreement of the Scottish Parliament since 2 April 2002, is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions at minimum cost.

One way in which organisations can enter the scheme is by voluntarily taking on an emissions target in return for a financial incentive from the Government. A system of contractual penalties is in place for participants in the scheme who fail to meet their obligations. However, it was always the intention to make the penalties for participants in the scheme statutory when Westminster parliamentary time became available. All the participants in the scheme will welcome that move because a robust compliance regime is needed to underpin and stimulate a successful market.

In addition to making the penalties for the UK-wide emissions trading scheme statutory, the bill would grant powers to impose equivalent penalties in future emissions trading schemes. That power would extend to the Scottish ministers in the event of a Scotland-only emissions trading scheme. The bill would not alter the Scottish ministers' powers to establish a Scotland-only emissions trading scheme, but it is self-evident that the effectiveness of a trading scheme is increased by maximising the number of participants, hence the reason for establishing the existing UK-wide emissions trading scheme. I emphasise that the Scottish ministers would retain the responsibility for the policy, which would be delivered through instruments.

The bill would provide for the design of a landfill allowances system, which would limit the amount of biodegradable waste that local authorities may place in landfill sites. The landfill directive requires member states of the European Union to reduce the total weight of biodegradable municipal waste that is sent to landfill. The decomposition of such waste produces various gases, including methane, which is a powerful greenhouse gas.

The landfill allowance system that the bill would put in place would allow the UK's obligation under the landfill directive to be divided among the UK's constituent Administrations. The same instrument would be used to divide the targets among local authorities. The Scottish ministers would determine the number of allowances that are issued in Scotland, within our share of the directive targets, and the distribution of those allowances.

The bill would transpose the landfill directive obligation for a strategy for reduction in biodegradable waste. It would be for the Scottish ministers to prepare a strategy for Scotland. The bill would provide for penalties for local authorities that use landfill in excess of their allowances and for landfill operators that fail to supply information. Powers would be granted to the Scottish ministers to determine whether Scottish local authorities may trade their allowances.

The landfill-related clauses would give the Scottish ministers an effective means of ensuring that the landfill directive targets are delivered in Scotland. All members agree that our reliance on landfill must be stopped and that the reduction and management of waste are central to sustainable development. Our reliance on landfill is no longer an option. The national waste strategy offers a framework within which Scotland can reduce the amount of waste it produces and deal with the waste that is produced in more sustainable ways.

As members will be aware, the Executive is committed to increasing recycling and composting of waste to 25 per cent and to reducing the amount of biodegradable municipal waste that goes to landfill to 1.5 million tonnes by 2006. We have made £230 million available in the next three years to help local authorities respond to that challenge. We believe that taking advantage of the bill is an elegant and effective way of furthering our environmental interests in Scotland.

I move,

That the Parliament supports the principles of the Waste and Emissions Trading Bill and agrees that the provisions in the Bill that relate to devolved matters should be considered by the UK Parliament.

Photo of Bruce Crawford Bruce Crawford Scottish National Party 12:35, 28 November 2002

I begin, as the minister did, by addressing part 2 of the bill, which deals with carbon emissions trading. There is general support across all sectors for the development of an emissions trading scheme. The question is which level of government should implement such a trading scheme.

In the UK, we are on course to have the first economy-wide emissions trading scheme; however, the scheme will not be without its difficulties. On 23 October, the European Commission issued a draft directive on the introduction of an EU-wide scheme in 2005. Industry has signalled its fear that a go-it-alone UK proposal would prove incompatible with the EU scheme. The correct solution for Scotland might be to await the implementation of the EU directive and avoid unnecessary transition costs for government and business alike. However, without full scrutiny of the bill's impact on Scotland, no one in the chamber can be certain whether we should await the EU directive or proceed with the UK proposals. I therefore submit that, on the issue of carbon emissions trading, it would be premature to agree to Allan Wilson's motion.

Part 1 deals with waste. It is incredible that Scottish ministers are prepared to pass to the UK Government responsibility for setting maximum levels for biodegradable municipal waste that is sent to landfill. As the minister said, Scotland's record on recycling is a disgrace. The setting of maximum levels of waste, as a policy tool, would have a major impact on that record. We are at the bottom of the European recycling league, and it must be our responsibility to sort out the mess that we have created for ourselves. Passing the buck to the UK Government to sort out that mess is nothing short of an abdication of responsibility.

The Executive has made an astonishing U-turn on this issue. In February, in an Executive news release, Ross Finnie said:

"The National Waste Plan based on the area waste plans will be in place by Autumn this year. We then want to set mandatory recycling and waste reduction targets and the forthcoming Local Government Bill will give Ministers the power to set such targets."

No targets have been set as part of the Local Government in Scotland Bill, and now we know why. The Executive wants to neuter the Scottish Parliament further by letting Westminster exercise the most basic of powers. In doing so, it is putting in jeopardy the prospect of developing a strategic and holistic approach to our national waste plan. More important, it is denying Scotland the ownership of a problem that she should sort out for herself. That was what devolution was meant to be about. The Parliament should not agree to Allan Wilson's motion.

Photo of John Scott John Scott Conservative 12:38, 28 November 2002

We welcome the Sewel motion. From a unionist point of view, it makes sense to address waste and emissions on a UK-wide basis. That principle has long been established—one of the most recent examples of it was the emissions trading scheme, which came into force in March 2002. Given Scotland's poor record in environmental matters—we currently recycle only 6 per cent of our municipal waste—the bill is a further welcome step in the right direction. Friends of the Earth reports that 14 of our 32 local authorities still recycle less than 5 per cent of their waste and that 14 councils recycled less last year than they recycled the year before. Can we believe that?

We welcome the fact that the bill would set up a framework that would require local authorities progressively to reduce the amount of biodegradable municipal waste that they send to landfill. We welcome the fact that local authorities would be able to trade their landfill allowances within the UK, in what is essentially a quota system. We also cautiously welcome the introduction of penalties for local authorities that send excessive amounts of waste to landfill sites.

Photo of John Scott John Scott Conservative

No. I am short of time.

We welcome the introduction, in part 2, of penalties for participants in the UK greenhouse gas emissions trading scheme; those penalties would drive the UK emissions trading market. We accept the fact that the bill proposes a pragmatic approach that would deliver a market solution to some of our increasing environmental burdens. The combination of carrot and stick should to help drive us all towards meeting our Kyoto commitments.

However, the level of penalties and landfill taxes must not become either too great or just another stealth tax. Gordon Brown announced yesterday an increase in landfill tax of £3 per tonne by 2005-06 and by £3 per tonne in future years thereafter. That is excessive. It is important to note that, in 2001, UK companies paid £14 billion in environmental taxes to the Treasury, which was just over half the revenue raised from environmental taxation.

Photo of John Scott John Scott Conservative

I am sure that Mr Crawford will pass the letter to me after the debate.

Environmental taxation represents £1 in every £8 of overall business taxation. It is vital that taxation raised in that way be used to encourage recycling and it is important that increased taxation in recycling does not drive local authorities towards incineration.

It is essential that the Government address the increased use of imported coal in our power stations. The increased use of coal is one of the principal reasons why CO2 emissions have increased under Labour. Unless we address the problem now, it is unlikely that we will meet our Kyoto targets.

With those comments, we welcome and support the motion.

Photo of Nora Radcliffe Nora Radcliffe Liberal Democrat 12:41, 28 November 2002

The Liberal Democrats support the principles of the Waste and Emissions Trading Bill and agree that the provisions that relate to devolved matters should be considered by the UK Parliament. In this instance, it makes sense for us to leave it to Westminster to do the business. Trading credits would work better and would offer wider opportunities if the system were managed on a UK-wide basis. In any case, the companies that operate under the emissions trading scheme do so across the UK. Additionally, when the issue is non-controversial, I am quite happy, as a good Aberdonian, to use Westminster time and money to process bills.

The bill takes forward policies on waste management and climate change. It would establish a framework that will require local authorities to reduce progressively the amount of biodegradable waste that they send to landfill sites and would set up a system of tradable landfill allowances.

We have had a landfill tax since 1996, with an increasing tax per tonne, but that disincentive has not yet started to bite. There have been criticisms of the landfill tax credit scheme, but it has made money available to voluntary organisations to carry out small local projects and has worked well in that regard.

Part 2 would introduce statutory financial penalties for direct participants in the UK greenhouse gas emissions trading scheme who fail to comply with their emission reduction targets and would make it possible to attach penalties to future trading emissions schemes.

There is no dispute about the necessity of tackling waste and greenhouse gas emissions. Recent floods across Europe and closer to home have made apparent to the most casual observer the fact that global climate change is real and is causing damage here and now. There is widespread acceptance that action is needed. The bill would provide mechanisms to effect action. Trading credits have been demonstrated to be an effective way of levering action. They allow all players to participate and ensure that those with the potential to contribute most have an incentive to do so.

Removing biodegradable waste from the waste stream flow into landfill sites makes sense. That is only one element of the waste stream and much more needs to be done, but we are beginning to do more. The national waste strategy will kick in next year and there are encouraging signs that ordinary people are willing to do their bit if they are given information about what they should do and what services are available locally to enable them to do it. That was highlighted in a report that was based on a two-year, in-depth survey of 9,000 people across Scotland that was published this week. That survey provides good information on which to base effective action.

In the meantime, the bill moves us along the road to being less wasteful and less damaging to our environment. It should be supported.

Photo of George Reid George Reid Scottish National Party

I have one request, from Bristow Muldoon, to speak from the floor. I take it that you will speak on behalf of the Labour party rather than as the convener of the Transport and the Environment Committee.

Photo of Bristow Muldoon Bristow Muldoon Labour 12:44, 28 November 2002

I confirm that I speak on behalf of the Labour party in the debate.

The debate is important, but it is also interesting in two respects. The first is what the bill, which is being considered at Westminster, will do; the second is that it exposes yet again the Scottish National Party's obsession with constitutional issues. That is what lies at the base of the concerns that the SNP has expressed.

The bill demonstrates Labour's strong credentials on improving the environment on a United Kingdom level and on a Scotland level. I encourage environmental non-governmental organisations to study the SNP's contribution to the debate, because it lays bare the fact that the SNP has no claim to any environmental credentials. The bill would ensure that the commitments that the Prime Minister and the First Minister have made that the UK and Scotland will contribute towards improving our environment—whether by changing the way in which we manage our waste or by reducing carbon emissions into the atmosphere—will be met.

Photo of Fiona McLeod Fiona McLeod Scottish National Party

Bristow Muldoon talked about the fact that the First Minister made commitments. Ross Finnie made a commitment that we would have a mandatory target for recycling, but we have lost that commitment. The bill that we are considering and through which we are about to pass responsibility to Westminster says that, if agreement between the Administrations cannot be met, there will be a fallback rule. Would that fallback rule mean that Scotland has to dae whit it's telt by Westminster?

Photo of Bristow Muldoon Bristow Muldoon Labour

Much as it may distress the SNP, Scotland is still engaged in a partnership with its colleagues in the rest of the UK. [Interruption.] Indeed, as Mr Home Robertson points out, we are also engaged in a partnership with the rest of the world. We are internationalists, not nationalists.

The SNP tries to distort the Executive's position. There has been no move away from any Executive commitment to set waste management targets. My understanding is that the Executive still intends to publish a national waste plan, which will be based on the 11 area waste plans that already exist. It is absolutely dishonest to say that the Executive is disowning the issue in any way, shape or form. The reality is that the Executive is moving forward in improving Scotland's deplorable record on waste management. The UK Government is moving forward on the same issue. That is what the SNP does not like.

Bill Clinton's campaign slogan was, "It's the economy, stupid!" I think that John Swinney goes to bed every night with a sign above his bed that says "It's the constitution, stupid!" The longer that the SNP's obsession with constitutional issues continues, the longer it will continue to be an irrelevance on the sidelines of Scottish politics.

I encourage members to support the bill and its positive environmental measures and reject the SNP's narrow, constitutional navel gazing.

Photo of George Reid George Reid Scottish National Party

I call Allan Wilson again to respond to the brief debate.

Photo of Allan Wilson Allan Wilson Labour 12:48, 28 November 2002

Is it me? That was quick. You took me by surprise, Presiding Officer.

I welcome the Conservatives' support for the bill. They have obviously placed their commitment to environmental protection above the nationalists' constitutional navel gazing. We welcome that, just as we welcome the support of our coalition colleagues in the Liberal Democrat party.

As ever, Bruce Crawford is simply wrong on many aspects of the matter. Participation in the UK emissions trading scheme is a voluntary, cost-effective way of achieving emissions reduction commitments that conform with our climate change programme and that make a valuable contribution in global terms to our national climate change strategy.

Photo of Allan Wilson Allan Wilson Labour

Bruce Crawford has had his chance. I will deal with the points that he raised and move on.

The UK scheme offers invaluable early experience of trading in advance of an EU scheme, which we expect will be introduced in 2005. That is an important provision.

On the allegation that we are giving up powers, nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, powers for UK ministers to apportion international and EU targets are in section 106 of the Scotland Act 1998. The orders made under those powers are called splitting orders. All that is happening is that a power equivalent to those splitting powers would be created under the bill. That power would be used following statutory consultation. In that context, Mr Crawford is wrong.

As Bristow Muldoon pointed out, the 25 per cent target for recycling and composting in 2006 is a key Executive interim objective for waste. There is no inconsistency between that and the landfill directive targets, or with the measures that we are discussing today. The first landfill directive target for the UK is for 2010. I expect the national waste plan to aim for recycling and composting around 40 per cent of waste by then. That is why, as a step towards that goal, we are setting the intermediate target of 25 per cent by 2006.

The bill would provide instruments that the Scottish ministers—who are accountable to the Scottish Parliament—may use to pursue Scottish policy goals. Where the bill would place obligations on the Scottish ministers, we would have to take them on under the European directive.

Nora Radcliffe spoke about the landfill tax credit scheme. I am sure that she will join me in welcoming the announcement made yesterday by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the reform of that scheme. One third of the allocations made under the scheme will support local environment projects; two thirds will support a public spending scheme for waste management. That is very good news for Scotland.

I have much pleasure in again commending the motion.

Photo of George Reid George Reid Scottish National Party

I remind members that today's meeting of the Parliament will resume at 2.15 pm.

Meeting suspended until 14:15.

On resuming—