Zero Waste

– in the Scottish Parliament at 9:30 am on 25 March 2004.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Murray Tosh Murray Tosh Conservative 9:30, 25 March 2004

Good morning. The first item of business today is a debate on motion S2M-1089, in the name of Shiona Baird, on zero waste, and three amendments to the motion.

Photo of Shiona Baird Shiona Baird Green

According to Audit Scotland, the amount of waste that was collected by local authorities in Scotland last year was 3.2 million tonnes—an increase of 200,000 tonnes on the amount that was collected the year before. Each household in Scotland produces more than a tonne of rubbish a year. We are, as campaigners in Canada put it, exploiting natural resources as if mother nature had announced a going-out-of-business sale. If mother nature goes out of business, we are all in trouble.

The Scottish Executive currently has no target or strategy to reduce the amount of waste that Scotland produces. Granted, there are targets to increase recycling and composting and to reduce the amount of waste that goes to landfill; however, none of those targets tackles the root of the problem. We are all, quite rightly, happy to aim for zero unemployment, zero poverty and zero famine. Why are we not prepared to accept zero waste? The commitments on waste in the partnership agreement are patchy. Although the Greens support pledges to require public bodies to conduct waste minimisation audits, if one looks at the policies as a whole it is not hard to see why Scotland's waste mountain is growing. There appears to be a lack of breadth, thought and coherence in policy on this important issue.

When the Greens talk about zero waste, we are talking about not just more recycling and composting, but a fundamental shift from a historically narrow focus on waste management to a comprehensive approach to managing resources and eliminating waste. Zero waste means taking a wider perspective and looking at the whole system of production and consumption. That includes the front end of the system, where natural resources are extracted, materials are produced and products are designed and manufactured. That is where many of the worst environmental impacts of waste can occur, when pollutants are created, energy is consumed and habitats are destroyed. It is also where there is great opportunity for innovation and efficiency. However, that innovation and efficiency will not come about if, all the time, the Government's waste policy focuses largely on the other end of the process—managing waste.

Zero waste was born in the world of business, more out of a desire for greater efficiency and cost savings than through concern for the environment. Many businesses have been extremely successful in examining the whole of their operations and dramatically cutting waste production. Honda in Canada has reduced its waste production by 98 per cent in the past decade, and Hewlett-Packard in California now has a rate of 97 per cent waste diversion.

Some progressive companies are now adopting what are known as factor 10 goals of achieving a tenfold increase in efficiency through zero waste. Therefore, adopting a goal of zero waste increases efficiency, cuts costs and saves resources. It is an enterprise issue, and I am pleased that the Executive has recognised that.

Certain measures are key to ensuring the success of zero waste, such as the extension of producer responsibility to ensure that manufacturers and producers take their share of the responsibility for recovering their products and packaging. Similarly, zero waste requires us to encourage the designing of products that are durable and easily repaired, with thought given to the end of their life cycles, as well as incentives for manufacturers to switch from using virgin material to using recycled material. Directives are coming from Europe on some of those aspects, but progress is slow. It would send a strong and positive signal if Scotland were to take them on for itself.

Zero waste is also gaining ground at state and national Government levels. Australia's capital, Canberra, has set a target for a waste-free society by 2010, and New Zealand has formally adopted zero waste at a national level. Western Australia is aiming for zero waste by 2020. Many cities and counties in the United States have also set a zero-waste target, as have Bath and North East Somerset Council and Essex County Council in England. Once minds are made up and targets are set, progress can be rapid. For example, Edmonton, in Canada, landfilled all its waste in 1998 but by 2000—just two years later—it had reduced that by 65 per cent.

Zero waste requires long-term vision, but it is also highly practical and applicable today, and it can be achieved in steps. It is surely a non-party-political issue. We ask the Executive to produce a strategy on a concept that could have immense benefit for Scotland. I urge the other parties to withdraw their amendments. Let us work together, support the motion and do our best for Scotland.

I move,

That the Parliament notes that, despite a small increase in recycling and composting, the Scottish Executive is yet to achieve any reduction in the overall production of waste; urges the Executive to adopt a "zero waste" approach, which has the potential to dramatically reduce waste from the design, production and use of materials and products, to boost reuse, recycling and composting rates and to cut costs for business, stimulate innovation and create more "green" jobs in Scotland, and recommends that the Executive produces a strategy for reaching a target of zero waste and reports back to the Parliament on the potential of that policy for Scotland.

Photo of Lewis Macdonald Lewis Macdonald Labour 9:36, 25 March 2004

We welcome the debate, recognising the extent to which it touches on enterprise as well as environmental issues. It allows us to consider the practical challenges that we face in reducing waste, in increasing the sustainable reuse or disposal of waste products and in working towards containing and ending the growth in waste. We have set out a blueprint of how to achieve the best practicable environmental options in waste management in "The National Waste Plan 2003", which was published a year ago as part of our wider national waste strategy, as I am sure that Shiona Baird is aware.

The waste plan sets out how we propose to minimise and prevent waste, reduce landfill and increase recycling. We believe that it is right to focus on the targets in that plan, which include an aim to stop the growth in municipal waste by 2010.

Photo of Bruce Crawford Bruce Crawford Scottish National Party

The plan is laudable in many ways. Under the heading "Looking to the Future", it contains a section that is entitled "Towards a Resource-efficient Economy", which states that

"it is recognised that the direction of Scotland's National Waste Strategy must be reviewed regularly to ensure that its future development takes account of, and benefits from an understanding of emerging international thinking and good practice in waste and resource management."

Can the minister give us a flavour of what work has been undertaken, since the plan was produced, to act on that statement and create a resource-efficient economy?

Photo of Lewis Macdonald Lewis Macdonald Labour

Bruce Crawford will recognise the fact that the plan also states that we value the concept of zero waste. We welcome the debate on zero waste, as it allows the approach that we have taken to be considered and progress to be measured. However, we believe that the priority, at this stage, is to make progress on the targets that we have set. Mr Crawford will be pleased to hear that I will say a little more about resource efficiency shortly.

Photo of Shiona Baird Shiona Baird Green

Although the Executive has many targets for recycling, it does not have a definitive target for waste reduction. That is, basically, what we are talking about. We urge the Executive to consider producing a strategy for that.

Photo of Lewis Macdonald Lewis Macdonald Labour

Members will be aware of the targets that have been set. Our focus is on reaching those targets, as we recognise that as the way in which to move forward. On the evidence of the debate in January, there is clearly an understanding of the fact that Scotland starts from a position that is a long way back. We need to improve our recycling record, make use of resources properly and reduce the amount of municipal waste that is sent to landfill. On the back of those achievements, we will be able to reduce the amount of waste that is produced.

In fact, a number of initiatives are already under way. For example, some of strategic waste fund awards that have already been given include elements of waste prevention, such as the promotion of home composting. Consultants with the Scottish Environment Protection Agency are working on a toolkit for councils and community groups that will allow them to carry out domestic waste reduction campaigns and programmes. We are also resourcing the UK waste and resources action programme's innovative design work on minimising or eliminating waste in a whole range of products.

As far as enterprise is concerned, my own particular focus is on encouraging businesses to minimise waste. Businesses understand resource efficiency. They understand that by-products that go to waste are lost business opportunities and that saved resources also provide financial savings that go straight to the bottom line. Since the beginning of the year, envirowise has carried out 214 waste audits for businesses in Scotland and identified potential savings for those companies of more than £3 million a year.

Furthermore, following our previous debate on this subject, a national steering group is now co-ordinating the work of local waste minimisation partnerships such as those in the north-east of Scotland and Midlothian. The Scottish industrial symbiosis programme is examining possible synergies between businesses by establishing whether the by-product of one business process could be used as the feedstock for another. As another example of Government helping businesses to help themselves in a way that helps others, we will also provide around £1 million in additional funds in each of the next two financial years to support business waste minimisation further.

In January, my colleague Allan Wilson said that we will consult widely with businesses and waste producers on a framework for dealing with non-municipal waste, which forms the majority of waste that is produced. That will include work on how to prevent waste in the first place.

As a result, we have a strategy that combines action to reduce household and municipal waste and action to reduce waste produced by the private sector. We will also encourage public bodies to minimise waste in line with the partnership agreement. We are taking those actions because they are environmentally essential and because they form part of our evolving strategy for green jobs. We will consult soon on that strategy and I hope that it will attract the support of those who advocate zero waste as well as those who are already involved in the delivery of the national waste strategy.

I move amendment S2M-1089.4, to leave out from "notes" to end and insert:

"welcomes the recent increase in recycling and composting; notes paragraph 7.3.3 of the National Waste Plan 2003 which states that zero waste "provides a platform for challenging our current systems and radically reducing waste beyond even the best current levels of achievement" and the aim in the National Waste Plan to stop growth in the amount of municipal waste produced by 2010; further notes the work being carried out by the Waste and Resources Action Programme, Envirowise, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency and others to minimise business and household waste; recognises the Scottish Executive's commitment to increasing packaging recovery targets from 59% to 70% by 2008, and calls on the Executive to continue its work to prevent and minimise waste, to increase recycling and to divert waste from landfill."

Photo of Richard Lochhead Richard Lochhead Scottish National Party 9:42, 25 March 2004

I do not need to repeat the statistics that underline Scotland's rather regrettable environmental record, particularly on recycling and waste. However, the fact that this is the second debate in as many months on reducing Scotland's waste says a lot about the value of the Scottish Parliament. After all, Westminster never debated the issue in a Scottish context. That we can now begin to tackle issues that have been neglected for so long shows that this Parliament is worth while.

As the Scottish National Party has a long-standing commitment to achieving a sustainable Scotland, we are sympathetic to the vision that the Green party has set out in its motion, which we will support. I appreciate that we are talking about a vision; however, we should start to realise that vision now rather than try to do so further down the line when our record in Scotland will be even worse. The people of Scotland will certainly support such a long-term objective. Although targets are important, we have to underpin them with a vision.

As the Greens and other members have previously pointed out, we must move the focus from managing to reducing waste. Managing waste centres on the role of landfill sites and incinerators, which, as we know, is a very contentious issue in communities throughout Scotland. I know that other members will highlight local constituency issues in that respect, because such facilities raise concerns about public health and their detrimental impact on the environment. Of course, sending our waste to landfill sites or incinerating it also represent a completely inefficient use of resources.

If we are serious about reducing waste in Scotland, we must recruit the support of consumers and end our throwaway culture. We have to ensure that consumers use their power to make retailers and others reduce the amount of packaging and other waste.

However, consumers must also be able to access facilities to ensure that they play a direct role in waste minimisation and recycling. For example, when, after January's debate, I ordered a compost bin from Aberdeenshire Council, I was told that I had to drive 12 miles to an industrial estate in the city of Aberdeen to get it. Not only do I have to get in a car and drive to pick up this bin, but I have to travel 12 miles to get it. Moreover, not everyone has a car. How on earth can we ensure that people can play a direct role in waste minimisation and recycling when we cannot even provide the facilities for them? I should tell the chamber that I have not yet had the time to drive over to the industrial estate to pick up the bin. However, I hope to do so soon.

We also have to recruit the public sector. I wish that ministers would say more about the role that Government and the public sector play in waste minimisation. Where are their strategies? What have they done in the first five years of the Scottish Parliament to provide an example for the rest of Scotland of how to reduce waste?

We must persuade industry that reducing waste makes businesses competitive and reduces costs. We like to think that Lewis Macdonald is representing the Executive today because he has responsibility for enterprise and that there is a link between the enterprise and environment portfolios. The real reason is that Allan Wilson is elsewhere launching a document on fishing, after which he has to come to the chamber and speak for the Executive in the debate on genetically modified crops.

However, it is appropriate that Lewis Macdonald is speaking in the debate with his environmental hat on, because so many green jobs could be created in Scotland through waste minimisation. He must do more to ensure that the enterprise companies are playing their role. They are clearly dragging their heels on this matter and, after four years, they are only now putting together their action plans.

As I am running out of time, I want to turn to the crux of the SNP's amendment, which highlights the fact that we have to conduct today's debate in the context of the Scotland Act 1998 and that the Parliament has only limited powers to address Scotland's environmental record. After all, although the carrot-and-stick approach is perhaps the most effective way of addressing the issue with industry, retailers and so on, all those powers lie with the Westminster Parliament. If we want to make a real difference and tackle the problem much more quickly, the relevant powers must be transferred from Westminster to the Scottish Parliament. For example, the Scottish Parliament has no power to tackle junk mail or to introduce research and development incentives.

Photo of Richard Lochhead Richard Lochhead Scottish National Party

No, I am in my final two seconds.

We have no power over tax breaks and other carrot-and-stick approaches that we could take to make industry change its behaviour or to try to encourage consumers to do the same. Instead, we have to find convoluted ways of introducing even such simple measures as the carrier bag tax, which is the subject of a Westminster private member's bill. Any other independent Parliament can simply pass a piece of primary legislation and immediately introduce such a levy.

If the Parliament had more powers, we could be much more efficient and make a real difference to Scotland's environmental, recycling and waste minimisation record as a result. I am delighted that the Deputy First Minister has seen the light and is arguing that the Scottish Parliament should have more powers. Indeed, I hope that he will argue that the Parliament should have more environmental powers.

The SNP will not withdraw its amendment, as the Greens have asked us to do. We feel that it is very important to put the debate into context and make the people of Scotland aware of the fact that we need more power to change things. As a result, we urge the Green party to support our amendment in the same way as we will support its motion.

I move amendment S2M-1089.3, to insert at end:

"and further notes that many of the powers required to reduce waste and achieve a sustainable Scotland reside with Her Majesty's Government and that such powers should be transferred to the Scottish Parliament."

Photo of Alex Johnstone Alex Johnstone Conservative 9:47, 25 March 2004

Although waste is not the most exciting subject that we have ever discussed in the Parliament, it has increasingly become a cause of concern for the Parliament and the Scottish Executive. We should welcome the fact that the Greens have secured this debate this morning. Although I think that the time for zero waste has not yet come, the concept is certainly worthy of discussion. As a result, the Conservative amendment seeks to position us somewhere along the road towards achieving zero waste while dealing with some of the issues that stand in the way of progress on the matter.

When the Environment and Rural Development Committee investigated the matter last year, it became obvious that the Executive was involved in one or two activities that did not achieve its aims in the national waste plan. For example, I am concerned about the setting of targets. Other members have said that the targets that have been set are significant and valuable. However, the targets for waste reduction and for increased disposal of waste by certain methods deliver relatively little. In fact, many of the targets seem quite arbitrary and have no reason or logic behind them.

I therefore suggest that the time has come to abandon nationally set targets and to examine how we can devolve responsibility for the matter to local authorities and empower them to ensure that they can meet their own aims and objectives. After all, the member who moved the motion clearly highlighted that that was already happening in other parts of the country.

For example, the Executive could consider the successful impact of the landfill tax on how industry and business dispose of their waste. The landfill tax has a direct impact on businesses, but it does not have a direct impact on those who produce domestic waste. I will not make this a direct proposal to the chamber, but I encourage everybody to consider the positive aspects of direct charging and how it might be extended to household waste disposal. There is a great deal of evidence from other countries that when individuals have to pay for the waste that they produce by volume or by weight—which is more successful—the amount of waste that they produce can be radically and quickly reduced.

Photo of Shiona Baird Shiona Baird Green

I wonder whether Alex Johnstone understands the concept of zero waste, because he is talking about the end-product. Our point is that waste is an enterprise issue; it is about businesses designing goods that can be reused and repaired. We want something that goes a stage further than what Alex Johnstone seems to suggest. I am not certain that he understands the concept in the motion.

Photo of Alex Johnstone Alex Johnstone Conservative

Indeed, there are many Green policy concepts that I do not understand, but I stand here to be educated.

If we are to head towards zero waste, it is important that we understand that it involves the management of existing circumstances. I want to refer briefly to a couple of issues that it is appropriate to raise at this stage. There is an intrinsic deficiency in the planning system in this country that makes it difficult to deal with waste and, indeed, with the management of a zero-waste policy. If we are to reach a zero-waste position in Scotland, we must have a dynamic and fluid planning system that allows for radical change. We are undergoing a review of planning law and it is important that the review considers waste management and long-term zero-waste policies.

If we are to achieve zero waste, we must be as flexible as possible. My amendment seeks to empower local authorities and to take away the big-stick attitudes that central Government has tried to impose on over local authorities.

I move amendment S2M-1089.2, to leave out from "urges" to end and insert:

"notes that Scottish local authorities need to improve their recycling performance by 15.4% over the next two years, three times the figure they have achieved in the last four, to meet the Executive's target of 25% of waste recycled by 2006; calls on the Executive to admit that its top-down approach is not working, and, as an alternative to a zero waste policy, urges it to allow local authorities the flexibility to deliver the best solutions for their areas in the long term."

Photo of Nora Radcliffe Nora Radcliffe Liberal Democrat 9:52, 25 March 2004

I have no quibble with Alex Johnstone's description of the size of the task, of which we are all conscious. However, he cannot accuse the Executive of having a top-down approach in its preparation of the national waste plan. The approach was emphatically a bottom-up one, because it was prepared from area waste plans. The national waste plan delivers the flexibility for local authorities for which Alex Johnstone calls.

I read Shiona Baird's motion carefully because I agree that the concept of zero waste is a useful tool for changing perceptions and practice. Indeed, my Liberal colleagues approved a motion at our autumn federal conference last year that noted the launch of the zero-waste charter and adopted a set of aims and policies that are based on it. The zero-waste concept also gets an honourable mention in the Executive's 2003 national waste plan. However—sorry, but there is a however—I argue that the Executive, other tiers of European Government and local government and various other bodies are already working on the objectives that the Green's motion cites. I do not see the advantage in the Executive squandering time and effort at this stage on producing another strategy and reporting back to Parliament on its potential. There is far more value in pressing on with the existing strategy. Much time was spent on getting it all in place; it is now being put into practice and is beginning to take effect.

We have an operational national waste plan. The Environment and Rural Development Committee took evidence and reported on how the plan was working in its first year—

Photo of Nora Radcliffe Nora Radcliffe Liberal Democrat

I ask Shiona Baird to let me finish my point.

The committee flagged up several issues and concerns that could be addressed to make the plan work better.

Photo of Shiona Baird Shiona Baird Green

I accept that what the Executive has done so far is helping, but we are trying to get people to understand the concept of zero waste because of its implications for business, the environment, health and so on. All we are asking is for the Executive—with the support of Nora Radcliffe and her colleagues—to support zero waste. I do not understand why there is a difficulty in doing that. If we do not support zero waste, we will lose out on the research and development issues that other countries, such as New Zealand, are taking on board.

Photo of Nora Radcliffe Nora Radcliffe Liberal Democrat

I agree generally with Shiona Baird, but I do not agree that we should encourage people to start running before we have got them walking. The issue is not whether a zero-waste strategy is right or wrong, but whether this is the right time to implement such a strategy and whether it would be effective if we did so. The time to start changing people's perceptions more widely is when we achieve a momentum.

The motion talks about the potential for reducing waste by paying attention to

"the design, production and use of materials and products".

Pressure to achieve such an holistic approach is being applied now, through European directives that are coming on stream—for example, the end-of-life vehicle directive and the waste electrical and electronic equipment directive. I believe that such directives will have a major effect in time.

Photo of Richard Lochhead Richard Lochhead Scottish National Party

Does Nora Radcliffe share my concern that, according to Scottish Enterprise Grampian, although the enterprise companies play a key role in the partnerships that are trying to get industry to introduce waste minimisation strategies, which were conceived in November 2001, they are only now, nearly three years later, beginning to develop action plans? Why has there been such a delay?

Photo of Nora Radcliffe Nora Radcliffe Liberal Democrat

Whatever the delay has been, we should start from where we are now. If the enterprise companies have started their task, we should encourage them to keep going.

The motion talks about boosting

"reuse, recycling and composting rates".

We should reuse the acronyms RAGS, SWAG and WRAP, which are, respectively, the Recycling Advisory Group Scotland, the Scottish waste awareness group and the waste and resources action plan. Those groups are beavering away to get people to recognise the waste hierarchy and to reduce, reuse and recycle. Local authorities are putting in place a variety of kerb-side and neighbourhood collection schemes to facilitate an increase in recycling to meet the partnership agreement targets of recycling 25 per cent of waste by 2006 and 55 per cent by 2020 and halting the increase in waste production by, I think, 2010. Among other things, the partnership agreement also commits us to creating significant opportunities for new products manufactured from waste and to using public purchasing rules to enhance the status of recycled and re-usable goods. Sustainable recycling depends on having markets for its products.

On composting, Aberdeenshire Council has a significant municipal composting operation with dedicated staff who do a great deal to promote and encourage home composting. When Richard Lochhead collects his compost bin, he will get advice on making the best use of it.

The motion talks about cutting costs for business. Last year, I attended an excellent presentation in Aberdeen, which the Scottish Council for Development and Industry organised, on how businesses could cut their costs by eliminating waste. The presentation was illustrated with real local examples.

A lot is going on out there. I would be the first to agree that that work is still not making a significant impact on reducing waste, but these are early days and that will come. I would prefer to put effort into maintaining existing momentum on dealing more effectively with our wastefulness, rather than go back to square one to produce a differently branded strategy on doing what we have started to do already. I ask the Parliament to support the Executive's amendment and to keep the zero-waste concept firmly in mind.

Photo of Robin Harper Robin Harper Green 9:58, 25 March 2004

First, I want to address a couple of points that the minister made. I am glad that the Executive is co-operating with business on waste management and that it is encouraging business activities in that area. However, the record so far is abysmal. Scottish Enterprise's ambition last year was to encourage only 50 businesses to get environmental certification and it was proud that 55 businesses achieved that. Not only was the target miserable, but so was the achievement. I believe that Scottish Enterprise has upped its target this year to 250 businesses. However, that is still a miserably low target for Scotland, considering the size of the problem and the Executive's objectives. If the Executive wants to keep the concept of zero waste in mind, it should consider the issue in detail.

The Executive should encourage Scottish Enterprise, the Scottish Higher Education Funding Council, the Scottish Further Education Funding Council and other quangos to take as many steps as they can to encourage everybody with whom they deal to conserve energy and to minimise waste. The Executive has been slow in doing that.

If the Executive wants a good example of what can be done, it need look only at what Business Environment Partnership in Midlothian has done by encouraging young people—after six weeks of training—to work with businesses up and down Scotland. Although that has saved millions of pounds through conservation of energy and through waste reduction, it has not been rolled out throughout Scotland, even though the Executive has had numerous opportunities to do so. My first point is that the Executive could do very much more than it is doing, although I accept that it is doing something.

Photo of Lewis Macdonald Lewis Macdonald Labour

Does Robin Harper accept that the initiative that we, along with the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, have taken in setting up a business waste-minimisation steering group for the whole of Scotland so that we can build on the achievements in Midlothian and the north-east, is a firm step in the direction in which he advocates we should go?

Photo of Robin Harper Robin Harper Green

If the minister can assure me that the steering group will be effective and that it will get things moving, that will certainly be good news and a step on the way.

When I hear the phrase, "best practicable environmental option", I wonder where is the excuse—the let-out that allows us not to do what we should be doing. Let us examine the job statistics in order of usefulness. I want to put on record the results of a study by the Institute of Local Self-reliance in the United States, which found that one job is created for every 15,000 tonnes of solid waste that is landfilled each year, that seven jobs are created by the composting of a similar amount of waste and that nine jobs are created in collection and processing if that amount of material is recycled. Another 25 jobs can be added if the recycled material is turned into new products. That is where zero waste—which means that nothing is wasted—comes in.

Last year in Scotland, households produced 2.6 million tonnes of waste. Based on the figures above, if that had all been recycled, about 1,500 jobs could have been created. If the potential for additional jobs in manufacturing items from recycled waste were taken into account, the figure would be closer to 6,000 jobs. Members can see how a zero-waste approach could result in the creation of many more jobs than waste management—even with a recycling component—results in.

Let us consider some of the results in New Zealand, which has been mentioned. In 1998, a survey of 64 recycling businesses in Auckland that was undertaken by Waste Not Ltd showed that about 1,700 employees were directly involved in recycling in the Auckland region alone. That figure is equivalent to the size of the forestry, fishing and agriculture sector in the region, which should be borne in mind in relation to Scotland. Another 300 jobs were expected in recycling in the few years following the report.

A Demos report entitled "Creating Wealth from Waste" concludes:

"An intensive recycling programme in Britain provides the scope for 15,000 jobs in collection and sorting and at least 25,000 to 40,000 jobs in manufacturing and reprocessing: 40,000 to 55,000 jobs overall."

I suggest that that should be immensely encouraging to the Executive.

I ask the Executive to give serious consideration to voting for our motion on zero waste, because it is only by having that target—which is achievable—in front of us that we will progress at the required rate.

Photo of Sarah Boyack Sarah Boyack Labour 10:03, 25 March 2004

I am very glad that we are having a debate on zero waste this morning. It is worth noting that it is our second debate on waste in the past couple of months. I hope that we can move forward a little today.

Shiona Baird's speech contained much that I agree with. We should be examining in depth some of the examples from around the world that she and Nora Radcliffe cited. Canberra, Edmonton and California have been mentioned, as were other regions around the world that have signed up to zero waste. New Zealand, too, has signed up to zero waste. Those places are not thinking about achieving zero waste instantly but about achieving it by 2015; they are considering how to change what they do now for the future. I agree strongly with the concept of using debates on zero waste as a trigger for action. I accept that we can move faster than we are moving at present, so let us use the debate to explore the options that exist.

I listened to Nora Radcliffe's analysis of progress to date; she was spot-on. We have a national waste plan—albeit one that took a long time to get in place—that is a mix of bottom-up and top-down approaches. The waste plan is not just about how we dump waste and get it out of our horizons and it is not just about management of waste; it is about how we will reduce waste in the long run. At the moment, the pressure is on in respect of how we manage our waste, but the long-term approach must involve examination of resource use. That must be the focus.

In that regard, zero waste helps, because it is a clever tag that makes us wonder whether we could have no waste at all. It is clear that that is a huge objective, but using our resources more effectively offers many benefits to business and to us all as consumers, residents and citizens. The result will be that we will not have unattractive landfill sites throughout the country.

Quite a few members mentioned composting, which is one of the key elements of the national waste plan. We all create a huge amount of domestic waste, much of which is deeply unpleasant when it starts to biodegrade. It poses the greatest health risk when it rots and leaches from landfill. The cities that have adopted zero-waste policies have made a big change very quickly. High-achieving cities and councils have done the kinds of things that we are beginning to bring on-stream in Scotland. What we are now doing on recycling, separation of waste and composting is the right way forward.

We need to progress the debate on zero waste, although we should acknowledge that progress has been made. I remember the last debate that we had on waste, in which Allan Wilson—in response to the Environment and Rural Development Committee's negative and positive comments—was very positive about the way in which zero waste could add to the debate. This morning, Lewis Macdonald has picked up that mantle.

I turn to the amendments. I found the Tory amendment to be deeply ironic. The biggest setback to recycling in Scotland was the reorganisation—the Balkanisation—of our local authorities in Scotland. Recycling figures plummeted after the reorganisation of local government, so I cannot take a lecture from Alex Johnstone on the need to have a bottom-up, rather than a top-down, approach. What the Tories did to Balkanise local authorities destroyed their capacity to make progress, to be innovative and to come together on recycling.

The whole point of the national waste plan is that it seeks to harness the energies and the experience of local authorities and to put the matter in a regional context. The plan is allied to national targets, because without such targets we will not get anywhere. It is crucial that the plan is getting leadership and money from the Executive.

Photo of Shiona Baird Shiona Baird Green

The member praises local authorities, but I wonder whether she takes on board the fact that their concept of best value often means that they opt for the cheapest contract. Ultimately, community businesses, which provide so many add-ons, are being missed out.

Photo of Sarah Boyack Sarah Boyack Labour

I do not accept that best value is about the lowest possible price: it must be about other social objectives and, under European procurement policy, bodies are encouraged to take account of those other objectives. As long as companies compete on a level playing field, environmental standards can be imposed. There should be no excuse for local authorities not to do that; Parliament should encourage them in that regard.

The nationalist amendment is one of the laziest amendments that the Scottish National Party has produced. Are the other places around the world that are pursuing zero waste sitting back, navel gazing and complaining that they are not independent national states? Of course they are not. The last time I looked, Bath and North East Somerset Council was not an independent legislator on the world stage. Let us get real. I would not have minded if Richard Lochhead had even mentioned in his opening speech the fact that Europe is the driver in that it directs 80 per cent of our environmental legislation. There is the landfill directive, the WEEE directive and the work on chemicals and integrated product development. We must work in a global context on waste. It is no use pretending that we in Scotland cannot do anything.

Richard Lochhead did not even provide an analysis of the most recent budget. If he wanted to get tough by saying, "Here's how we can change the fiscal mechanisms", he could have made the effort to examine Gordon Brown's recent budget to identify what opportunities were being missed from a nationalist perspective. Not an ounce of effort was made; the SNP wants to have the same tired old debate.

We face some real challenges. I am glad that we are having a debate on zero waste and I think that the Greens' constructive approach is useful. A lot more needs to be done on commercial waste, but some good work is being done by SEPA, the enterprise companies and the Federation of Small Businesses, which has an excellent environmental toolkit that assesses resource use. There is a job to be done in raising the bar and saying that we must do a lot more, but let us acknowledge the work in progress so that we encourage the champions out there that are doing a good job. Let us push them to do more and let us ensure that we raise the level of debate in Parliament.

Photo of Alex Neil Alex Neil Scottish National Party 10:10, 25 March 2004

If Sarah Boyack looks at the independence budget that I launched yesterday, she will see that I covered waste disposal and what more we could do in that respect in an independent Scotland.

I rise—not in a lazy way at all—to speak in support of the Green party motion and the SNP amendment. In doing so, I want to focus on landfill. I will first paint the national picture and then look at some of the local effects of current landfill policies. Landfill accounts for about 91 per cent of the disposal of municipal waste in Scotland. Although we are supposed to be grateful for the landfill tax, as all of us know, landfill is not the most environmentally sound way in which to dispose of municipal or any other waste. We require such a high landfill capacity in Scotland because we have failed to use alternative methods of disposal to their maximum. The landfill tax is not primarily driven by environmental considerations; it is merely a revenue-raising device that produces about £50 million for the Chancellor of the Exchequer every year from Scottish landfill.

The landfill tax credit scheme allows landfill operators to use up to 20 per cent of their landfill tax for environmental purposes. However, it is often left up to the operators to decide how the money is to be used; in effect, they decide how to recycle the money. Needless to say, it is not in the interests of the operators to recycle the money into alternative methods of waste disposal. Far too little of the revenue from the landfill tax goes back into funding alternative methods of waste disposal. The decision-making process in respect of how the money is used needs to be reformed.

I concede the point that Sarah Boyack made on landfill. We do not need independence to change the two matters that I have just raised; they could be changed tomorrow if the will existed in the Labour Government down south and the Executive up here. The issues to do with landfill are well within our grasp. If they were tackled, we could make a substantial difference to the way we deal with disposal of waste, especially municipal waste.

I want to pick up on the Environment and Rural Development Committee's very good report of earlier this year, which highlighted the particular issue of the Greengairs area in Lanarkshire. Many people now know not only about Greengairs but about the adjacent villages of Plains, Glenmavis and Wattston, all of which are badly affected by the number of landfill and open-cast sites in the area. At present, there are eight in total in that part of Scotland. The villages are becoming islands in a sea of landfill and open cast. Eden Waste Recycling Ltd has made an application for a ninth site of huge proportions, which the Executive is "minded to accept". I say to the Executive that it should look at the practicalities. In saying that, I remind the Executive of what Nora Radcliffe said about her inability to accept the concept of zero waste because we are not at the stage at which it is a practical proposition. One way in which we could make the concept of zero waste a practical proposition is by turning down such planning applications. The Eden Waste application is neither necessary nor is it desirable either in terms of the villages that I mentioned and their populations or of the national waste plan.

I carried out a survey of the Greengairs population—I will mention three of the findings. The effects of landfill and open cast in the area have resulted in 50 per cent of households reporting health problems. That might not be unusual in many communities, but when people were asked whether they had suffered health problems before they moved to the area, 62 per cent indicated that they had not, but said that only since they moved to the area had their health suffered.

People told me that one of the effects of the concentration of landfill and open-cast sites was the creation of insect populations inside their houses. If members were to go up to the lofts of any house in Greengairs, they would see beasties that they never knew existed. I invite members to do so at the earliest opportunity.

Greengairs is a good example of the fact that the debate today is not an academic or theoretical exercise; it is about the quality of life of people in areas such as Greengairs. If we do not tackle the landfill problem, we will end up with more situations throughout Scotland like the one in Greengairs. I say to the Executive that of course I believe in additional powers—independent powers—for the Scottish Parliament. I also believe that the Executive could make far more imaginative and innovative use of the powers that it has to save Scotland from becoming the waste capital of Europe.

Photo of Mark Ballard Mark Ballard Green 10:16, 25 March 2004

Like Shiona Baird, I welcome the fact that we have the Deputy Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning in the chamber for the debate on zero waste because I too think that zero waste is an enterprise issue. It should be seen in the context of "A Smart, Successful Scotland"—but with the addition of the word "sustainable"—and in the context of a green jobs strategy. It is revealing to compare the current Executive targets with the current enterprise targets that we hear about from Scottish Enterprise and so on.

There is a lot of talk about the life-sciences industry and about biotechnology. Although it is always dangerous to bet on winners, I am worried that we are missing out on a potential winner if we do not debate waste minimisation. The future does not lie in life sciences and biotechnology. Like other technologies—such as nuclear technology, which we were told would be the technology that would revolutionise society but which has turned out to be a false dawn—it was actually the smaller-scale technology of microtechnology that led to the real changes in society. We face the same situation with biotech. It will not be the future because it suffers from many of the problems that the nuclear industry faced: it is too big, the technology is too complicated and it produces too many side effects in terms of the waste it produces.

Photo of Rhona Brankin Rhona Brankin Labour

Does the member agree that many aspects of the biotech industry are absolutely essential in terms of finding cures for diseases such as pulmonary emphysema?

Photo of Mark Ballard Mark Ballard Green

I acknowledge that, just as I do not doubt that many medical advances have come about as a result of nuclear-derived technology. However, if we are talking about placing bets on Scotland's future economic development, we must recognise that the future will be based on resource efficiency and the use of waste as a resource.

Photo of John Scott John Scott Conservative

Does Mark Ballard accept that without nuclear power this country would have absolutely no chance of meeting its Kyoto objectives and targets?

Photo of Mark Ballard Mark Ballard Green

The Kyoto objectives did not come out of nowhere. They are about a shift towards use of sustainable energy; we want that to happen. The solution to the climate crisis is to invest in sustainable energy: small-scale, locally-controlled and sustainable energy.

I will return to the point that I was making about the future. As I said, I see the future in terms of waste minimisation. We need to learn to make better use of our resources. The concepts of factor 10 and factor 4 were mentioned, which aim to benefit human society and to reduce waste by using our resources more efficiently. It is in that regard that the concept of zero waste comes in. I will address directly the Tory amendment by saying that zero waste is a market signal; it is a signal to business that this is the direction in which we are going to go. It lets business know that we want a reduction year on year in the amount of waste that is produced.

We have the chance in Scotland to get in early on the concept of waste minimisation and zero waste. It is a concept that is spreading around the world, but it is not too late for Scotland to take a lead on the issue. We do not want to get left behind in investing in a concept that is—as opposed to biotech and the other big sciences—the future of the economy. Very often it is not the big sciences but the small sciences that are the future.

I welcome the remarks that Sarah Boyack made about changing our approach to waste from being about management of the waste that we produce to minimising the resources that we use. Waste is a big issue, as are landfill sites, which are not an issue only for the residents of Greengairs. Nobody wants a landfill site on their doorstep and nobody should have to have one. Similarly, nobody wants an incineration plant on their doorstep but, all too often, the poorest communities have them dumped on them, with their associated problems.

We must move towards waste minimisation because of its economic benefits and because we want to prevent communities from suffering the problems that Greengairs will suffer. That is why I support Shiona Baird's motion.

Photo of Iain Smith Iain Smith Liberal Democrat 10:20, 25 March 2004

This has been an interesting and constructive debate. I welcome the fact that we have had the opportunity to debate again the important issue of waste.

In response to Mark Ballard, I say that I am not sure that many people would want a composting plant on their doorstep either, but that does not mean that we should not have them; they are important in terms of the overall waste-management strategy.

Photo of Mark Ballard Mark Ballard Green

I have a composting plant at the bottom of my garden. It is called a compost heap.

Photo of Iain Smith Iain Smith Liberal Democrat

I also have one, but not everyone has a garden. If composting is to be an important part of our waste-management strategy, there will have to be plants to deal with the composting requirements of, for example, city centres. The point that I am making is that people generally do not want to live beside waste-management facilities, regardless of whether they are composting plants or sorting plants.

The debate is as much about badging as it is about strategies. Everyone in the chamber agrees with the strategies that the Scottish Green Party mentions in its motion—no one disputes the suggestion that we should move towards waste minimisation. Indeed, although the Greens have accused the Executive of having no waste-management plan, waste reduction is at the top of the Executive's waste-management policy hierarchy, followed by reuse, recycling and the recovery of waste.

I say that the debate is about badging because other countries do not necessarily call their recycling policies zero-waste strategies. As I have said previously, I went last summer to Prince Edward Island as part of a Commonwealth Parliamentary Association delegation. That province's waste-management strategy is not called a zero-waste policy, but it is similar in concept to what has been defined as zero waste today. The province has a strong policy of ensuring that everybody is involved in separating their waste. Everyone has separate bins and there are separate collections for different types of waste, including compostable waste, recyclable waste and the small amount of waste that is neither. There are separate bins in the streets and even in hotels, which have simple guides that tell visitors what to do. The province has moved from a situation in which it had a serious amount of landfill to one in which it has little landfill. Most of its waste is either composted or recycled. The small amount that cannot be composted or recycled is incinerated in a heat energy project.

Photo of Eleanor Scott Eleanor Scott Green

Does the member accept that what he describes is still waste management, albeit good waste management, and that a zero-waste strategy is about designing waste out of the system in the first place? That is something that the Executive has recognised by sending the Deputy Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning to the debate instead of the Deputy Minister for Environment and Rural Development.

Photo of Iain Smith Iain Smith Liberal Democrat

I do not dispute that point. The other point that I make in that regard is that Prince Edward Island is working with businesses on waste reduction. Waste management is an important part of the province's approach, however, and we have a lot of catching up to do.

The Conservative amendment has got it completely wrong. If we left recycling to local authorities, there would be no guarantee that the targets would be met. We should bear it in mind that the targets are minimum rather than maximum targets; perhaps the Conservatives think that the local authorities should be recycling less than those targets. I think that they should be recycling significantly more than the targets. After local government reorganisation, North East Fife, my constituency, moved from the top of the recycling tree to the bottom. That was because the local authority was considering only the costs, not the benefits. That was a major problem, but the situation has improved because of the investment that Fife has been able to make in recycling through money from the strategic waste fund, and because the council has worked with local businesses. One business is now collecting a significant amount of paper to recycle. It is important that we have a national strategy as well as a local strategy.

Photo of John Scott John Scott Conservative 10:25, 25 March 2004

I support the sentiments of the Scottish Green Party in relation to zero waste, as well as Nora Radcliffe's and Sarah Boyack's sensible comments on the subject. However, I want to raise with the Executive the issue of its much-vaunted target of 25 per cent of domestic waste being recycled by 2006.

Despite Ross Finnie's statement about recycling having become a part of Scottish culture, it has apparently not become part of the Scottish Executive's culture. The reasons for that are all too evident, as Shiona Baird, Richard Lochhead and Alex Johnstone said. Although I welcome the minister's belated new commitments and strategy on business waste, which has been developed in conjunction with SEPA, I wonder how much progress will have been made in a year or two.

We produce about 3 million tonnes of domestic waste in Scotland and we have a recycling target of 25 per cent by 2006, which is just two years away. At the moment, we recycle only 9.6 per cent of our domestic waste, so we are—apparently—to increase our capability by 15.4 per cent in just two years. That is just not possible. We are talking about a huge amount of stuff—25 per cent of 3 million tonnes is 750,000 tonnes of domestic waste—and questions have to be asked and answered about where it will all go, how it will all be collected and where it will be sorted. Will it all go to landfill, as Alex Neil suggests? Those questions have not yet been answered.

Photo of John Scott John Scott Conservative

I would rather not; I am probably going to be short of time.

There are other questions that must be asked. Where will the material recovery stations be sited? When will the planning applications be submitted and removed? Indeed, how many planning applications are under consideration at the moment?

In addition, the time that is required for pollution-prevention certification, plus the building of facilities, makes the claim that we will be able to recycle 25 per cent of domestic waste by 2006 laughable. Will the minister concede today that that election claim—which was made less than a year ago—will not be met? I know that he will say that that, as it should be, is a matter for the 11 area waste plans and the local authorities. However, that is a cop-out: the minister must face the fact that ability to meet that recycling target—in terms of plants and markets—does not exist and will not be in place by 2006.

As Robin Harper said, the Executive must recognise that the quantity of domestic waste is increasing significantly and that job opportunities in the recycling industry are being scorned. Last year, the quantity of domestic waste grew by about 7 per cent, according to Audit Scotland. I know that, last year, a new method of calculating the volume of waste was used, but I maintain that the trend is that there is a marked increase in the volume of waste every year.

We need to invest in education to reduce waste. The Scottish waste awareness group is doing a good job, but will its funding continue after March this year? Is funding in place for similar campaigns in the next financial year?

Today's debate has raised more questions than the Executive probably needs at the moment—given Allan Wilson's recyclable ministerial role and work load—but the fact remains that we are not moving quickly enough to meet our recycling and waste-reduction targets and the Executive's commitments on those targets.

There is a feeling that the waste recycling and reduction industry is not receiving the encouragement that it needs to deliver on the Executive's goals. I urge the Executive to consider again how those goals are to be achieved. I also urge Parliament to support our amendment.

Photo of Adam Ingram Adam Ingram Scottish National Party 10:29, 25 March 2004

Waste, and how we generate, manage and dispose of it, has been a recurring theme of debate in the Parliament since it opened its doors five years ago. I welcome today's focus on the elimination of waste and a move towards resource efficiency. However, to a significant extent, the impetus and imperative for change has come from outwith this place, notably in the form of European directives that are aimed at reducing the amount of waste sent to landfill.

A case in point is the national waste plan target to reduce the 90 per cent of domestic waste that we currently send to landfill to 30 per cent by 2020. It is sad that, left to their own devices down the years, United Kingdom Governments have signally failed to develop the infrastructure and effective policies that we need, to the point where we are now scrambling to play catch-up with our European neighbours and competitors in waste-management practice and, as the Greens' motion suggests, in taking advantage of the economic opportunities that arise from embracing the sustainability agenda.

I do not want to be over-critical of the Executive this morning. I acknowledge that after decades of underinvestment, the waste infrastructure was not there to build on and I acknowledge the efforts that have been made to date in trying to correct that by putting such infrastructure in place, particularly in relation to dealing with municipal solid waste. The sad fact is that it looks as though we will miss the 2006 target of recycling 25 per cent of that waste stream, not only because the infrastructure is not in place but because the waste stream is growing at a rate of 5 per cent per annum.

The motion that is before us points the way forward. The last thing that we should do is to be tempted to seek a quick fix or a big-bang solution to missing targets, such as adopting incineration or huge regional waste management centres, which have been proposed for Westfield in Fife and Killoch in Ayrshire, not least because in doing so we would be visiting environmental injustice on communities that deserve a better future.

Photo of Tommy Sheridan Tommy Sheridan SSP

Does the member agree that we cannot deal with the problem by continuing to break promises to communities such as Greengairs? That community was promised that there would be no more waste development in its area, but the promises have been broken.

Photo of Adam Ingram Adam Ingram Scottish National Party

I agree totally. It is shameful for the First Minister to promise the people of Greengairs that there will be no more landfill sites and then, apparently, to renege on that promise.

We need to have a big national push on waste minimisation. Scottish National Party policies in that area include: introducing a national campaign to promote home composting, refuse junk mail and reduce packaging in shops; requiring major industrial and commercial producers to develop and introduce waste-minimisation audits and report to SEPA on the waste that they produce; providing SEPA with powers to direct waste producers to dispose of their waste by a particular route or process; and introducing an obligation on companies to ensure, where appropriate, that the design of products incorporates waste-minimisation principles at the development stage, including the capacity to reduce, reuse and recycle.

I see that the Presiding Officer is not going to allow me to say what the rest of the SNP's policies are in that area. It is unfortunate that many of those policies and necessary actions cannot be implemented by this Parliament alone, given the limited powers at its disposal; that is yet another example of how we continue to be hamstrung in our attempts to tackle Scotland's problems. Although we support the motion and the vision that it encapsulates, we believe that our amendment is necessary to give it effect.

Photo of Lewis Macdonald Lewis Macdonald Labour 10:34, 25 March 2004

The debate has been constructive. I am particularly glad that there is much support throughout the chamber for the idea of linking our waste strategy with our enterprise strategy and that there is an acknowledgment of the potential for green jobs. When we consult later this year on a green jobs strategy, we will seek views from all interested parties on how best to gain new business and new jobs from pursuing sustainable development and putting that at the heart of our drive for economic growth.

It is clear that the picture is varied. In renewable energy, Scotland has the potential to lead the world, but in recycling and dealing with waste, we have a lot of catching up to do, although we have made a start.

Photo of Christine May Christine May Labour

Will the minister join me in welcoming the initiative from the strategic waste fund that has allowed Fife Council to arrange for Smith Anderson in my constituency to recycle the council's waste paper and sell it back to it as envelopes and other paper goods?

Photo of Lewis Macdonald Lewis Macdonald Labour

Yes. That is an excellent example of the initiatives that are beginning to appear. Recently, I have met representatives of Remploy and the Wise Group, which employ people in recycling, some of whom are at a distance from the labour market, and United Glass Ltd in Alloa, a commercial firm that makes money from recycling used glass.

Photo of Richard Lochhead Richard Lochhead Scottish National Party

Is the minister aware that SEPA has introduced a charge for companies that want to recycle waste for paper mills and spread it on fields? Might that prove to be a disincentive for companies to recycle paper-mill waste, which I am sure we all agree should not go to landfill?

Photo of Lewis Macdonald Lewis Macdonald Labour

SEPA is working within the terms of the waste strategy and its requirement to interpret European legislation in that regard. There are a number of tricky issues around the margins, but the important thing is that SEPA is working on the basis of European legislation and using it as a vehicle for addressing more difficult issues.

The targets that we have set for local authorities to improve recycling and composting rates are stimulating business in those areas. I am pleased that recycling and composting rates have increased from 7.4 per cent to 9.6 per cent in a single year, in advance of the major investments that, critically, will flow from the national waste plan in the next two or three years.

I turn to John Scott's speech. The Tory position appears to be that we cannot achieve our ambitious targets, so we should abandon them.

Photo of John Scott John Scott Conservative

I hope that the minister is not deliberately misunderstanding what I said. Does he agree that despite the Executive's good intentions, for which it enjoys the support of members throughout the chamber, the targets simply will not be met?

Photo of Lewis Macdonald Lewis Macdonald Labour

Certainly not—quite the contrary is true. I hope that we will have support from all parties. In seeking to meet the targets, we are seeking to stimulate the kind of business investment that will make what we want to achieve possible. We acknowledge the need for infrastructure, which is driven as much by European targets as by those that are set in Scotland. We believe that our targets in that regard can best be achieved by our focusing precisely on the means of doing so.

We will continue to fund the Scottish waste awareness group, which was mentioned in the debate. Richard Lochhead asked what the public sector is doing to lead by example. NHS Scotland has put in place an environmental management statement, which includes commitments on waste minimisation and green procurement. The Waste and Resources Action Programme, which we fund, is working with local authorities on procurement issues, as members who were at the recent Convention of Scottish Local Authorities conference will know. The Scottish energy efficiency office, which Robin Harper mentioned, is working directly with business; its advice, like that of envirowise, is adding millions of pounds to the bottom line of companies that take that advice. I urge all companies that have not yet sought advice from either the Scottish energy efficiency office or envirowise to do so.

Bruce Crawford asked what we have done recently to learn from international examples. I am sorry that he is not in the chamber to hear the reply, but I assure members that we are participating in work on new technologies and linking with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and others elsewhere. We have also met representatives of a number of international companies that are pioneering new technologies in composting and recycling.

Yes, progress has been made and yes, there is a long way to go, but rather than shying at the fence, which the Tories would have us do, we need to concentrate our efforts on achieving the goals that we have set. It is clear that if we do so, we have the potential not only to improve the environment in Scotland, but to stimulate the economy and put ourselves where we ought to be as one of the key players in the marketplace for sustainable products and processes in the future.

Photo of Chris Ballance Chris Ballance Green 10:39, 25 March 2004

The debate has been excellent. There is a great deal of consensus about the fact that in this area we all want to be angelic, but there is a complete lack of consensus about whether, at the moment, our primary focus is correct. The debate is designed to investigate that and move us forward.

Much of what Lewis Macdonald said was constructive, but the Executive is still focused predominantly on waste management and recycling rather than on waste production and taking a holistic view of production, consumption and end use. That holistic view is the concept of zero waste, which is what the Scottish Green Party is trying to promote in the debate.

The minister mentioned the Scottish energy efficiency office. That office must be given maximum support and it must get greater and continuing commitment from the Executive. Most important of all, it must get a budget that is not dependent on underspend money, but that is fixed and will continue over the next few years.

There is much that we agree with in Richard Lochhead's speech for the Scottish National Party, but it is important that we realise that Scotland is not completely impotent on waste and that we must act now to show leadership and vision. There is no need to wait, and it is unfortunate that we have the standard SNP single-issue amendment, which simply says that everything depends on independence. Everything does not depend on independence; there is stuff that we can do now, and we should change the focus now.

We had an honest acceptance from Alex Johnstone that he does not understand the concept of zero waste. That confirms our impression, and I trust that, over the next few months, we will be able to help him with that. John Scott's speech was interesting and contained much with which we would agree.

To Nora Radcliffe, I say that now is the time to adopt a zero-waste policy, not a few years hence. If we do not adopt a zero-waste policy now, we will be faced with an increasing number of issues such as the Greengairs landfill site, which is an embarrassment to a First Minister who announced his environmental justice policy at that site.

Photo of Nora Radcliffe Nora Radcliffe Liberal Democrat

People must walk before they can run; we must encourage people to walk with us, and if we do not get them walking, there is no point in us running out in front.

Photo of Chris Ballance Chris Ballance Green

We certainly must walk first, but the point of a zero-waste policy is that it would turn the Executive's priorities on their head: the priority should be not recycling, but waste minimisation. We must address the problem from the beginning of the process, and we must do that in tandem with recycling.

Robin Harper gave a clear analysis of the benefits to business, Government and the community. We are all aware that Japanese companies in particular have given a great lead in that sphere. We have a lot to learn from Japan.

Alex Neil highlighted the issues around landfill and, for his constituency, the encouragement of insects. In the region that I represent, the increase of landfill will lead to the extinction of two species of insect. We debated that at question time last week.

As Adam Ingram said, we are running to catch up with European Union directives. We should be ahead; we should be in the vanguard. The national waste plan, which was prepared by SEPA and the Executive, is not working. It is failing communities and it is failing Scotland. The plan is failing because, although it contains 132 glossy pages of 75 per cent recycled paper, there is almost nothing in it on the subject of waste minimisation. Reduce, reuse, recycle—the waste hierarchy clearly puts minimisation first. That is the most important thing, but the most significant aspect of the waste minimisation plan in the national waste plan is the production of waste prevention leaflets for households; in most council areas, the households will not even have the facility to recycle those leaflets. We need more action on waste minimisation, which is the most important area.

Photo of Lewis Macdonald Lewis Macdonald Labour

Does Mr Ballance accept that the target of an end to the growth in municipal waste by 2010 is a significant step in that direction, that the target will be challenging and that we will have to work hard to achieve it?

Photo of Chris Ballance Chris Ballance Green

It is a step in the right direction, but it does not go far enough. We are spending far too much time congratulating ourselves on a slight increase in recycling rates rather than going to the front end. A radical rethink is needed and, as Shiona Baird outlined in her speech, we must consider the whole system of production and consumption. Zero waste does that and is a tool by which we can do that. Zero waste is not only an environmental issue—I realise that the Deputy Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning is here to make that point; it also concerns health, creates jobs, encourages innovation and saves money. The Executive can adopt a zero-waste policy to send a strong and positive signal to business, local authorities and communities.

Who wants waste? The public do not want it. Business should not want waste, because it is expensive and wastes money as well as resources. Does the Government want waste? At the next election, the Scottish Green Party will go to the people saying that it wants zero waste. How much waste does the Executive want?