Seòmar agus comataidhean

Amendment 207 is on waste reprocessing infrastructure. I should point out that, for the amendment to take effect, legislation is not required, but it is in the spirit of the Scottish Government’s bill, which introduces legislative requirements on, for example, the circular economy strategy, even though that does not require legislation.

The background is that the Scottish Government commissioned an excellent review of incineration by Dr Colin Church. I would like that to be mirrored across all waste reprocessing infrastructure. The review on incineration was conducted too late, but it identified overcapacity for Scotland. There is an opportunity to widen the scope and to commission an independent expert or somebody else to look at opportunities on which Scotland can capitalise, and then produce a report. For example, there could be anaerobic digestion linked to feedstock mapping. There could be a focus on our island communities such as Orkney, which would be a prime example—the report could identify an opportunity for an AD plant there.

That is an excellent point. Fife has been in the vanguard of rolling out recycling facilities, right back to the start in 2005. There are two parts to the issue. The first concerns the evidence: on the point about soft plastics, we need to know what sort of scale of material is required for such a plant. The second part to the issue is the requirement, once we have that information, for a policy decision to be made. That is where advice needs to be given to local authorities because, on a tonnage basis, local authorities might decide that they do not want to collect soft plastics because they get less per tonne for that waste. However, if there is an ability to recycle that material, the decision perhaps goes beyond the financials.

The Scottish Government or Zero Waste Scotland have a key role to play in guiding local authorities and the market in terms of the Scottish Government’s vision for Scotland in relation to what infrastructure and jobs can be provided. As the member points out, where the decisions are left to local authorities, the situation can be very difficult. I do not know the finances regarding the Fife facility, in particular, but perhaps it would have made a meaningful difference if Clackmannanshire, Stirling and Dundee had also been part of that consortium. That is an example of a situation in which it would be helpful for Government to get involved and provide a signal not just to the market but to local authorities.

I have heard the minister’s comments and I would be delighted to work with her on the issue. Therefore, I seek to withdraw amendment 207.

Amendment 207, by agreement, withdrawn.

Section 18 agreed to.

Section 19—Commencement

Amendment 175 moved—[Maurice Golden].

What is the estimated cost of the transition for Zero Waste Scotland?

Definitely. A good example of that is absorbent hygiene products. Is there enough capacity in Scotland for a plant that recycles them back into food-grade plastic? I do not know the answer to that, but that is what I would like the amendment to achieve.

There are policy decisions layered on that. As we have discussed, within the scope of absorbent hygiene products, for example, the Scottish Government might look at that and say that we could have a recycling plant but, from a policy perspective, it would like to have real nappies, so it is not keen to pursue a recycling plant. Alternatively, the ideas could dovetail and work together. Until we have the information, it will be very difficult for the Government to make those policy calls, but it would be an excellent starting point to move up the waste hierarchy and allow investment—whether it be private sector or Government investment—in jobs, ultimately.

If we follow the let-the-market-rip approach, we will not have the job and climate change opportunities here in Scotland and we will end up with unintended consequences.

I move amendment 207.

Mr Ruskell was right to point out that, during the previous parliamentary session, the Greens and Conservatives voted for a ban on incineration—I think that, later in the session, Labour came on board, too. It was Lorna Slater who commissioned that excellent report from Dr Colin Church, which is part of an evidence-based approach to waste reprocessing infrastructure. However, I would suggest that what was done came a decade too late. That was not the minister’s fault; it was a matter of timing. Timing is critical. If we are in a climate emergency, we need to act quickly.

I thought that one option would be for the infrastructure report to perhaps be given to Zero Waste Scotland, as additional duties will not cost anything.

With regard to the overall thought process, the minister said that the issue that we are discussing is a key area of focus. However, I worked on a 2015 bioeconomy report in Orkney and, almost a decade later, there has been no progress on establishing an AD plant for Orkney. Many communities throughout Scotland are missing out while we appear to be asleep at the wheel.

The other aspect that I would point out, which the minister raised, is that the issue needs to be above local authority level. If an individual local authority is considering having, for example, a plastic recycling facility, it will conclude that it does not produce enough plastic to warrant a plastic facility, even if it collected all of it. I say that with no disrespect to local authorities, because the fact is that, for such a facility, you need a scale of supply above that which a local authority will be able to collect, which means that a local authority will not make a decision to establish one.

I accept that, but many pieces of waste reprocessing infrastructure would require a Scotland-wide approach, so “multiple” would have to mean around 25 local authorities. I am not saying that local authorities should not be involved—they very much should be involved—but the issue must be managed at a very high level. That is not a requirement for every facility, because something like an AD plant could be managed at a local or even community level. It would be useful to give local authorities an indication of what is achievable in their area, and they should be very much part of the process in relation to such facilities.

However, for certain other facilities, you are really looking at a Scotland-wide scale, and—let us be brutally honest—in relation to many of those facilities, Scotland will be competing with Birmingham, Manchester and London for the finance to build them. That is why the gap must be bridged through the use of private finance—which I think that the report that my amendment proposes would help to secure—or through the Scottish Government using taxpayers’ resources to provide grants.

Yes—definitely. Scotland can send a signal to the market. For example, if the Scottish Government report that is proposed in the amendment said that, due to its analysis, there should be a plastic recycling facility, that would send a signal. I would suggest that we should have such a facility, but it would be down to the experts to focus on that. The report could be on an electric arc furnace or turbine refurbishment. There are a host of opportunities in this space, and the Government guidance could ultimately influence the market. There is clearly a gap.

We know that there is enough plastic in Scotland to work with a plastic recycling facility, but we do not have one, so let us get experts to guide the market in that space.

Yes. This is not a commentary on the amendments, in particular, but it is of concern that we are discussing the issue 20 years after talking about it previously. It has gone full circle. That is a problem of Government and, potentially, of Parliament. We are discussing what is, in essence, a real nappy campaign almost 20 years after it was initially put in the landfill, so to speak.

There is an opportunity for the Scottish Government to provide Parliament and the member with information on the policy choices in that space. We have had a real nappy campaign before, which was funded by the Scottish Government. Information on that, including on behaviour change, its effectiveness and the materials that were provided could all be published. That would be really useful.

As Mark Ruskell said, we have had recycling trials for absorbent hygiene products—not just nappies but other items. Again, a report would be useful in relation to that space, so I hope that the Scottish Government will do that.

There has also been life-cycle analysis of the environmental impact of real nappies versus disposable ones, and the requirements around laundering a reusable nappy in order to make that better for the environment. That is another report that the Scottish Government could publish.

Another policy option that should be considered in the round is a ban on absorbent hygiene products going to landfill. The Scottish Government might want to pursue that, and it would not mean that we could not pursue the thrust of Ms Lennon’s amendment. Furthermore, there are increasing numbers of biodegradable nappies coming on to the market, and, of course, they would be banned from going to landfill. Again, sales analysis of how that is working out would be useful in advance of stage 3, so that members can make an evidence-based choice on the policy interventions in that area.

On the scheme for reusable diapers, which amendment 170 deals with, it is difficult to know whether to support it without knowing more about the evidence base in the round. It might be the best policy option, but it might not be.

Similarly, although the intention of the scheme for donated mattresses that is set out in amendment 216 is important, it could be incredibly burdensome on local authorities, which would have to match up information across different databases.

I have a question on reporting. Will the minister commit to publishing previous reports on nappies and absorbent hygiene products that have been produced but are not currently published, which would both benefit Parliament and help to inform the debate?

Amendment 55 means that ministers must, rather than may, issue guidance on the operation of the household duty of care. It appears that the Scottish Government is supportive of that. Amendment 56 means that fines can come into play only after the guidance is published.

I move amendment 55.