Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

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

I think that we have already covered the substantive argument behind amendment 46, which I will be happy to move.

Amendment 65 is an additional ask for Scottish ministers to provide the funding to local authorities for auditing receptacles of household waste under amendment 46. It is very important that the inspection scheme for proper disposal is funded and appropriate.

Amendment 57 is based on the reflection that, if we went back 20 years, we would know that it is really simple to get a recycling rate of 60 or 70 per cent without breaking sweat: all you need to do is to roll out consistent collections with the same-coloured bins across the vast majority of Scotland. Ultimately, you get more bang for your buck in terms of communications, because it is all very similar.

Unfortunately, however, we are not sitting here 20 years ago. We have had a real lack of motivation from the Scottish Government in relation to applying the waste hierarchy and recycling, particularly over the past decade. It started out so well, I should add. Given that we know what should have happened, I am keen to understand how we get to that point from the starting point of now. What other solutions are being put in place? It is easy for me to say that we want the same-coloured bins and that that is the right way. However, given that there have been deviations across local authorities, what are the costs around that? The Scottish Government will have them to hand—unlike me, it can work out the costs of all that. What, therefore, is the reasonable ask in that space?

What is the evidence-based approach around achieving the targets that the Scottish Government has set previously—not my targets, but its own targets? I recognise that it is very easy to achieve the 2013 target. However, as we go higher and higher, issues such as that addressed by amendment 57 become far more prevalent. The Scottish Government will have all the evidence. It could release that and say, “Well, actually, we cannot go to those colours, because it will cost certain local authorities X, Y and Z.”

Thanks.

On Jackie Dunbar’s amendments, I understand that having to produce a waste carrier’s licence is exactly what happens currently. In the case of special waste, there should be pre-notification of fridges, say, and other designated materials.

I accept that these are probing amendments. Perhaps some work can be done on an enhanced duty of care and awareness raising for householders. Indeed, the person in question could be a receptionist or some other person who regularly liaises with waste carriers. There is probably quite a lot of work to do on that, so it should perhaps be looked at.

As for my amendments in this group, it might be helpful if I explain where I am coming from on bin fines. My concern is that bin fines are a red herring—or even a rabbit hole—to avoid our taking meaningful action on the circular economy. Nonetheless, what I am proposing is a series of steps for how a local authority might impose a bin fine. I hope that that provides clarity around my amendments.

The first step is to have an efficient kerbside system with appropriate bin facilities, and regular and consistent communications with householders over what can go in which bin and when. There should be bespoke interventions from waste awareness officers, and consistent contamination guidance and checking from waste operatives. Where a household is identified, the local authority should work with it. Initially, that might just involve education, but there could be alternatives such as larger bins for young families, for example, or work to address specific spatial issues that are causing the householder not to do what is required.

I would be shocked if every local authority in Scotland were carrying out all those aspects, which I would describe as best practice. However, if they have all been adhered to, you might be in the space of imposing bin fines. I gently suggest to the committee, though, that if you do get to that final step, imposing a bin fine on the householder is likely to be unsuccessful.

That brings us back to nappies again, because that is generally what the reason is. I do not want to reopen that matter, convener, but it is one of the main drivers for having a larger residual bin.

For all of those reasons, we have this suite of amendments before us today.

That was my only comment on it.

Given that the Scottish Government has clearly picked this area for a policy intervention, what assessment has the Scottish Government made of the potential emissions reductions that would result?

In advance of stage 3, it might be beneficial if the committee and Parliament were to understand why, in this case, charges for single-use items as a policy intervention were chosen over other policy interventions, so that we can better understand the impact on emissions, behaviour change and the circular economy. At the moment, I am not clear, and I wonder whether the member is clear, why we are discussing this particular policy intervention.