Chamber
Meeting of the Parliament 15 September 2011
15 Sep 2011 · S4 · Meeting of the Parliament
Item of business
Waste Management
This is a timely debate, for there is little doubt that waste management is contentious, complicated and emotive—almost always because communities do not consider that their views are being taken into account.
The motion outlines the waste hierarchy that is important in achieving a zero waste Scotland, which focuses first on attempts to reduce waste. In that regard, the Westminster Government’s announcement today on sell-by dates is welcome and should be helpful. The hierarchy goes on to cover the reuse of waste, and then emphasises recycling and recovery.
For the benefit of the layperson and anyone else who is bemused by the different types of waste management systems, recovery means extracting other value—for example, creating energy. However, the hierarchy does not mention landfill as a means of disposing of waste, which would come a poor fifth in the pecking order.
To put the issue in perspective, householders are undoubtedly trying to do their bit, but are increasingly angered and frustrated because despite their supporting the zero waste objective by conscientiously concentrating on reusing or—if that is not possible—recycling their waste, the local authorities have not put in place the necessary services to facilitate that.
The minister and the cabinet secretary may be interested in a situation that has arisen in Central Scotland. The courageous communities of Greengairs and neighbouring communities in the north Airdrie community group in North Lanarkshire currently live with the largest-capacity landfill site in Europe, as well as four other recently completed landfills. Those communities have taken the reasonable and responsible positive action of supporting—and even, in some instances, suggesting—the establishment of recycling and reuse waste technologies in North Lanarkshire in order to avoid the need for an incinerator. However, despite the communities making those suggestions and taking part in the local plans, and despite the designation as a rural investment area—which should have precluded the presence of an incinerator—the Drumshangie incinerator, which will have the capacity to burn 300,000 tonnes of waste a year, was approved in May 2009. In effect, that ignores the hierarchy of waste management and the willingness of people to support the creation of reuse and recycling facilities in their communities. North Lanarkshire will now have a huge capacity not only for landfill, but for incineration.
In addition, two more applications for incinerators are pending in North Lanarkshire, the most recent in Harthill. With that number of applications currently on the go, it is difficult not to conclude that, rather than concentrating on need, people are making widespread speculative planning applications.
If all that was not enough, there is also an issue with incinerators in South Lanarkshire and, at the other end of my region, Forth Energy has applied to build a biomass plant in Grangemouth. I am reliably informed that biomass facilities often turn into incinerators.
It is therefore clear that the waste management priorities as outlined in the hierarchy are not being implemented, and that consequently, the people of North and South Lanarkshire, Falkirk and elsewhere in Scotland are not being rewarded for their perseverance and participation. Furthermore, given the strength of feeling against the use of landfill and incinerators, the communities that are involved are, more often than not, much better versed in the issues than are politicians, yet there is a definite lack of meaningful consultation of local residents.
To take the latest example, in Harthill the developer held the consultation on a weekday afternoon when it was clear that the vast majority of local residents could not attend, so—not surprisingly—only seven did. It is particularly frustrating that in councils such as North Lanarkshire, there appear to be startling inconsistencies on how incinerator planning applications are dealt with. In those circumstances, I suggest that the following should be considered as a priority: first, the Scottish Government should consider the reasons why local authorities do not have appropriate recycling facilities and ensure that the issue is addressed. In the meantime, a moratorium on large incinerators and biomass applications should be implemented—
The motion outlines the waste hierarchy that is important in achieving a zero waste Scotland, which focuses first on attempts to reduce waste. In that regard, the Westminster Government’s announcement today on sell-by dates is welcome and should be helpful. The hierarchy goes on to cover the reuse of waste, and then emphasises recycling and recovery.
For the benefit of the layperson and anyone else who is bemused by the different types of waste management systems, recovery means extracting other value—for example, creating energy. However, the hierarchy does not mention landfill as a means of disposing of waste, which would come a poor fifth in the pecking order.
To put the issue in perspective, householders are undoubtedly trying to do their bit, but are increasingly angered and frustrated because despite their supporting the zero waste objective by conscientiously concentrating on reusing or—if that is not possible—recycling their waste, the local authorities have not put in place the necessary services to facilitate that.
The minister and the cabinet secretary may be interested in a situation that has arisen in Central Scotland. The courageous communities of Greengairs and neighbouring communities in the north Airdrie community group in North Lanarkshire currently live with the largest-capacity landfill site in Europe, as well as four other recently completed landfills. Those communities have taken the reasonable and responsible positive action of supporting—and even, in some instances, suggesting—the establishment of recycling and reuse waste technologies in North Lanarkshire in order to avoid the need for an incinerator. However, despite the communities making those suggestions and taking part in the local plans, and despite the designation as a rural investment area—which should have precluded the presence of an incinerator—the Drumshangie incinerator, which will have the capacity to burn 300,000 tonnes of waste a year, was approved in May 2009. In effect, that ignores the hierarchy of waste management and the willingness of people to support the creation of reuse and recycling facilities in their communities. North Lanarkshire will now have a huge capacity not only for landfill, but for incineration.
In addition, two more applications for incinerators are pending in North Lanarkshire, the most recent in Harthill. With that number of applications currently on the go, it is difficult not to conclude that, rather than concentrating on need, people are making widespread speculative planning applications.
If all that was not enough, there is also an issue with incinerators in South Lanarkshire and, at the other end of my region, Forth Energy has applied to build a biomass plant in Grangemouth. I am reliably informed that biomass facilities often turn into incinerators.
It is therefore clear that the waste management priorities as outlined in the hierarchy are not being implemented, and that consequently, the people of North and South Lanarkshire, Falkirk and elsewhere in Scotland are not being rewarded for their perseverance and participation. Furthermore, given the strength of feeling against the use of landfill and incinerators, the communities that are involved are, more often than not, much better versed in the issues than are politicians, yet there is a definite lack of meaningful consultation of local residents.
To take the latest example, in Harthill the developer held the consultation on a weekday afternoon when it was clear that the vast majority of local residents could not attend, so—not surprisingly—only seven did. It is particularly frustrating that in councils such as North Lanarkshire, there appear to be startling inconsistencies on how incinerator planning applications are dealt with. In those circumstances, I suggest that the following should be considered as a priority: first, the Scottish Government should consider the reasons why local authorities do not have appropriate recycling facilities and ensure that the issue is addressed. In the meantime, a moratorium on large incinerators and biomass applications should be implemented—
In the same item of business
The Presiding Officer (Tricia Marwick)
NPA
Good morning. The first item of business is a debate on motion S4M-00853, in the name of Michael McMahon, on waste management. In the light of the possibilit...
Michael McMahon (Uddingston and Bellshill) (Lab)
Lab
Although, as all colleagues did, I came into politics to make life better for those whom I represent, I confess that—unlike for a good number of fellow membe...
Stewart Maxwell (West Scotland) (SNP)
SNP
Perhaps Michael McMahon did not read the full question and answer exchange with Mr Mather when he was minister. We were talking about a particular plant in m...
Michael McMahon
Lab
A plant of 1 million tonnes might be of a different scale from the ones that we are talking about, but people on the Government side of the chamber campaigne...
Iain Gray (East Lothian) (Lab)
Lab
Perhaps the member will acknowledge another example in my constituency, where an application for an incinerator handling 300,000 tonnes a year—well over twic...
Michael McMahon
Lab
I agree, because that is the level at which Jim Mather said incinerators would be unacceptable. However, they are being approved by this Government against t...
The Minister for Local Government and Planning (Aileen Campbell)
SNP
Will the member take an intervention?
Michael McMahon
Lab
Right on cue.
Aileen Campbell
SNP
Does the member not recognise the role of local authorities in that case? That decision was rightly up to South Lanarkshire Council and it made its decision.
Michael McMahon
Lab
The minister has clearly not been listening and makes the point for me. The minister passes the buck to local authorities for issues that ultimately rest wit...
Aileen Campbell
SNP
It is part of the Planning etc (Scotland) Act 2006 that local decisions would be made locally.
Michael McMahon
Lab
The minister makes the point for me. We have asked her to review the guidance and the planning laws. She refuses to do that but continually campaigns and cla...
The Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and the Environment (Richard Lochhead)
SNP
I welcome the opportunity to debate this important topic and thank Michael McMahon and his colleagues for giving Parliament this opportunity.I listened caref...
Michael McMahon
Lab
I make it clear that we are not asking for the scrapping of planning system. I said that I concur with Christina McKelvie in asking for a review to ensure th...
Richard Lochhead
SNP
The debate addresses some of the challenges that our society faces on the road to zero waste Scotland—a destination that we all, I am pleased to say, appear ...
Margaret Mitchell (Central Scotland) (Con)
Con
I thank the minister for taking an intervention. I do not think that anyone disputes the fact that there will be residual waste. The problem is that faciliti...
Richard Lochhead
SNP
I have an element of sympathy with the member’s comments. That is why more infrastructure needs to be built in Scotland.I am acutely aware of the strong emot...
Stewart Maxwell
SNP
On a very specific point, my understanding is that the Planning etc (Scotland) Act 2006 provides that there should be a fit and proper person test for anybod...
Richard Lochhead
SNP
The member raises an interesting point. Of course, the Electricity Act 1989 is reserved to the United Kingdom Government, although elements of it are devolve...
Elaine Smith (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Lab
Will the member give way?
Richard Lochhead
SNP
I apologise, but I have taken three interventions already.I have no desire to see such levels of incineration in Scotland. That is why we have set some of th...
Elaine Smith
Lab
Will the member give way?
Richard Lochhead
SNP
I am sorry, I have taken three interventions already. I will take the member’s intervention in my closing speech.At each stage of the planning process, wheth...
Margaret Mitchell (Central Scotland) (Con)
Con
This is a timely debate, for there is little doubt that waste management is contentious, complicated and emotive—almost always because communities do not con...
Aileen Campbell
SNP
Will the member take an intervention?
Margaret Mitchell
Con
I am in my last seconds.Finally, the Scottish Government must consider the reform of subsidies for renewable energy operators in an effort to discourage spec...
The Presiding Officer
NPA
We move to the open debate. I remind members that they have a very tight four minutes.09:39
Elaine Smith (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Lab
The debate is vital, because how we deal with our waste will have consequences for our planet for generations to come. People recognise that. Masses of peopl...
Mark McDonald (North East Scotland) (SNP)
SNP
I know that the Labour Party does not oppose energy from waste per se, and I give it credit for that. I know that because when Aberdeen City Council—I declar...
Siobhan McMahon (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lab
The Scottish Government’s zero waste plan was intended to lead to waste disposal being regulated in“a better, more consistent way”,and to help clarify the ex...