Hansard

I thank Emma Harper for securing the debate on anaerobic digestion. I confirm Conservative support for the motion, and my personal support should be published shortly.

The debate is a timely and welcome opportunity for us to discuss a technology that can make a real contribution to tackling climate change while delivering economic value for Scotland. I am pleased that the motion recognises that potential and, in particular, the role that anaerobic digestion can play in building a circular economy. That concept is fundamental, because a strong circular economy underpins our efforts to cut emissions, deliver a just transition for workers and create genuine, sustainable prosperity in communities across the country.

I echo the motion’s recognition of the work of the Anaerobic Digestion and Bioresources Association. I have met ADBA regularly during my time in Parliament, and I have spoken at one of its conferences, so I have first-hand knowledge of the depth of expertise that it brings and the commitment that it shows to ensuring that Scotland gains the maximum environmental and economic benefit from anaerobic digestion, especially in rural areas.

When an organisation with that level of experience raises concerns, we should listen. ADBA has set out a number of policy asks to support the sector. I do not have time to cover them all today, but I will highlight a few points that I hope will encourage the Scottish Government to engage more closely.

I will start with the specific but high-impact concern about the Scottish Environment Protection Agency’s proposals to change the regulatory status of feedstocks. There is a risk that non-waste anaerobic digestion could be regulated using the European Union’s best-available-technology standards that are designed for waste water treatment. At the same time, co-products such as pot ale could be reclassified as waste when sent to AD plants. That would mean that materials that are currently used productively—for example, as animal feed—would instead require waste transfer notes and waste handling certification. In short, those proposals would significantly increase costs and could affect as many as 20 major AD plants across Scotland. I urge the Scottish Government to bring together SEPA and ADBA to find a more proportionate and pragmatic approach.

That links to the broader point that the sector needs a clear public commitment from the Scottish Government to the future role of biogas and biomethane. Such technologies can play an important part in the decarbonisation of heat, and policy certainty would send a strong and positive signal to investors. The Government could go further still by creating sustainable market incentives—for example, around the use of bio-CO₂.

Alongside that, we must reduce unnecessary red tape. I agree with ADBA that planning guidance should presume consent for AD plants that meet best-practice standards under the anaerobic digestion certification scheme. At a strategic level, there is also a need to address the fragmentation of responsibility for biogas and biomethane across Government.

Let us be clear about what is at stake. Scotland already has around 90 AD plants, which process 5.6 million tonnes of organic waste each year, produce 60MW of renewable electricity and account for around a quarter of the United Kingdom’s biomethane injection capacity. With the right policies, the sector could go much further. However, that opportunity will not realise itself. I therefore urge the Scottish Government to listen to the experts and turn that potential into reality.