Hansard

I would not wish to cross you in any dispute, convener.Amendments 162 to 184 seek to ensure that powers are made available to set up effective deposit and return schemes by means of a clearing-house system. My colleague Richard Lochhead mentioned those schemes in evidence to the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee on 4 February. On 13 February, he wrote to the committee about them in more detail.In contrast, amendments 185 and 186, in the name of Alex Johnstone, seek to ensure that ministers are given no powers to set up a deposit and return scheme—none at all.Amendment 245 seeks to ensure that materials that are subject to a deposit and return scheme may be reused as well as recycled.In the consultation paper on potential measures to implement zero waste, one deposit and return scheme option for which we canvassed consultee response was a clearing-house scheme on the Danish model. Denmark has been operating a successful scheme for some years now. A body, which in the amendments is called the "scheme administrator", may be required to help retailers and producers by carrying out clearing-house functions on their behalf. The amendments allow ministers to give those functions to either an existing body or a new body that is created for that purpose.In either case, we need to ensure that the powers that the scheme administrator enjoys are sufficiently wide to operate a successful scheme. The amendments give any new body that ministers establish the power to do things that are necessary or expedient for it to do. They also enable ministers to set out such powers in greater detail in subordinate legislation and to adjust the functions of any existing body that might be selected to run a deposit and return scheme.Specific mention is made of the powers of borrowing and charging, given that any scheme will have to operate in a quasi-commercial manner and cover its costs. The administrator will need to have access to Government financing, whether by grant or loan, and not only for start up—there may be need for Government financial intervention thereafter. One example is the need to smooth out financial cycles or gaps between costs that arise and income that is generated. Amendments 170, 173 and 181 to 184 deal with the scheme administrator.On 4 February, the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee heard in evidence that packaging is not the only material that might be handled by a deposit and return scheme. It was pointed out that consumer articles might also usefully be included. The example suggested was that of low-energy light bulbs, which will be disposed of in increasing numbers as incandescent bulbs are phased out. Separate collection and appropriate recycling is desirable in their case because of the mercury that they contain. The Government accepts that that is a sensible change. Amendments 162 to 169, 171, 172, 174, 175 and 177 to 180 give it effect by extending powers in connection with setting up schemes to cover articles, packaging or both.Amendment 176 empowers ministers to include provision in the regulations to provide for a non-returnable element in the sale price of articles. That element, which may be regarded as part of the deposit that is paid by the customer, would be used to defray the expenses that are involved in operating the scheme. It would be desirable to cover those expenses in a transparent way rather than leave it to producers to cover them through retail prices. Such a provision might also make consumers think about the environmental consequences of their consumption, which is in keeping with the polluter-pays principle. As the holder of the waste, the consumer is one of the polluters on whom, in terms of article 14(1) of the revised waste framework directive, the costs of waste treatment are to fall.I turn to amendments 185 and 186, in the name of Mr Johnstone. Two petitions are currently before Parliament in support of deposit and return schemes, and supportive evidence was given at stage 1, but I acknowledge the strong representations from industry against such schemes. Some of those may be dealt with briefly. It is notable that one member of the British Soft Drinks Association, which opposes the measure, is A G Barr, which operates its own deposit and return scheme. It is simply not true to suggest that such schemes do not work, as they work not only in several European countries, such as Sweden and Denmark, but in individual states and provinces of the United States and Canada. Denmark's experience is particularly instructive, as it is a nation of five million that has a very porous border with a much larger southern neighbour. Does that sound familiar?It is simply unrealistic to suggest, as the BSDA does, that the detail of any such measure should be set out in primary legislation—the statutory instrument that sets out the Danish scheme runs to more than 50 pages—but the matter is not just about length and balance. Successful schemes relate to materials for which there is a market, and prices for recyclate can rise and fall fairly rapidly. It would not help the speed of our reactions to have to change primary legislation every time, which is why we need full powers to make the kind of secondary legislation that I outlined.In any event, as with other waste provisions in the bill, we have indicated that we do not intend to move to regulation in the current economic circumstances. We will do so only if voluntary efforts fail to achieve the desired results. We are giving time for such efforts, and progress has already been made, such as the reverse vending machines that are in place at some Tesco stores in Scotland—Richard Lochhead opened the facilities at the Tesco store in Shettleston earlier this year. I acknowledge that Mr Johnstone is a strong supporter of the better use of resources, so I am sure that he would wish to encourage those efforts, as I do. However, should those efforts fail, we will need an armoury of measures to improve our resource efficiency and thus mitigate climate change. That is the background to everything that we seek to do through the bill, and the deposit and return provision is one of those measures.There has been mention of alarming costs—in the BSDA's version, the costs would be hundreds of millions of pounds. That level was not reflected in our financial memorandum, which was built on the actual experience of the Danish and Norwegian schemes, but in response to a recommendation of the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee we have agreed to set out detailed costings for any scheme at the time of consultation on the new regulations. That committee and others will have plenty of time to discuss those costings. If they showed the levels of expense that the BSDA suggests, Parliament would be able to block the scheme, although I cannot imagine that we would proceed with it in the first place.I completely agree with the purpose of amendment 245, which is to ensure that it is possible to reuse, as well as recycle, materials that are subject to such schemes, but the amendment is unnecessary as the term "recycling", as used in chapter 4 of part 5, is defined to include reuse under section 52(4). The amendment would therefore add nothing to the bill.I invite Mr Johnstone not to move amendments 185 and 186, and I invite Dr Murray not to move amendment 245.I move amendment 162.