The
Deputy Presiding Officer:
I now call Allan Wilson to close for the Executive. You have seven minutes,
minister.
Allan Wilson: That is indeed news to me, Presiding Officer. I had
anticipated making an opening speech but not a closing one.
Mr Monteith: Will the minister give way?
[Laughter.] Might it help him to
consider the issue of milk bottles? As a youth, I used to deliver milk
regularly and remember that I carried pint-sized milk bottles in my hands.
However, the consumer has moved on; milk is now far cheaper and can be
purchased in six-pint
plastic containers. Is it not the case that consumers have dictated that
glass should be used less now that they can buy in bulk and at a cheaper
price?
Allan Wilson: I am very glad that the member has raised the economic aspects
of the debate, because I am prepared to turn to those in my summing-up.
I should say that I was intrigued by the fact that, in his speech, Mr
Monteith agreed with Mr McFee. Indeed, I think that he was practically the
only speaker in the debate who had a measure of agreement with Mr McFee.
Of course, it will come as no surprise to find that I disagreed with almost
everything that Mr McFee said.
Perhaps Frances Curran gave the most interesting speech on the economics of
reuse and recycling. However, I have to say that I do not agree with her
command economy approach to the problems of reuse and recycling, how to
raise public awareness and how to secure our economic and environmental
objectives. Indeed, we need only consider the former Soviet Union as an
example of the considerable environmental impact that a failed command
economy has on its people.
Frances Curran: Does the minister accept that, in trying to make the
Scottish Executive's environmental policies look good by comparing them with
those of the Soviet Union, he is simply grasping at straws?
Allan Wilson:
No. On the contrary, I used the example of the former Soviet Union as a
failed command economy to point out that neither that economy nor the market
economy that Mr Monteith advocates provides the solution to this problem.
There is indeed a third way.
[Applause.]
Thank you. That third way recognises the public sector's contribution to
improving our environmental performance. We need that contribution both from
the Executive and from local government, which represents its communities'
interests and seeks to improve environmental performance in order to improve
the quality of life in those communities. There is no single private sector
market solution to the problems of environmental degradation caused by the
waste maximisation process that Frances Curran outlined.
Sarah Boyack: I welcome the minister's explanation of how we can influence
and shape the market in a mixed economy. I fully appreciate his point that
the role of regulations, particularly with regard to this issue, could
create a level playing field for companies. We are all striving to ensure
that companies tackle the task of recycling and reusing more, but they must
do so competitively across the whole of Europe to ensure that we are not
disadvantaged. I should also reiterate the point in our report about
procurement. As well as playing a leadership role, the Executive can
establish a framework for public procurement across the whole public sector
to influence markets and raise standards.
Allan Wilson: Indeed. That was precisely my point. As an organisation, we
can act in a way that instigates and generates a market response. That said,
the market itself is not in a position wholly to address the environmental
degradation that we see all around us and the majority of which has been
caused by market failure.
Mr Monteith: Will the minister give way?
Allan Wilson: When I return to that point, I will be pleased to let the
member back in.
As far as public procurement is concerned, we can obviously make a very
important contribution to the whole.
The NHS probably offers the classic example: as the biggest single employer
in the Scottish economy, it can make a valuable contribution towards waste
minimisation, waste reduction, reuse and recycling by setting targets and by
creating an environmental policy that guides its public procurement
policies.
I do not agree with what my Liberal colleagues said about introducing
charges as a way of influencing that process. I agree with what Frances
Curran said about not moving to a system or regime that is based on
individual charging. I disagree with what Mr McFee said, as this issue is
nothing to do with the powers that are available to this Parliament or any
other Parliament; it is to do with how those powers are exercised in the
interests of the people and the communities that we represent.
Mr Ruskell: rose—
Mike Rumbles: rose—
Mr Monteith: rose—
The Deputy Presiding Officer: The minister is in his final minute.
Allan Wilson: Of course, if there were going to be a move towards a charging
regime, as is proposed in Ireland, the fundamental question that must be
answered is how the people on the lowest incomes would be protected. The
poorest people are the ones who would be the most adversely and
disproportionately affected by the system that the nationalists and the
Conservatives seem to be proposing.
On that point, Mr Monteith is welcome to intervene.
Mr Monteith: I cannot.
Allan Wilson: You cannot?
The Deputy Presiding Officer: No. The minister is now winding up.
Allan Wilson: Okay.
With those few words, I am pleased to welcome the contributions made by
members throughout the chamber in what has been a valuable debate. We will
take on board everything that has been said. Within the short time that is
available to me I cannot answer every point that has been raised, but I will
endeavour to get back to members with a clear and concise response on any
issue that remains outstanding. I thank the committee for its report. |
