 unigwyddo soldiers in translate in the name of Monica Lennon in拍 Stupid in Scotland and that contact will be belong ready even if it is. With those members who wish to speak in the debate, please press request to speak buttons. I call first Monica Lennon to open the debate up to seven minutes please Ms Lennon I would like to thank members who have signed my motion and I remind the chamber that I am a member of the Royal Town Planning Institute, as listed in my register of interests, and I hope to visit her in the public gallery. Planning decisions about the use of land and buildings can make or break a community, and the role of the planning system has huge potential to enhance communities through the creation of high-quality, sustainable places that support the health and wellbeing of current and future generations. However, that potential to protect and transform places cannot be realised without communities. Planning should be a process in which communities are active participants, not passive consumers of something that is done to them, rather than by them and for them. In too many cases, our planning system continues to fail on this front. The best example that I can use to illustrate the important role of community in planning comes from my experience of Whitehill, a neighbourhood in Hamilton, which I previously represented as a councillor and which I am proud to represent today as an MSP for Central Scotland. Whitehill is a place where people look out for each other, residents value green space and have fought hard for resources to help reduce health inequalities. However, it is also a community that has faced adversity. It recently lost its library due to austerity, and it is certainly a nomad to gain an incinerator. A proposal for an energy from waste incinerator at Whitehill first emerged in 2013. Together with local councillors, we all worked to make sure that people were aware of the proposal and how they could have their say. Working under the banner of Herag, residents in Whitehill burn bank, as well as from nearby Boddwell and Oddingston, and more recently from Blantyre, joined forces giving up many Saturday mornings and weeknights. In May 2014, the planning application was refused by South Lancer Council's planning committee. The campaigners were jubilant. The developer was defiant. An appeal was submitted to the Scottish Government in August 2014. 12 months later, a decision was released by the Scottish Government, confirming that the incinerator was allowed to go ahead on the basis of national needs. My constituents played by the rules of a plan-led system, but at the end of the day, the Scottish Government decided it knew better. Boosted by the appeal victory, the developer did not stop there. No, a second planning application was submitted, this time for a bigger and bolder form of incinerator. It is still being looked at by the council. In so many ways, the experience of the Whitehill incinerator is a story about the power imbalance that exists at the heart of the planning system. Pursued by an Isle of Man-based applicants, the proposed incinerator did not comply with the development plan. It did not have the support of local residents or a single local councillor of any party. It did not comply with the Scottish Government's own guidelines for incinerators. Incinerators, according to Scottish planning policy, should be at least 250 metres away from homes and other sensitive buildings. That one will almost be cheek by joe with homes along Whistlebury Crescent and a Travelling People site. To be clear, the approved proposal and the new one breach the development plan and Scottish planning policy. Surely that makes a mockery of a plan-led system that we have had in Scotland for a long time and undermines the participation of local residents who engage in the process in good faith. It has become a battle similar to the incinerator proposed by Shore Energy in the Cairnborough and Shawhead area, which Elaine Smith has fiercely campaigned against for years alongside Monklands residents against pyrolysis plant campaigners. At Fulton MacGregor now as a constituency member, it is also actively campaigning against. Across Scotland, local decisions on incinerators are being overturned on appeal despite genuine issues about particles, air quality, health impact, traffic volume and compatibility with residential areas being left inadequately addressed by the Scottish Government and its agencies. If a 250-metre buffer zone is not necessary and the minister is prepared to allow incinerators to be built a matter of metres from people's homes and residential caravans, why hasn't the Scottish Government updated Scottish planning policy to reflect us? Alternatively, if the minister is standing by the current Scottish planning policy, can he explain later on in the debate why the Scottish Government was prepared to compromise the safety and immunity of my constituents because I believe they deserve to know? Last year, a Sunday Herald investigation by journalist Rob Edwards ran under the headline Ash Heap Nation and examined fears over the proliferation of super incinerators across Scotland. In the report, Dr Richard Dixon from Friends of the Air Scotland warned the Scottish Government to stop this rush to incineration before it is too late. The Government must be clearer with communities over the health risks posed by incineration if they are to push ahead with super incinerators to meet national targets on waste, because that cannot come at the expense of the health and wellbeing of some of our most deprived communities. Updated guidance must be published to identify the impact of incineration on pollution and human health and better consideration given to the location of development size if we are going to continue with the policy framework. To wind up, the decision to allow the whitetail incinerator came down to an interpretation of national priority over local needs and local circumstances. The remedy for the communities affected by the whitetail incinerator lies in the hands of the Minister for Local Government and Housing. He could, right or wrong, rather than sticking to the position of his predecessor, at the stroke of a pen, use the powers available to the Scottish Government to withdraw planning permission for the whitetail incinerator, to do so with respective views of four-year-old Lillie Grace McGee. In her handwritten objection letter, she voiced her concern for the wildlife that lives on the site and for her friends who use backmure woods. She is worried, like me, that the incinerator will harm the health of the community. Planning should be driving up standards in place making and improving the public health of the nation. Incinerators in built-up areas that violate development plans put that at risk. My plea to the Scottish Government is this. Please do not turn us into an ash heap nation. We now move to the open debate. Speeches of up to four minutes generally please. I call Richard Lyle to be followed by Maurice Goulding. I begin this afternoon by thanking Monica Lennon for bringing this important issue to the chamber, and I welcome the opportunity to speak in a debate on which the subject carries significant relevance to my Eringson and Belsol constituency. The motion before us in Ms Lennon's name mentions Scotland's zero waste plan, and it is to that end that I wish to begin my remarks on the chamber. I think that it is right to recognise the importance of the strategy, leadership and offers on waste management. In the ministerial forward at the time, our excellent former cabinet secretary Richard Lockhead rightly recognised that, under the Scottish Government, there had been a dramatic cut in the amount of waste that we throw away in landfill sites, and recycling rates had soared, with the figure that the Scottish Government has supported local authorities in their efforts to increase recycling rates. Moving on from our record on waste management recycling, I wish to focus on what I believe is the heart of this motion to be about and what about, and that is about incinerators as a form of waste management and the associated impacts that they have on public health in Scotland. As many members are aware, my constituency is currently faced with the prospect of being hemmed in, but in both sides by incinerators. From Whistlebury site in Whitehill, my constituency to Canberal plant in the neighbouring Co-Bridge and Christen constituency, of which I am sure Thornton MacGregor will mention in the chamber when he makes his remarks later in the debate. The question is, what does that mean for my constituents? The answer is quite clear. It means that a proposal for a 1990-95 flu stack at the Whistlebury site dominates in the local skyline. This site, as has already been mentioned, is very close to houses in Whitehill, Hamilton. The very real implications of a risk posed by fly ash, which poses a risk to groundwater and by association potential impact on public health through the harmful byproducts and emissions. For my constituents, it reminds them of Steelers wheel, but instead of clowns to the left of them and jokers to the right, it is incinerators to the left of them and incinerators to the right of them. It is utterly unacceptable, and I along with constituents will oppose those proposals. I am however always happy by the strength of response by those in our communities impacted by incinerators. They have mobilised, as has already been said, informed action groups, namely Myrap, Monklands residents against paralysis plant and Herag, the Hamilton energy recovery action group. I am also delighted to work with Herag and to inform local people of the impact which Whitehill and other areas face regarding those proposals. All involved in those organisations have freely given their time and resources to campaign passionately and not only to inform the public, but to share important information that often goes unnoticed. Their work is testament to the power of local people to campaign issues, which is important to them, and I consider it to be important. By paying tribute to them all to the work that we have to do, we have to look—and the point has been made quite forcibly by Monica Lennon, and I have to say that I join in asking the Government, as I have done over the past year or so, to join and look at the proposal that has been put in. It is a site in my constituency, which is too near Whitehill, has to be opposed. As far as I am concerned, I also asked the minister to look at it and to exercise his pen in regards to this proposal and also to look at it closely. I am more than happy to join, and I look forward to hearing from the other contributions in this debate in regards to this matter. I thank Monica Lennon for bringing this debate to Parliament today. I recognise that, although there are local issues in relation to this particular motion, I think that we need to set the general context of incineration in order to properly review what is happening at Whitehill. The first part in doing that is to establish why we should not incinerate in the first place. It is widely established that the best thing that we can do with our resources or our waste, as it is commonly termed, is to prevent it in the first place, to then prepare for reuse, to recycle and then finally, depending on which waste hierarchy you are using, to either incinerate or landfill. In fact, there is an argument for saying that it is better to landfill rather than to incinerate, because then there is a least potential to recover valuable resources at some point in the future. Indeed, if any incineration is going on, it should always be combined with heat and electricity production as a bare minimum. The reason for that is that we do not want to be in a situation in which we are currently in, whereby we are digging up resources from halfway around the world, transporting those materials to be put together, often under some of the worst and most horrendous labour conditions literally on the planet, to then be shipped back to Europe or, indeed, to Scotland and the United Kingdom, whereby the product is then used for a very short time period, or sometimes not at all before it is tossed in the trash, and then ludicrously burnt, having spent all that time designing that product in the first place. The other reason is that, on a more practical basis, local authorities are often signing up for up to 25 years of a contract with waste companies in order to burn waste. The Scottish Government knows that they have set those same local authorities with targets to recycle waste. Clearly, we cannot both recycle and burn the same product, but clearly, for some local authorities, they think that that is possible. I would like to hear their feedback on that. There is a risk of not making our targets. The state of play at Scotland is increasingly worrying. A 12-fold increase in incineration is planned by the Scottish Government over the next five years. Since 2011, there has been a two-thirds increase in burning things in incineration, and that is very worrying for all of us concerned. I urge and I know that the Greens support us in this on a moratorium on new incineration facilities. That would stop the incinerator for the subject of this motion, but, indeed, there will be those who have passed the point of no return. Of course, we need to live with the consequences of that. When I spoke to my colleagues in Europe, they said that the one piece of advice that they would give Scotland is to not build those plants because they have an overcapacity. If people, local authorities or others really want to burn stuff, they can duly export that stuff to Europe where they will happily burn it for you. The answer is not to do that here. I welcome the motion that Monica Lennon put forward. I hope that the Government will properly look at ending those incinerators once and for all. Can I thank Monica Lennon for bringing forward this important debate? I first became aware of issues around incineration, pyrolysis and energy from waste in 2009, when an application was submitted for a pyrolysis plant at the site in Canbro, as was mentioned by Monica Lennon. The communities of Canbro, site, site and showhead were understandably extremely worried about the proposed development and they organised the Monklands residents against pyrolysis plant MRAP campaign. They are still campaigning against this incinerator, and I too am pleased that Fulton McGregor is also supporting them in their campaign. I attended the first public meeting about that to hear the concerns. I spoke at numerous public events in support of my constituents. Local families felt strongly that the construction and operation of this pyrolysis incinerator as a private business venture would have a negative impact on the quality of life for the many families who live in that large residential area adjacent to the site, and indeed for families throughout the wider area. Indeed, the co-bridge area has actually more than sufficient waste reduction facilities, and it has also suffered from landfill sites over the years. At the time of the original application, I stated that I was not prepared to stand by and allow my area to become the waste capital of Scotland in the dumping ground for everybody else's waste. On the issue, the council refused planning permission, and I believe that that should have been the end of the matter. As Monica Lennon said in her opening, the constituents for MRAP were pleased about that. Ministers have been keen over the years to tell us that planning decisions should be taken at the local level. However, in this case, it went to a reporter. The reporter then held the initial meeting when the snow of 2010 stopped local people from being able to attend so much for local involvement. I presented on behalf of the community at a hearing over several days. That was a fun way to spend my February recess on that occasion. The outcome of that should have been against the development, but it was not. The council then took the matter to court unusually, but unfortunately it did not win. Indeed, the Scottish Government refused to use its powers to step in and stop it. That is unfortunate, given that the Government answered to my many questions over the years on that particular facility. Has been that decisions should be taken locally? I think that they should. Maggie Proctor, a leading campaigner, said at the time, said that we cannot and will not accept that this incinerator is necessary for Monklands, and she went on to save the company. Their only risk is financial. They are asking us to risk so much more. Maggie Proctor was and indeed is deeply concerned about the health implications of this type of incineration, and rightly so. Living in Lanarkshire means that you are far more likely to be admitted to hospital with COPD than the UK average, and that pollutants are known to aggravate that kind of respiratory condition as well as asthma. The report has stated that there would be no significant impacts on human health, but with such emerging technology, I fail to see how they could have been so sure. Peroloses systems have not been around long enough to testify to their safety and, in actual fact, no plant can fail safe. No-one locally wanted to take that kind of risk with schools and nurseries within a short distance and hundreds of family homes next to the site. Indeed, a previous accident at a German plant led to the peroloses gas leaking into the atmosphere and residents had to be evacuated and taken to hospital for checks. Friends of the earth criticise those plants as it is difficult to know what will be admitted when information comes from the companies themselves. I suggest that it is environmentally better to focus on recycling and other forms of waste prevention, since any type of incineration can undermine recycling efforts that Maurice Golden has appointed. After all, incinerators require a continuous supply of waste to make money. In any Government waste strategy, environmental justice must be paramount and, worryingly, research has shown that more deprived communities bear a disproportionate burden of negative environmental impacts such as industrial pollution. Like Monica Lennon, it cannot ask that the Government update its public health information on those technologies as soon as possible. However, the biggest problem with all that is the lack of democratic accountability in the decisions, particularly when council decisions are overturned by Government. In closing, I can just say that increasing community engagement in the planning process is of paramount importance. Listening to the real concerns of local people must be a priority, particularly with incinerator proposals, and stopping the apparent presumption in favour of big business over communities is vital. Once again, I thank Monica Lennon. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer, and I thank Monica Lennon for bringing forward this important debate this evening. I would also like to raise an example from my own region on a former opencast coal miner Westfield near Kinglassian Fife. Westfield is a vast site, which has lain empty since the last coal was extracted in 1998. The land has gone to seed, and the pits are filled up with toxic water. It is no surprise that the local community was initially enthusiastic to hear of plans lodged in 2016 to redevelop the site into renewable energy and recycling park. The master plan for redeveloping the site includes solar farms, glass houses for water culture, business units, a recycling centre, public access works, but at the heart of the master plan is a 20 megawatt energy recovery facility, or as the general public would more commonly understand it, an incinerator. The plans for this incinerator are buried in a 156 page planning statement, but include the provision for burning around 200,000 tonnes of waste a year with an estimated 64 lorries a day visiting the site along narrow roads. Constituents approached me just a few weeks before the master plan was due to be considered by Fife Council, with many of them having only just realised that the plans included an incinerator. I heard of community council meetings with the developer presenting plans of redeveloped loss, local business opportunities and thousands of jobs, but with not one single mention of the incinerator at the heart of the plans. People tell me that they feel duped and let down by the planning process. There has been no honest or open discussion about the need for an incinerator, only confusing language and greenwashed promises. The application itself used the failure to meet recycling targets as a justification for building further incineration facilities. I would like to quote from the planning application. It stated, not only was the 2013 target missed by some margin, the rate of increase is effectively stagnated, whilst zero waste recycling targets are laudable and remain in the Scottish Government's stated position. The reality is that they are very unlikely to be achieved. It then goes on to extrapolate how much waste will be needed to be incinerated in Scotland once a landfill ban is in place and if we are only reaching 50 per cent recycling targets. Bear in mind that the application and principle was approved by Fife Council in October last year. Is the Scottish Government really happy with recycling targets that are struggling to meet, being interpreted as a need to burn more waste rather than improve recycling rates? I have also got concerns about a glaring loophole in the 2014 waste regulations, which include an exemption, and I will read this out again, which states that material with no prospect of being recycled due to severe and or prolonged market downturn or collapse effectively could then be incinerated. Given that China has stopped taking 24 different kinds of materials, including many plastics, at the start of this year, I would suggest that there is only a matter of time before the vague clause is enacted, and clearly developers are relying on those loopholes in order to make the case to planning authorities for their applications. Increasingly, it seems that the planning decisions are being decided on not by government policy but by speculative projections by private developers looking to cash in. If planning policy is to be truly effective and give local communities a fair say in developments, then it must be led by robust evidence-led government policy free from loopholes that could see our best zero-waste intention to go up in smoke. I call Clare Haughey to be followed by Graham Simpson. First of all, I thank Monica Lennon for bringing this debate to the chamber today. Being less than a mile outside my constituency, I wish to centre my speech upon my long-standing opposition to the proposed white hill incinerator that is situated just over the border in the Tribliles, Udenstone and Bells hill constituency. The site may well be in another member's constituency, however harmful emissions and pollution do not respect boundaries, and nor will associated health risks be confined to one single constituency. It is therefore entirely understandable and indeed welcome that politicians from different political parties and across various constituencies have united with local communities to oppose the facility in White Hill. Presiding Officer, I would like to put on record my appreciation for the grassroots work undertaken by Blantyre and halfway community councils in my constituency, both of whom have been instrumental in the campaign against this incinerator. As I highlighted in a parliamentary motion last August, Blantyre community council alone amassed over 3,400 letters of objection, as well as a 2,200 signature petition against the proposal after conducting an extensive campaign in the area over last summer. All of this was achieved and told with the community council chatting the door of almost every home in Blantyre, and I was pleased to have been able to assist with their efforts. Given the projected impact radius by potentially harmful emissions and estimated six miles, halfway community council objected to the proposal, too, and in doing so embarked upon a similar exercise to that of their Blantyre counterparts. Halfway community council also visited the vast majority of homes in the campus land eastward, which is no mean feat, and secured a further 600 objections. In total, with the work of the other community organisations and the Hamilton energy recovery action group, over 6,000 objections have been lodged with South Lanarkshire council. I thank the member and I respect the work that the member has carried out in Blantyre with respect to the proposition there. I wonder if the member can give her opinion on whether she thinks that there should be any of the facilities that are built in Scotland. Claire Hawke I certainly do not want them built in Scotland, if Mr Golden is asking me my opinion. I think that I have been quite clear in my speech. Without the actions of the community, the developer Clean Power properties would not have faced anywhere near the level of opposition that they have over the past few years, so everyone involved must be congratulated for their drive and commitment. During my response to the application, I raised 12 separate points of objection. My objections included the proximity of the proposal to residential dwellings, and Monica Lennon has already mentioned that. The development would be situated approximately 50 metres from a residential site that is home to local show people, not travelling people but show people. There are several food and drink manufacturers and producers near to the proposed facility who may be adversely affected by emissions, and particularly Duns, on Glasgow Road in my constituency. Regarding the specific technologies that the plant would utilise, the Whitehill incinerator is proposed to use pyloresis and gasification, which, according to friends of the earth, would rely on feedstock, which is rich in paper, kitchen and garden waste. However, those are widely recycled by local authorities already, and as such it begs the question as to why this incinerator is needed in the Whitehill at all. My constituents should be in no doubt. I am fully opposed to the proposal, and indeed to a similar one in Monklands, which I have lodged an objection to earlier this month, and I wish those campaigning against the development well. Our planning system plays a crucial role in the outcome of future developments in ensuring that communities are properly engaged in the process. With the sizable number of objections to the Monklands and Whitehill incinerators, it is clear that local people are engaged in the process in this instance. Presiding Officer, I agree with what many of the previous speakers have said. In my opinion, the Whitehill incinerator and similar proposals are not the answer to reducing landfill or to waste management. Richard Lyle's constituents don't want it, Fulton MacGregor's constituents don't want it and my constituents certainly don't want it. South Lanarkshire Council's planning committee is set to rule on the application in due course, and I sincerely hope that the hard work of halfway and Blantair community councils and that of the other community campaigns pays off. Graham Simpson, followed by David Stewart. I also thank Monica Lennon for securing this very important debate. Apart from dealing with Brexit, I have been doing little else but thinking about planning recently. Monica Lennon and myself sit on the local government communities committee, which is dealing with the seriously flawed, I have to say, planning bill. This debate raises a number of important matters that are part of our considerations. First, the role of planning. The bill says nothing about that. Readers are left with no idea what it's for. What it is, it should be about, is about creating great places and protecting great places. Places that enhance the health and wellbeing of residents. I held a member's debate on the importance of the green belt last week that dealt with that very issue. I needn't go over that ground again, but those that know me know my passion for protecting Scotland's environment. The second issue is the way people feel remote from the decision making process. There's no doubt that communities feel excluded from the planning system. The local issue brought up by Monica Lennon today highlights that. Clean power properties were met with opposition to their original incinerator plans at the site of the former Craighead school back in 2013. The campaign was launched against the proposals. You've heard that South Lanarkshire Council refused the application, but the decision was taken by the Scottish Government reporter in 2015 to overturn that. The Scottish Government thought they knew best. Clean power properties then came back with a revised application for something even bigger. It's yet to be considered, but I'm on the side of the community in this just like the other speakers in this debate. This brings me on to the next issue, where the power to make decisions should lie. This is a huge issue at the heart of the planning bill. Is it right that a democratic decision taken locally can be overturned? Is it right that ministers can call in applications and overturn decisions? I asked about this at the committee last week, and a witness told me that ministers were democratically accountable and only called in major applications, which is not true. There is little trust in the system. We're looking at how to better front load the planning bill at the moment, but it fails on that front. The final issue is how we deal with waste. Maurice Golden is more of an expert on that than I am. We've called from moratorium on new incinerators. I'm glad to hear Clare Haughey back that, but we do need to deal with our waste somehow. We can't go on dumping it willy nilly in landfill sites. They're also controversial. I played a part, Deputy Presiding Officer. You may well recall it in getting Glasgow's massive landfill site on the edge of East Kilbride shut down to further waste some time ago. It sat in what was Greenbelt land. In my view, it was responsible for polluting a local wildlife reserve. It should never have been there, but if memory serves me right, it was granted originally on appeal. Local politicians were overruled. There's a pattern here, isn't there? So from South Lanarkshire to North Lanarkshire, we've got plans for incinerators. What we don't want is for our area, the area that we represent, to become incinerator central. We need to trust the local politicians. I also congratulate Monica Lennon in securing this afternoon's debate and thank her for her excellent speech, which reflected her first-class knowledge of planning and of course her local community. Discussions about town planning can often be framed in the negative. When we hear about planned decisions, it's usually because someone somewhere disagrees with it. For those seeking to obtain permission or object on application, the complex process can be long and confusing. Of course, town and country planning plays a crucial role in the flourishing of our communities. The system should allow for serious thought as to how land can be used in the long-term interests of Scottish citizens. So planning decisions have the power to impact intimately on individuals' lives, so the stakes and the pressure are great. Our aspirations for town planning are also high. We want it to deliver more sustainable places that can encourage economic growth but not damage the environment. We want it to deliver places that enhance and embrace Scotland's beautiful natural assets but also connect us better than ever before. It is from here that the debate turns to energy from waste facilities or waste incinerators. Build is a method of supporting a circular economy, at least on the face of it. A proposal to use our waste as a valuable energy source might seem positive, but it is not news to anyone in this chamber that, historically, we have largely had a careless approach towards waste. Growing momentum for recycling and reuse initiatives stems from a modern awareness of the damaged interplanet and the dangers of climate change. There is consensus that we need to be responsible users of our natural resources, and that means efficiently reducing our waste output where possible. However, the opposition to development of waste incineration suggests that there is more to the story. From an environmental perspective, energy from waste facilities are promoted as sources of energy that can reduce our need for energy generated from fossil fuels. However, the extent to which they can do this renewable tag is suspect. Current rules require that any recycling is first sifted out, but those are only useful if we bust enforcement as possible. Even if there are guarantees that waste will be separated in advance, messaging is key. We cannot allow public enthusiasm for recycling to wane by appearing to present incineration as an alternative. Facilities' emissions are also a key sticking point for local communities. Evidence may suggest that potential health effects for local residents are small, but their number of factors are play, many of which are key considerations for planning applications. We have heard those already in the debate, Presiding Officer, such as distance from local homes. A planning process that is incomprehensible and difficult to access will give little confidence to residents that their health fears are being adequately considered. It is worth noting that current assurances rely on the European Pollution Prevention Regulations and the EU's waste incinerator directive. With Brexit looming ever closer on the horizon, it is imperative that the strict environmental controls from energy for waste facilities are not eroded. Environmental initiatives are not there just to tick a box. Our efforts to improve the way in which we treat our environment are because we want to protect our natural assets and improve the wellbeing of Scottish citizens in the future. We should not leave sight of that. With such a contentious subject, the Scottish Government has continually ensured that incineration is efficient as expected and remains justified and balanced. Equally, it is necessary that decision-making on entry-level waste facilities needs to be as well informed as possible. Difficult citizens are sometimes required, but it is crucial that communities are involved and listen to throughout the planning process. On issues such as that, we need to remember our goal. If the planning system is to serve the communities of Scotland as we want, it is not sufficient that the environmental friendly label is unquestionably used as an excuse to run roughshod over communities' genuine concerns. I want to thank Monica Lennon again on our initiative this evening, and I fully support her motion and her campaign on this issue. I call Fulton MacGregor to be followed by Margaret Mitchell. I would like to take this opportunity to thank Monica Lennon for bringing forward this debate. It is not going to be any surprise that I am going to focus on my comments in a situation that I have had much involvement with, the incinerator, perolysis plant, energy-to-waste unit, whatever you want to call it, at Carambrough and Cote Bridge, which has already been mentioned. The historical facts of this case are what they are, and they have already been outlined by Elaine Smith. It is suffice to say that the North Lancer Council did reject the original proposal, but it was overturned on appeal at the reporter, and subsequent money was spent by North Lancer Council taking it to court, but unfortunately that was in vain as well. Presiding Officer, despite that, there is another fact that holds true. There is no incinerator up, and there are a variety of reasons for that, but no small part down to the efforts and dedications of the campaign group Munklands residents against perolysis plant ably led by Maggie Proctor, who has also been mentioned by Elaine Smith. One of Maggie's key messages when she speaks to people is to remind us that it is not just the cobrage areas of Carambrough, Sykeside and Shawhead that will be affected by such a development but many others for miles around, and that leads me to thank all political parties and politicians across North Lancer for joining me in placing objections with the council, including local neighbouring MSPs Alex Neil, Richard Lyle and Claire Hawke, Neil Gray MP, Labour Conservatives List, MSPs for Central Scotland, and I think that it would be remiss if I may not to give a special mention to Elaine Smith, who, as my predecessor in the constituency, fought this for a long time. When I got elected, it was all well known about the situation. I had family and friends and Carambrough and Shawhead. I knew about the six thousand strong petition, but I felt that I did duty also to test it out. Last summer, I took a survey in the area that was most affected. Nearly 500 households responded, and I am keen to stress that it was households. Many said on their survey returns at the two, three or four family members so that you can do the maths yourself when it was undone over a very short space of time. All those people, almost to an individual, said that they had serious concerns about the plan being put up. I pulled together a community meeting following that with the developers, SEPA and the campaign groups, so that people could raise their concerns. Hundreds packed into Carambrough primary school, and I do not think that anyone could have left the meeting in any doubt what the local area thought of the new proposals, the same way that they have always felt. Getting that information always might come to forums like that, and there is a role as MSP in saying with full confidence that the people do not want this at my constituency. There is a variety of reasons for this. Health inequalities by far the most prominent. Cotebridge is already an area with a high level of health problems, including asthma, COPD, lung disease and others. I am delighted that the Scottish Government has targeted Cotebridge as one of the first LEZ zones after the major cities, especially since the road running through Wiflet. Not much more than a stone throw away from the proposed development exceeds the recommended amount of emissions regularly. People are literally worried that the chemicals involved will affect their health and that of their children. They are also concerned that it makes it less attractive for housing, for people to bring up their families and to put people off the area. All that time, when I have sought assurances from the Government that the new road networks around the AMA will bring economic benefit to the local area, what a shame then, if all that is brought tangible is to feed waste down the A and off at the Carambrough junction? In the history of the area as well, recycling plant had to actually be closed down by sepa just at Shawhead. Again, a stone throw away from the proposed plant. I would have to mention community campaigners such as Kirsten Smith, who helped to bring that around. The group that Elaine Smith, a member of, will be set up again following the public meeting that I mentioned, but perhaps has been overtaken by events. There is an application in place for which objections had to be in for the start of the month. Hundreds of objections are in, including from the MSPs that I mentioned. That is to go before councillors. That was an amendment to a previous application, which had to be withdrawn. However, it is worth saying that there have been questions raised about whether that should have been an amendment at all, as it is clearly a new major development and therefore should have been subject to sections 35A and 35B of the planning act. I have asked a question of the Government and I await a response for that. Presiding Officer, despite what opinion may be on the need for usefulness of incineration and environmentalism, we certainly bleeds me to a particular point of view, but despite that, I accept that there may need to be a wider argument to have. How many do we need? Where should they go if required at all? How should local communities be involved in the planning process? Those are all questions that we must answer. What I do know is that that is not the right place. Not in a heavily built up and populated area, not in an area where high levels of poverty and health inequality exist, not in an area where many of us are trying to actively regenerate, encourage expansion and include exciting plans, for example for the Monklands, not in Co-bridge. The people do not want it, and they have spoken time and time again. The Government has taken on fracking for the good of the nation, taken on the whisky companies and are currently fighting a Brexit power grab. Camdrow does not want an incinerator, and if we all stick together, we can make this happen. I am fully aware that the situation is with Northlandshire Council, and nothing has all to do with the minister. Presiding Officer, I think that this is important. However, I hope that it will open up. It may well be important, but please close. You just blew it there, Mr McGregor. Margaret Mitchell is the last speaker on this. One of the reasons I have to be so quick is because we have actually run out of time. To allow Margaret Mitchell to speak and indeed the minister to respond, I am minded to accept a motion under rule 8143 that will extend the debate to allow that to happen. Can I invite Monica Lennon to move the motion? Thank you, Ms Lennon. Are we all agreed? The debate is there for extended. Margaret Mitchell. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in today's members' debate about incinerators, public health and planning in Scotland. I thank Monica Lennon for raising this important topic for debate. The Hamilton constituency office, which I share with my colleague Alison Harris, is located just along from the site of the former Crickhead school on Whistlebury road. Over the last few years, as we have heard, this land has been the subject of a planning application for the development of an energy recovery centre, which, as Mark Ruskell referred to, is commonly known as an incinerator. The first application was lodged by the developer Clean Power Properties in 2013, and that in turn triggered universal opposition from the local community and from the local authority, South Lanarkshire Council, which rejected the planning application in 2014. Thereafter, the application was referred to the Scottish Government reporter who found in favour of the developer in 2015. As a consequence is fair to see, the local community and the thousands of individuals, including councillors and MSPs from all parties who had recorded their opposition to the incinerator, felt that their justifiable concerns had been merely swept aside. So rather than this decision being taken locally by those well-placed to assess the issues of concern, the decision-making was centralised. In 2017, the community was dealt another blow when Clean Power Properties returned with plans for an even bigger facility. For example, as part of the planning application, the developer has applied for permission to build a 95-metre emissions stack. For those who are familiar with Hamilton, that would result in the stack towering over the 60-metre high-county buildings, which can be seen for miles around. For the local community, that means, quite simply, the bigger the plans, the greater the risks. As yet, the local authority has not taken a decision on that latest application. In the meantime, the local community's campaign of opposition continues, with the support of organisations such as Hamilton Energy Recovery Action Group, Bottle Road Action Group, Hamilton Academicals Football Club and the Hamilton Advertiser. Elsewhere in Lanarkshire, the community faces a similar battle with Monkland's residents against paralysis plant group, battling against incinerating planning applications in Canbro since 2009. Paralysis and gasification is a new and developing technology that divides opinion. What is certain is that there is little proof to corroborate claims on the performance, safety, potential environmental effects and sustainability. However, it is a fact that the incineration process in whichever form produces acid gases, particulates, dioxins, airborne heavy metals and ash residues. For all the reasons listed above, including the health and wellbeing of future generations, the local community's opposition to those new incinerators must be heard and acted upon. As elected members, it is essential that we continue to work together on a cross-party basis to support the local communities and the tremendous effort that they have put into campaigns to reject those incinerators as new technology and the effects of which have not been tested and remain unknown. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer, and I congratulate Monica Lennon in securing the debate today. I would like to thank everyone for their contributions this afternoon. As all in the chamber are aware, it is not appropriate for ministers to comment on the merits of any individual application so as not to prejudice the outcome of the decision making process. My response today will focus on planning policy and the improvements that we are making to planning in Scotland, including through the planning bill, which is currently before this Parliament. I will also touch on some of the waste policies that we have in the country. Scotland needs new development and infrastructure to support a low-carbon economy, and we also need to work with communities so that that happens in a sustainable way. Our approach to waste and resource management focuses on the development of a more circular economy here in Scotland. That means reducing leakage of valuable materials from the economy, so we need to consume less, we need to reuse more, we need to repair more, and we need to recycle more to keep those materials in circulation for as long as possible. That is why the waste hierarchy is at the heart of our waste legislation and policy. The hierarchy states that, first, we should use or consume as little as possible, and if we absolutely have to consume a product, we should try to reuse it. An example of that is our proposed deposit return scheme for drinks containers. If we cannot reuse, we should repair it, and if we cannot repair it, we should recycle the component parts of the product. Maurice Golden I thank the member for taking an intervention. I wonder if we could focus on whether the 12-fold increase in incineration is compatible with the circular economy, as the member so adeptly articulated. Kevin Stewart Thank you, Presiding Officer. In 2015, mixed municipal waste, which is residual waste generated in Scotland, was 1,982,396 tonnes. Less than 6 per cent of that was put to incineration here in Scotland, and that was all done at two existing plants in Dundee and Shetland. We have done a lot of work with local authorities to try to make it easier for people to separate their waste properly so that more can be recycled. 26 councils have now signed up to the household recycling charter. What we all put in our residual waste bags—the general waste that we do not put in our recycling bins—is collected and sorted to try to remove anything that can be recycled, but sometimes it simply is not possible to recycle materials, as folk are well aware. That might be due to the very high contamination levels or poor condition of the materials, or it might be because there are not currently any processors capable of recycling that material. What is left, which inevitably includes some biodegradable material, presently in the main goes to landfill. That will change in January 2021 when a statutory ban on biodegradable waste to landfill in Scotland is introduced. Therefore, the waste will move up the next step of the waste hierarchy, which is energy from waste, and that means that we will need some additional capacity. National planning policies require planning authorities to prioritise development in line with that waste hierarchy. It also states that strategic and local development plans should allocate sites for future waste facilities. Just for clarity, you talk about extra capacity. Does that mean more incinerators? Kevin Stewart That does not necessarily mean that. I am not going to get drawn on individual applications, as I have said, because that would prejudice myself in any future decision making. I have already stated that we already have two incinerators in operation in Scotland at Dundee and in Shetland. National planning policies require planning authorities to prioritise development, as I have said. Planning and regulation is needed to ensure that communities and the environment are protected from the impacts of development. We have a clear regulatory framework extending beyond planning to ensure that decisions on waste facilities are made on the basis of good evidence, as well as on community views. It has to be very briefly, Ms Lennon, and it is only because it is you, the mover of the motion. I am flattered, Presiding Officer. I know that the minister has to stand away from talking about individual applications and understanding the set-up and the evidence-based approach. Given the minister's privacy and a lot of advice from officials and so on, could he allay the fears that our constituents have? Is he able to tell us what he likes to live within 100 metres or so of one of those incinerators? That is what is facing the people that we represent. I can allow you to be extra, minister. You have been generous with interventions. Presiding Officer, if I give an opinion about incinerators, that might prejudice any future decision that I have to make. I apologise to Ms Lennon, but I am not going to rise to that bait. I have to be very fair in all that I do here. Members of the public would expect me to do that. As folk are well aware, the ministerial code has a special section for the planning minister, and I do not want to fall foul of the ministerial code. Presiding Officer, I realise that we are now over time. I have been very clear that planning should be done with people and not to people. Within our proposed planning bill, which is currently being scrutinised, we have opportunities to ensure that people become more involved right at the very beginning of the planning process to try and avoid conflict at the end. That is what I want to see happen. I hope that Parliament will scrutinise and pass that bill so that we get to that position. I encourage much more folk to become involved in the planning system than it currently is, and I hope that we get to that point. I thank you very much for allowing me the additional time. That concludes the debate, and the meeting is closed.