| Previous Section | Home Page |
Column 1323
The debates in Committee and on the Floor of the House today have done the House a disservice in respect of the way in which Conservative Members and their industry interests have nakedly attempted to ensure that the Bill does not reach the statute book. I suggest that they should look to their consciences and consider the victims. Those accidents would not have happened if the information had been in the public domain in the first place.Ms Lynne : Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is disgraceful that Conservative Members have denied us time to debate the Bill properly by filibustering in the debate on the Sexual Offences Bill? They should be ashamed of themselves. They should look to their consciences and answer to their constituents for their disgraceful behaviour.
Mr. McCartney : The hon. Lady is right. The action was deliberate. It is interesting to note that some of the Conservative Members who took part in the debate on the earlier Bill have been most vociferous in their opposition to this Bill or, at least, were rather negative about ensuring that it reaches the statute book.
The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson), who moved the new clause from a constituency interest, represents one of the large drug companies.
Mr. Waterson : Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. McCartney : I promised to give way to the hon. Gentleman and I will keep that promise. I am not sure when I will give way to him--I might do that at 29 and a half minutes past--but I will give way. The new clause is largely a wrecking amendment. The hon. Member for Eastbourne used arguments that were rejected on Second Reading. However, he was not in the Chamber then. Today, he used arguments that were made in Committee and rejected. He referred to proposals that have been raised in the general discussions between the parties--but he did not participate in them.
One is left with the clear conclusion that the hon. Gentleman has been wheeled in--as other Conservative Members have been wheeled in--to ensure that the Bill does not get the fair wind that the Secretary of State and the Minister promised. It is on the back of the interests of our constituents. He has raised issues, but there has been no evidence whatever to substantiate the points made.
Mr. Waterson : I must stress, not for the first time, that I do not speak as a representative of, or consultant to, a company, or any sort of spokesman for any sort of company. The hon. Gentleman said that I represented a company in my constituency. The only entity that I represent in this and other debates is my constituency and constituents. I have taken a view of what is best for them and the country as a whole.
Mr. McCartney : I accept what the hon. Gentleman says. Perhaps he will reflect on the promises that he and other Conservative Members made about secrets and open government not simply at the general election but in the patients charter. The Minister is supposedly responsible for the publication of the patients charter which says that patients have the right to
Column 1324
"a clear explanation of any treatment proposed, including any risks".Is that not what the Bill is about?
Lady Olga Maitland : Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. McCartney : No, I will not give way. The Under-Secretary of State for Health participated in the production of the Government's White Paper, "The Health of the Nation", which says that the Government are responsible for
"providing reliable information on which individuals can base their decisions on matters which affect their health"
and that
"people need information to help make the right choices". The Government also aim to encourage better prescribing. Is that not what the Bill is about? Does it give effect to those principles? Not one Conservative Member has shown any support for the proposals. The Minister did not mention them. All we got was a litany of excuses, half-baked ideas, untruths and squalid interventions about the industry itself. We did not hear anything about the right of consumers--who spend a great deal of money, either as taxpayers through the national health service or as consumers, in buying a variety of brands over the counter--to have information about the products that they purchase.
Mr. Radice : I agree with my hon. Friend. Would not we take more seriously the Government's position--which they have apparently proposed in the last gasp--that they would press for a more open licensing system in Europe if at least they said that they would accept the principles of the Bill and use them to press the matter? They have not said that and, therefore, we cannot take what they have said seriously.
Mr. McCartney : The Minister avoided saying anything about the Bill. He talked about the citizens charter--about how people can telephone their local manager or local district general hospital trust number and have a word once a year. He said that people could have more information about the waiting lists--instead of waiting for two years, people may have to wait for 12 or 18 months. We heard nothing about the detail of the Bill or why he opposes it. He gave us no alternative to it, although he has had months to put forward an alternative. He could have tabled amendments in Committee but did not do so.
Lady Olga Maitland : Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. McCartney : I will not give way to the hon. Lady because she simply wants to filibuster in the last three minutes.
Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. The hon. Lady must resume her seat when the hon. Gentleman does not give way.
Mr. McCartney : The only hon. Member to whom I will give way is the Minister.
Mr. Sackville rose --
Mr. McCartney : The Minister is enthusiastic. Will he give a commitment that he will have further discussions with the sponsors of the Bill and openly with the Department about making proposals in line with what he said to ensure that we can incorporate in those
Column 1325
Government proposals the aspects that Labour Members in Committee wanted to see in place? If the Bill is talked out, will the Minister ensure that there is a way forward?Mr. Knapman : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. A headline in The Guardian today states, "Tories to talk out drug secrecy bill". Frankly, some of us would not mind that, bearing in mind that we do not agree wholly with the Bill. Do you agree, however, that if I am lucky enough to catch your eye at 2.29 pm, I should not be accused on the morrow by The Guardian of talking the Bill out?
Mr. Deputy Speaker : It is not for the Chair to rule on what is written in The Guardian .
Mr. McCartney : The accusation is accurate because Conservative Members tabled more than 100 amendments to the Bill and spoke at length on the Sexual Offences Bill to ensure that this Bill was not subject to a proper debate.
In the final minute of the debate, will the Minister clearly state whether he will agree to talks to ensure that the Bill is able to reach the statute book?
Question put and agreed to.
Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
It being half-past Two o'clock, further consideration of the Bill stood adjourned.
Bill, as amended, (in the Standing Committee), to be further considered on Friday 7 May.
Column 1326
Private Members' Bills
TOBACCO ADVERTISING BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Second Reading deferred till Friday 14 May.
TRANSPLANTATION OF HUMAN ORGANS BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Second Reading deferred till Friday 7 May.
ENERGY (FAIR COMPETITION) BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Second Reading deferred till Friday 7 May.
SEXUAL OFFENCES (AMENDMENT) BILL
Order for Second reading read.
Second Reading deferred till Friday 14 May.
REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (AMENDMENT) BILL Order read for presuming adjourned debate on Question--[12 February] --That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Second Reading deferred till Friday 7 May.
DECLARATION OF WAR (REQUIREMENT FOR PARLIAMENTARY APPROVAL) BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Second Reading deferred till Friday 14 May.
HOMICIDE (DEFENCE OF PROVOCATION) BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Second Reading deferred till Friday 14 May.
PENSIONS BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Second Reading deferred till Friday 7 May.
JUSTICE BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Second Reading deferred till Friday 7 May.
EMPLOYMENT PROTECTION (PARENTAL LEAVE) BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Second Reading deferred till Friday 7 May.
Column 1327
REGULATION OF WHEEL-CLAMPING BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Second Reading deferred till Friday 7 May.
NATIONAL SCHOOL HEALTH SERVICE BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Second Reading deferred till Friday 7 May.
CHRONICALLY SICK AND DISABLED PERSONS (AMENDMENT) BILL Order for Second Reading read.
Second Reading deferred till Friday 7 May.
WEDDINGS BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Second Reading deferred till Friday 14 May.
HARE COURSING BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Second Reading deferred till Friday 14 May.
EUROPEAN UNION (PUBLIC INFORMATION) BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Second Reading deferred till Friday 7 May.
HUMAN FERTILISATION (CHOICE) BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Second Reading deferred till Friday 7 May.
Column 1328
Metal Recycling
Motion made, and Question proposed , That this House do now adjourn.-- [Mr. David Davis.]
2.32 pm
Mr. Paul Marland (Gloucestershire, West) : The Government have put recycling high on the environmental agenda. A duty of care and several studies have been undertaken to create the framework for that to be delivered. Last July, a draft directive on packaging and the packaging of waste was published by the European Commission which set some demanding targets. Those developments show how seriously the issue of recycling is now taken, because it is an important way in which we can conserve our environment.
I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary
Under-Secretary of State for the Environment is to reply to the debate, because he has always taken a positive interest in this issue. I remember when he and I served on the Standing Committee on the initial Environmental Protection Bill when we moved several amendments designed to help the metal recycling industry. Now the agenda is being set to increase our recycling rates in the United Kingdom so we must consider practical ways of achieving that end. I shall focus on that objective by referring directly to the experiences of one of the champions of recycling in the United Kingdom--the steel industry, and its associated metals reclamation industry.
Although political attention to the subject is fairly recent, it is important to remember that the metals industry has been recycling huge quantities of steel and other metals for many years. Indeed, recycling is a routine part of the steel-making process. Steel is truly the most recycled metal in the world, and the scale is impressive. About 300 million tonnes of steel are recycled every year--40 per cent. of world production. That represents a saving of 90 million tonnes of coal and 200 million tonnes of iron ore. That colossal contribution to preserving the environment is a great credit to the scrap metal industry, which is rarely set alongside the sandals and safari jackets of the television environmentalists, but its contribution to saving the environment is much greater. I have always believed that farmers and scrap metal dealers were the original environmentalists.
In this country, as much as 82 per cent. of the steel available for recycling is recycled into new products, using electronic arc furnaces, whose feedstock is nearly 100 per cent. recycled metal. A rapidly increasing proportion of the recycled steel is made up of steel cans. At present, three out of four cans are steel, and each one of us uses on average about 200 steel cans every year. They include drinks cans, paint cans, food cans, pet food cans, sardine tins, shoe polish cans and aerosol cans. British Steel Tinplate has successfully driven forward steel can recycling in the United Kingdom, together with an independent company, AMG Resources, which has gained a reputation as a world leader in the operation of the technology that not only recovers the steel from the can, but separates and recaptures the tin coating.
Last year, steel can recycling broke all records, and 1.5 billion cans were recycled. I mention that positive achievement by the steel industry because I am disturbed by the misconceptions that people have about recycling and their prejudices about the environmental impact of
Column 1329
different packaging materials. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to consider that fact in future policy formulation and execution. People rightly exercise their consumer choice in supermarkets and grocery stores to select what they perceive to be green products and packages. However, studies within the steel industry show that consumers know very little about the real environmental profile of packaging materials. The steel industry welcomes political developments. The proposed European Community directive on packaging and packaging waste should induce dramatic increases in recycling rates and raise the steel industry's profile in relation to its well-established reclamation facilities and excellent recycling record.The steel industry has made great strides in that sphere. Since 1968, the standard soft drinks can has become 55 per cent. lighter. An energy saving of 39 per cent. has been achieved on the amount of energy used to make a standard steel soft drinks can since 1977. If all the cans in the United Kingdom market were made from steel, the energy saving would be the equivalent of the electric lighting needs of every United Kingdom household for a fortnight--an incredible statistic. The resource-saving process has culminated in the development project, "The Ultimate Steel Can". Its objective is to reduce the weight, energy and materials consumption of the construction of steel cans by a further 30 per cent., and should be encouraged.
A misconception that seems to prevail is that returnable packages are always better for the environment than recycling. Return trippage rates need to be high to represent an environmental benefit, and often such rates are not achieved.
Secondly, returnable containers use greater quantities of energy and materials to meet the demands of strength required for repeat journeys, for cleaning, sterilisation and resealing. This is wasteful, complicated and time consuming. Returnable packages are bulky, and sometimes heavy and costly to transport.
The teeth of the EC directive are in its targets for recovery and recycling. Within 10 years from adoption of the directive, 90 per cent. of packaging output should be removed from the waste stream for recovery, 60 per cent. of it from recycling. Alternative methods of recuperation are allowed to make up the remaining 30 per cent. If we transpose the objectives to individual packaging materials, some difficulties emerge. Incineration for energy recovery, composting or chemical breakdown are the alternative recovery methods, none of which is applicable to steel. It seems that the target for steel can recycling is 90 per cent. by the year 2005 for the United Kingdom, so this eminently recyclable material, whose industry is making essential qualitative improvements, could be given the toughest targets. I urge my hon. Friend to ensure that recycling targets are logical and appropriately distributed among the material sectors. The directive does not help by assessing recovery methods and their relative merits. An important assumption, however, is that packaging waste is recovered for recycling direct from the consumer, presumably by means of bottle and can banks or kerb-side collection schemes. Steel, of course, is attractive to magnets, and there is a range of systems that use simple magnetism to pluck out steel cans in immense numbers, with great ease, directly from the waste stream. In the United Kingdom, 27 enlightened local authorities operate magnetic extraction
Column 1330
facilities, recovering as much as 80 per cent. of the steel cans from local domestic refuse--about 5 million steel cans every working day.Steel cans recovered by magnetic extraction generate a revenue for the operator. One local authority in the north of England has saved as much as £150,000 on its waste disposal costs using magnetic extraction facilities and selling the cans recovered.
If we want to meet the recycling targets, it is essential that we use the most efficient, reliable and economical methods to recover recyclable material. That principle should be expressed in the directive and should be at the forefront of Ministers' minds in the execution of policy in the United Kingdom. The rapporteur of the EC environment committee has proposed this to the drafters in the form of an amendment to the directive. I stress that it is important that the Government consider this new development and support it. A key advantage of magnetic extraction is its compatability with other forms of recycling--energy recovery, refuse-derived fuel and composting facilities. The association of materials recovery plant, such as magnetic extraction works, with other recuperation plant can dramatically increase potential recovery--we could call it double recycling. I ask my hon. Friend to assess this, with the objective of meeting the highest possible targets with the maximum possible economy, efficiency and environmental care.
Not surprisingly, the Government have seen the woolly areas in the directive and have identified a role to "provide a framework" for a national integrated waste management policy. Some economic initiatives have already been introduced. Supplementary credit approvals have been made available to local authorities, but these do not look as attractive for efficient bulk recovery facilities, which demand high initial outlay, as cheap, inefficient and low-yielding collection schemes, which may prove costly to operate in the long run.
Similarly, that a local authority should be obliged to allocate to itself a recycling credit for operating a magnetic extractor is not good sense. But ensuring that local authorities feed the revenue from recovered steel back into the expansion of recycling facilities is a sound proposition. Furthermore, recycling credits are very much at the discretion of local authorities. If a national recovery scheme, such as Save-a-Can, is truly to help by diverting recyclables from landfill, recycling credits need to be available systematically, consistently, reliably and equitably.
Despite the important role of the scrap industry and the real environmental achievements of the steel reclamation industry, they are faced with a multitude of regulations. Despite the good intentions behind them, these regulations could lead to the closing of many properly operated scrap recovery businesses and, ironically, that would have a seriously harmful effect on the environment. The Government have understood the difficulties of the duty of care and its associated regulations, and they are to be congratulated on holding back the tide, since 1 April 1982, so as properly to review the practical detail of the proposals.
I shall quickly describe three of the many problems that the steel reclamation industry could face when the new regulations come into force. It is presently intended to introduce subsistence charges for waste management licences that are required for all metal reclamation 4 *V
| Next Section
| Home Page |