---

Mr. Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield): My hon. Friend knows of my interest in this matter and of my enthusiasm for the work of Valpak. He will also know of the stress and strain involved. We need much more positive Government backing for Valpak if the voluntary agreement is not to fall apart. Valpak and other organisations have been working hard towards the best possible answers. There is no single answer to waste minimisation; it is all about striking the right balance. Once waste starts to be moved along motorways, of course, it begins to damage the economy and the environment.

Mr. O'Brien: My hon. Friend is right. As we are aware, the new agency covers all types of environmental issues, but there are fears that the agency's dominant activities will be those that it took over from the former National Rivers Authority and Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution. I will put my hon. Friend's point to the Minister. Does he envisage that the agency's resources will apply to ensuring that waste management issues are given sufficient focus, with particular reference to packaging waste, which accounts for one third of household waste? The agency must give as much time to that issue as to some of the other issues for which it is responsible.

The Environment Agency has been advised that it should deliver goals without imposing excessive costs. In some European Union member states, packaging recovery has led to excessive cost. In Germany and Austria, citizens pay around £20 per year in inflated products to reach certain targets. The United Kingdom Government suggest that packaging regulations will cost between £5 and £11 per head of population. In view of the low level of energy from waste in Britain, how confident is the Minister that the recycling targets can be met from an extra cost below £11 per person per annum?

Environmental progress can be achieved only by taking a fully integrated approach to waste management, including packaging waste. If the costs to the UK scheme

15 Jan 1997 : Column 289

are to be minimised, how important is it that the legal responsibility for achieving the recovery targets are shared between various participants who lead in marketing packaging goods? We need to have some directive on how to achieve the recovery targets at the minimum cost that is suggested by the Government.

The Government have set a target for the recycling of domestic waste of 25 per cent. of the total by 2000. That can be met only if investment in the infrastructure is encouraged. Local authorities will play a key role in any recycling programme. Recycling performances in the UK are not as advanced as those in many European Union member states. The industry must be given a realistic timetable to meet the first-year obligations for registration and data provision. We can bring about success only by implementing a plan, rather than talking about it.

Will the Minister give some indication as to when he proposes laying the regulations for the packaging recovery industry before Parliament? Does he intend to demonstrate further co-operation with Valpak and the industry by progressing with regulations and using mechanisms to revise the regulations as experience is gained?

I ask for one further point to be clarified: that of wood in packaging, which is not included in any scheme. Friends of the Earth has drawn attention to wood in packaging. Many members in the industry re-use wood for packaging--I refer to pallets. Also, many people in the packaging industry have changed to re-usable plastic crates and trolleys, which is to be commended.

I understand that the European Union has not offered any real guidance on that issue and there may be questions in some EU countries as to wood being included in packaging. When does the Minister expect to report on wood packaging?

I have received many items of briefing material from many sources in the industry, interested organisations and individuals expressing support for and reservations on some waste management proposals. Although that material is welcome, it demonstrates the strength of feeling on the issue. Obviously, I would have wished to continue the debate for longer, but because of the time limit I must conclude by asking the Minister to answer my questions.

1.15 pm

Mr. Robert Atkins (South Ribble): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) for allowing me to participate briefly in his debate. I do not want to delay my hon. Friend the Minister's reply. The hon. Gentleman spoke with the authority that I came to expect when I was the Minister taking through the Bill to which he referred, which became the Environment Act 1995. He was always an authority on the Committee, although I did not always agree with him.

I want to dwell just on the packaging regulations, with which my hon. Friend the Minister is heavily involved, as is the Secretary of State for the Environment. I shall quote from four letters that I have received from constituency companies, which raise particular points. I do not expect the Minister to answer now. He must concentrate on the points made by the hon. Member for Normanton, whose debate it is, but perhaps he could let me know his reaction later.

15 Jan 1997 : Column 290

The managing director of Ward Packaging Ltd. in Leyland, which employs 110 people making paper sacks and bags, says that

"under the proposed regulations Ward Packaging will be burdened with an unrealistic administrative regime to identify its recycling targets, and that of its customers, at a very detailed level and at a significant cost. Having identified these targets I will not have the ability to achieve these targets because the packaging produced will not be within my control or that of my customers."

Smurfit Corrugated, a substantial company throughout the United Kingdom, says:

"The problem arises because one part of the Packaging Chain--the big Retailers--might be able to use the considerable amount of used transit packaging that ends up in their stores to offset their obligation against other kinds of packaging, thus avoiding the costs that the other members of the Packaging Chain will have to bear."

Leyprint, a substantial printing company, says:

"it puts up the cost of complying with the Regulations for the other parts of the packaging chain. This threatens the viability of industry-wide recovery schemes like Valpak whose costs will consequently increase. As a result, the UK's ability to meet its recovery and recycling targets may be undermined . . . with a knock-on-impact on profitability and jobs."

Finally in this context, the owner of a small post office in Penwortham says that the introduction of the regulations will force him

"to raise my prices and lose customers to supermarkets or to cut my profit margin significantly . . . The Regulations will make my business very vulnerable to closure . . . as well as depriving people of a local shop."

Set against that, large retailers maintain that

"the regulations will meet the requirement of an effective and equitable method of putting shared producer responsibility into practice.


The Regulations are entirely in line with the industry agreement which was reached on December 15th 1995 between all parts of the packaging chain".

The point with which I leave the House is that, clearly, there is some concern about the perception of what is happening, particularly among smaller operators, who feel deeply concerned about the regulations' implications. I hope that, during his discussions and in eventually making his decisions, my hon. Friend the Minister will take those concerns into account and recognise that it is important to consider every sector of the packaging and production chain in the implementation of financing measures.

1.18 pm

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. James Clappison): I welcome the opportunity to respond to the debate. I appreciate that the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) has a particular interest in the matter and speaks as chairman of the parliamentary all-party group on sustainable waste management. He also has a particular constituency interest in the matter in the Welbeck site.

The House will have benefited from the contribution by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins). He has quite a background on the subject and strong credentials on the greening of businesses. I have listened carefully to the concerns that he has expressed on behalf of small businesses. He was right to stress the importance of carrying every sector of the packaging industry with the initiative on producer responsibility.

15 Jan 1997 : Column 291

I will deal with the detailed points raised by the hon. Member for Normanton, but I think that it would be helpful if I first set them against the background of the Government's waste strategy. As chairman of the parliamentary group on sustainable waste management, the hon. Gentleman will know that the Government have embraced a strategy that deals with the issues that he outlined--along with many others--within a comprehensive framework, to encourage good environmental practice and, in particular, sustainable waste management.

We strongly support the need for a sustainable waste strategy. At the end of 1995, we published a White Paper entitled "Making Waste Work", which examined the issues involved in sustainable waste management. The strategy set out in that document takes the principles of sustainable development--development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs--and applies them to the issues of waste management. Its main objectives are that we should reduce the amount of waste that we produce, make the best use of the waste that is produced and adopt practices that minimise risks to the environment and to human health. The foundation on which our strategy is built is the need to accept that the waste that we produce always has the potential to harm our environment, and that we must therefore make the production and management of our waste more sustainable.

We have already done much to promote more sustainable waste management. We have introduced new, improved controls on the management of waste through the registration of carriers, and through duty of care and revised licensing requirements. Those measures are designed to minimise the impact of waste on the environment, and provide a sound regulatory basis for the waste strategy.

I noted the hon. Gentleman's concern about fly tipping. He will appreciate that, before introducing the landfill tax, we were keen to ensure that a sound and effective licensing system was in place. We established such a system, and we intend to ensure that it operates as effectively as we expect it to.

In addition to regulation, we have promoted more sustainable waste management options through our support for economic instruments, such as recycling credits and the non-fossil fuel obligation. On 1 October last year we introduced the landfill tax, whose objectives--broadly speaking--are essentially environmental, and, we believe, send the right economic and environmental messages to waste producers. The tax will make those producers aware of the true costs of their activities, and will give them a further incentive to reduce waste production and recover more value from the waste that is produced.

The hon. Member for Normanton expressed concern about the processing of mixed waste from construction sites. He will know that waste from such sites forms a significant component of the waste that goes to landfill. Our overall objective is to reduce the proportion that goes to landfill from 70 per cent. to 60 per cent. by the time that we have specified; but, although I trust that the hon. Gentleman will accept the need to reduce that proportion, we are always prepared to consider particular cases, and to take environmental merits into account. Along with Customs and Excise, we shall be considering any anomalies that arise as a consequence of the introduction of the tax, although we shall need time in which to undertake the review. While we are aware of the issues

15 Jan 1997 : Column 292

raised by the hon. Gentleman, he will appreciate the need to set them against the aim of reducing the amount of waste that goes into landfill, which is one of the less sustainable--although sometimes necessary--forms of waste management.

The hon. Gentleman raised the case of Mr. Gilks, the gentleman in his constituency who spoke to the Normanton talking newspaper for the blind. I am sure that the House applauds such voluntary efforts, which have an important and environmentally beneficial impact. As the hon. Gentleman will know, we provide considerable support for those who undertake such activities--through, for example, the environmental action fund and, in future, the landfill environmental bodies that will come into being as part and parcel of the landfill tax. Encouragement is given to recycling and good practice in a variety of ways, including the producer responsibility initiative referred to by the hon. Gentleman. I promise him, however, that I will examine the particular case of Mr. Gilks and the grant that he mentioned.

Now that I have dealt with those issues arising from the landfill tax, I feel that I should re-emphasise the targets that we have set. We aim to reduce the proportion of controlled waste going to landfill from 70 per cent. to 60 per cent., and to recover value from 40 per cent. of municipal waste, by 2005. By the end of 1998, once we have more reliable data on which to base our target, we shall set a target for overall waste reduction. We have also established a wide range of secondary targets: for example, our aim to recycle or compost 25 per cent. of household waste by 2000. That target, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, is an important secondary target. We want to find ways of increasing the amount of recycling by households.

---