Examination of Witnesses (Questions 120
- 130)
WEDNESDAY 24 OCTOBER 2001
RT HON
MICHAEL MEACHER
AND SARAH
HENDRY
Mr Drew
120. I am going to be giving evidence to the
Gloucestershire Waste Plan Inquiry in a few weeks' time. What
do you think I can say about the Government's attitude towards
incineration? (Mr Meacher) That you wholeheartedly
agreed with it.
121. If you tell me what it is and I will have
to make my mind up. (Mr Meacher) I will very gladly
tell you. The problem for this country in terms of waste is a
very big one. At the moment we landfill between 80 and 85 per
cent of household waste which is far and away the highest of any
other EU Member State. We are required, even if it was not a good
environmental idea, which it is, to shift away from landfill by
the EU Landfill Directive to the point where by 2020 we landfill
no more than 35 per cent of the 1995 level in this country. That
is a colossal shift of millions of tonnes a year away from landfill
to some other form of disposal. There are only three other alternatives.
One is reuse, recovery and recycling, which is at the heart of
the Government's strategy. The second is incineration. The third,
although it gets very little attention, is probably the most important
of all and it is waste minimisation, it is not generating the
waste in the first place. One of the requirements which I am trying
to firm up is how I can get either incentives or regulatory pressures
in place to ensure that waste is minimised. You asked about incineration.
Our aim is to maximise recycling, subject to waste minimisation.
We have imposed a statutory target on all local authorities, a
doubling of the level of recycling within the next three years,
by 2003-04 and a trebling within five years, by 2005-06 of current
levels. The average level, which we inherited in 1997, was about
eight per cent, it is now 10-11 per cent. We aim to get 17 per
cent by 2003-04 and around 25 per cent by 2005-06. Now, in the
great majority of cases my view is that can be done without an
incineration plant, however it would be wrong to suggest that
all of the shift from landfill can be achieved without any increase
in incineration. There are good reasons locally, for example the
need for disposal of significant amounts of clinical waste, which
do justify, perhaps, an incineration plant. Our view is so long
as, firstly, it does not preempt recycling and so long as the
recycling alternative has been fully explored, that is the first
condition, secondly, that it should be small scale and, thirdly,
that wherever possible it should be combined with local CHP, we
would be prepared to consider that. That is the way in which it
is regarded. Now may I just say, because the public view about
incineration is now becoming very intense, that three of the greenest
countries in Europe, which are Switzerland, Denmark and the Netherlands,
have high levels of incineration as well as having high levels
of recycling. It is not the case that incinerators are anti-green,
there is a health issue. Let me make clear here that the Incineration
Directive, which came into force, I think, in October or November
1996 has hugely improved and tightened the regulation of incinerators.
The thing that most people fear is dioxins and dioxins are highly
toxic. The level of dioxins which was laid down in 1996 is that
they should form no more than one nanogram per cubic metre, that
is one part in a billion, of what is expelled from the stack.
That is actually being increased ten fold in the current Waste
Incineration Directive so that by 2005 I think it is, it will
be no more than 0.1 nanogram per cubic metre. It is very tightly
controlled. Can I make just two other quick points. One is that
the assumption is that dioxins come largely from incinerators,
about four per cent of all industrial UK dioxin emissions to air
come from incinerators, 56 per cent come from iron and steel and
metal processing, 20 per cent from non ferrous metal industries
and 15 per cent from coal fired power generation. Now that is
not to be complacent about incinerators, I am not complacent.
I have indicated that we want no more incinerators than are strictly
necessary, and they have to get planning permission, but I think
one can exaggerate the antipathy to incinerators and they are
now hugely more regulated. In 1995 municipal waste incinerators
generated 413 grams of dioxins, the latest figure available to
me in this year is 1.3.
122. A quick supplementary, Michael. I read
the answers in Hansard about what has been happening in
Essex. Now clearly that will have an important relationship to
subsequent waste planning inquiries. What is your understanding
of the Essex situation at the moment where, unless I have read
it wrongly, the authority is trying to remove incineration as
one of their ways by which they will get rid of waste and they
are not being allowed to do that? (Mr Meacher) Again,
Chairman, I fear this is an area which could—I will not
say will—ultimately end up with the Secretary of State and
I cannot prejudice that position by commenting on a particular
case. I recognise the point that is being made and how serious
it is.
David Taylor: Can I urge the Minister to give
proper incentives to local authorities in relation to any recycling
targets that are set because they are not being believed at the
moment. In my own authority very close to the Derbyshire border,
Mark Todd's seat, a recent, highly undesirable application was
granted mainly I think on the grounds that the recycling targets
that the Government have spelt out are just not believed by the
planning authorities and the New Albion Site is—
Mr Todd: This is for landfill.
David Taylor
123. This is for landfill. We are looking at
nearly a generation of communities along the Leicestershire/Derbyshire
border affected largely because the recycling targets spelt out
are not believed, not adequately resourced and I do not think
are sufficiently coherent. (Mr Meacher) I hope they
are believed because they are statutory targets and we have the
sanctions to ensure delivery and we will certainly exercise them.
Secondly, they are resourced. We have increased the RSG for what
is delicately called Environment and Cultural Services, which
is a very odd combination in the RSG headings, but that is what
it is called, to 1.127 billion by the end of the current three
year period, which is a very substantial increase. In addition
to that we have made available £140 million which is ring-fenced
for waste management whereas, of course, the RSG is a matter for
local authorities under our devolution proposals so that they
decide how that money is used. To say that it is not resourced
is wrong. In addition, there is £50 million going to community
recycling networks, which often assist local authorities. There
is a further £220 million available for PFI contracts for
waste purposes. Lastly, we have set up the Waste Resources Action
Programme which is designed to help local authorities find markets
for recyclettes and we have funded that with £40 million.
It is not the case that it is not resourced, they are clearly
statutory targets and I believe that they are coherent. To say
that they are not implies that we cannot do what other countries
in the rest of Europe have been doing for a long time.
124. Is your Department monitoring local waste
management? (Mr Meacher) It is.
125. Does it report back to Parliament on its
findings? (Mr Meacher) We will. We have already started
this.
126. When? (Mr Meacher) On an annual
basis I will be looking for details of recycling levels as well
as waste minimisation action taken, comparing that with the base
line figures for last year, publishing that in Parliament and
I hope that you, as well as I, will be on to the laggards and
insisting that they are not taking sufficient action. We will
provide them with the managerial expertise, we have provided them
with the resources. If they fail, as we have done in the case
of education, then we will put in a waste management authority
which actually can deliver.
Mr Mitchell
127. We have a local incinerator row in North
East Lincolnshire and the Environment, Transport and Regional
Affairs Committee's Report has been cited as part of that row.
Do I take it from what you have said about subject to the Directive
and the subsequent reduction in dioxin emissions that where recycling
is not feasible you will say unequivocally that a small modern
incinerator installed under that Directive's requirements is safe? (Mr
Meacher) You can never say that any combustion process is
safe. I would not be prepared to say that.
128. Would you say there is no danger to the
locals from dioxin emissions? (Mr Meacher) I would
say that the risks to the local population have been dramatically
and hugely reduced as a result of the 1996 Directive which forced
the closure of many incinerators in this country. I think there
are only about 11 operating at the present time. Any new incinerators
built will be subject to the most modern standards where the risk
to the local population is judged to be absolutely minimal. It
has to pass, of course a planning inquiry. All of the details
about discharges would come out in that inquiry and judgments
will be made on the environmental and health impacts, and that
is a major consideration. It may well be, and indeed the industry
fears, that those planning inquiries are going to be very stringent
and that public consent, which at the moment in many cases is
not forthcoming, will be demonstrated at those inquiries. It is
for them to make the case. Government is allowing incinerators
to be put forward as part of Local Authority Waste Management
Plans subject to the rules that we have set down within our Waste
Management Strategy.
129. If there is a problem, as there is in North
East Lincolnshire, with less and less room for landfill, in fact
hardly any now, if you are checking that recycling is not feasible,
why does the Government not come out and say "We are encouraging
incinerators" in those circumstances? (Mr Meacher)
Because it is not the role for a Government to encourage or discourage.
130. It is not a role for Government to let
local authorities twist in the wind. (Mr Meacher) They
are not twisting in the wind. They can take their decisions. The
Government's Waste Management Strategy is totally compatible with
the local authority or the industry coming forward with an energy
from waste or incineration plant, that is perfectly compatible.
It has to meet the criteria that we have laid down, that can certainly
be done, and it then has to pass a planning inquiry if one takes
place. On that basis I would expect that there will be some increase
in incineration over the next few years in this country.
Chairman: Minister, you have done the best part
of three hours, it has been a long stint, you have earned some
credits. You have answered very fully and it has been an extremely
long session. We are very grateful to you, thank you very much
indeed, and we look forward to seeing you again.
|
