|Waste and Emissions Trading Bill [Lords]
Norman Baker: I am happy to concur with all the comments of the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire. I return to a point that I and others in the Committee made at an earlier stage: the Bill is about implementing the European Union landfill directive, not about implementing the Government's waste hierarchy and waste strategy. It is one element. The Minister put up a brave case to refute that accusation, but the first line of the clause states:
Here we have a strategy. What does it do? According to the Bill it simply seeks to remove the amount of biodegradable waste that goes to landfills. In other words, it is about controlling the landfill problem brought about by the EU landfill directive.
It is impossible to have a strategy to deal with just one aspect of the waste hierarchy or the waste chain, if I can call it that. Everything is connected to everything else, as Lenin once said. Labour Members might have some dim and distant recollection of him. The signals that the Government send out on recycling or landfill will affect what happens with incineration, waste minimisation and reuse of materials. If the Secretary of State is to have a strategy—I hope that he will and I fully endorse that concept—he needs to look at the waste hierarchy in its entirety. The Minister cannot get away from that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Sue Doughty) and I have tabled new clauses 13 to 16 precisely to give the Secretary of State such a strategy. I am a bit surprised that they are not grouped with this set of amendments. I hope, Mr. Amess, that you will be patient with me when I refer to them. New clause 13 asks the Secretary of State to have a strategy for
We also refer to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland in subsequent new clauses. We must deal with this problem on a UK-wide basis.
I do not dissent from the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Leominster at all. This is perhaps a slightly different means of achieving the same ends. I will not be as churlish as the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings and suggest that one is preferable to the other: I simply say that there are two different routes. I would be happy if our route or that proposed by the hon. Member for Leominster were chosen. I would not be happy if we ended up with the strategy set out in the Bill, which does not seem to
Column Number: 140achieve what the majority of the Committee wishes to see.
We want the Government's waste hierarchy to be achieved. They want to see minimisation. There is no dispute about that. They then want to see reuse and recycling. They do not particularly want to see incineration and they put it only marginally above landfill. That is where the critical mass of opinion is in this House and in the country. We will have the debate on incineration shortly, but the signals sent out by the clause seem to encourage incineration not on a par with recycling, but, for reasons that other Members and I shall give, above recycling. The signals in the Bill are wrong to that effect.
We know that people want to recycle more. When they are given the opportunity to do so, they take it. If they are asked to take their recyclables to an inconvenient site some distance from their home, they will do so, even though it is inconvenient. They have an appetite for recycling, and when they are given the opportunity for doorstep or kerbside recycling, they take it and the amount of waste collected rises enormously. We know that that happens from schemes that have been introduced by different local authorities throughout the country—whether Labour, Liberal Democrat or Conservative. The hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker) will know of a very good example from Wealden district council, which covers part of my constituency. It has introduced a good scheme in Polegate and elsewhere, which has enormously increased the amount of waste collected and recycled. From a slow start, schemes have grown quickly, which proves what can be done.
An appetite exists for recycling. The Minister has said that he is prepared to agree with the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford, but that there are several caveats. That is acceptable because he has to clear the Bill with other people in Government, not least the Treasury. However, if that Bill is not passed or is filleted beyond recognition, the Government will pay a heavy price. They will have been seen to stop a measure that commands support across the House and throughout the country. I hope that the Minister will relay that point to his colleagues and bear it in mind. There is no question but that there is support for that Bill in the House.
As I mentioned, there is an appetite for recycling—nine out of 10 people would recycle more if it were made easier, according to the Environment Agency survey released on 23 May 2002. Almost 80 per cent. of household waste could be recycled or composted, reducing the need for landfill. The average household produces 1 tonne of waste each year, and that figure is increasing by 3 per cent. a year.
The Minister is an honest man, and he has been good enough to recognise on several occasions that the problem is a major one, that targets are tough and that strong action must be taken. However, if we try to deal with the problem in the narrow way set out in the clause—simply focusing on what can be diverted from landfill without addressing the waste hierarchy or
Column Number: 141waste minimisation points and reuse opportunities—we will fail.
Where are the measures in the Government's strategy to minimise waste? The Minister may say that they are working on the packaging directive and bits and pieces here, there and everywhere, but their work must be tied in. Everything is connected to everything else, and it is impossible to have the strategy on only one narrow focus. The Government have had the strategy since 2000, and there has also been the Cabinet Office report, to which a response is due shortly. They are doing many sensible things, but those things must be brought together. The Bill, and the strategy that it sets out, provides an opportunity for doing that.
The Government are seeking, almost desperately, to divert the waste stream from landfill. That is the Bill's purpose in the minds of those who drafted it. I agree with that aim as far as it goes, but they have taken it no further. We need a strategy for best practice, which means implementing the Government's waste hierarchy, and I do not believe that the clause as drafted will do that. It will simply shove off the problem somewhere else and lead to incineration up and down the country, for the reasons given by the hon. Members for Mid-Bedfordshire and for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) and by me in several contributions. We will come to that debate shortly, but it is necessary that the Government's work should be widened. I hope that the Minister will examine that point seriously and look sympathetically at the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Leominster or at new clauses 13 to 16, which we tabled. It is not sufficient to leave things as they are.
Mr. Hayes: I am grateful for the opportunity to add my voice to this important debate on an important clause. The hon. Member for Lewes mentioned Lenin, and I was reminded that it was Lenin—rather typically, a feckless intellectual among reckless bourgeois liberals—who caused the devastating Russian revolution. We must constantly beware of bourgeois liberals.
Norman Baker: I meant John Lennon.
Mr. Hayes: I will not go on with that, Mr. Amess, because you would not let me. I shall continue with the thrust of the argument that is emerging, which is that the problem is not what is in the Bill, but what has been left out. Most of what is in it is fairly agreeable. We have established that the Bill's objectives command the support of the official Opposition and the minor parties. The problem is that the Bill might be seen purely as legislative cover. That was the Minister's devastating slip of the tongue early in our proceedings: that we need the Bill to provide legislative cover.
If the Bill were solely legislative cover, it would not be good enough. If it is part of a bigger picture, an holistic approach to a national waste management plan or strategy, it is a useful and valuable tool. I suspect that that slip of the tongue does not betray the Minister's real feelings, but that he believes that the
Column Number: 142Bill is an important part of a strategy and he is determined to see that through. However, we have no evidence of that. We have the Minister's word and reputation, which I value and trust, but we see no sign that the Bill fits into a bigger picture and forms part of a jigsaw.
The amendments give us an opportunity to explore that possibility. It is inappropriate to consider waste disposal and a proper attack on landfill out of the context of reuse, recovery and recycling. I accept that it would be inappropriate for the Bill to do everything. This is not a huge piece of legislation covering those important and complicated issues, but it must at least refer to them and signal that it is part of a bigger picture. The Bill must suggest that the Government see it as one element in the national waste strategy that I believe the Minister desires and that Conservative Members and, in fairness, the hon. Members for Lewes and for Guildford desire. The obligations, duties and responsibilities that are necessary parts of developing that strategy must be signalled in the Bill.
Amendment No. 57 deals with waste arising from households; providing households with a separate collection for the recycling of dry recyclable waste; and an increase in composting through the provision of a home composter or separate collection of biodegradable waste. Those are important small steps towards the national strategy that we strongly recommend. It would therefore be unthinkable not to include those matters.
|©Parliamentary copyright 2003||Prepared 8 April 2003|