---

Hazardous Waste

6. Sue Doughty (Guildford) (LD): If she will make a statement on progress on the preparation of European Union directives relating to the disposal of hazardous waste. [180209]

The Minister for the Environment and Agri-environment (Mr. Elliot Morley): Preparation of EU directives rests with the European Commission. Several existing directives relate to the disposal of hazardous
 
24 Jun 2004 : Column 1441
 
waste. The main ones are: the hazardous waste directive, the landfill directive and the waste incineration directive. Each is at various stages of implementation.

Sue Doughty: I am particularly concerned about that answer because the landfill directive, which bans co-disposal of hazardous waste in landfill, becomes operational next month. There are insufficient sites in this country to deal with hazardous waste and we shall be faced with the prospect of thousands of lorry movements up and down the country, and of the fly-tipping of hazardous waste as lorries are turned away from the sites that they have previously used. Will the Minister stop expecting the industry to take a lead, when DEFRA has failed to do so, and will he put in place the remedies and resources necessary to deal with the problem that will arise next month?

Mr. Morley: I do not accept what the hon. Lady says. She should understand that the industry is responsible for the investment and business decisions relating to waste disposal. Our responsibility is for regulation and permitting, through the Environment Agency and the Department. Her point about insufficient sites is also wrong, because the latest projection is that there will be adequate facilities for hazardous waste disposal in this country. She needs to understand that one of the reasons behind the change is the need to reduce the amount of hazardous waste going into landfill. At the moment, 60 per cent. of the hazardous waste stream is contaminated topsoil. We have recently heard that a major site that would otherwise have provided 400,000 tonnes of contaminated topsoil will instead bring in machinery to treat the soil on site. That is an example of exactly the kind of thing that we want to encourage.

Mr. Bill O'Brien (Normanton) (Lab): I certainly support my colleague in pressing to reduce the amount of hazardous waste that is being produced. However, there are genuine concerns that, when the new rules come in next month, the amount of fly-tipping will increase as the cowboys who operate in the industry try to cut costs. We need the regulator—the Environment Agency—to be given the powers and resources necessary to ensure that those people are brought to justice. Will my hon. Friend also take note that the number of serious fly-tipping incidents involving hazardous waste doubled between 2001 and 2002, and that there are fears of further increases? Will he therefore ensure that the issue is given serious consideration?

Mr. Morley: Yes, I want to assure my hon. Friend that we take the issue seriously, and that we are in no way complacent about the risks created by people who try to cut corners by operating illegally. Fly-tipping is one of our priorities, and we have given new powers both to the Environment Agency and to local authorities in relation to stop and search and to the confiscation of vehicles. We are also introducing new streamlined procedures for permits, so that the people who collect hazardous waste will need authorisation to do so and will be able to be traced. I agree with my hon. Friend that we must ensure that the necessary attention and priority are given to tackling those people involved in fly-tipping, and that we make an example of them in the courts.

Mr. Simon Thomas (Ceredigion) (PC): One concern must be that some of the hazardous waste that will now
 
24 Jun 2004 : Column 1442
 
be diverted, quite appropriately, from landfill will then go to be incinerated. In that regard, what is the Government's view of the Environment Agency's proposals to allow the burning of more toxic materials in cement kilns? Many local populations accepted the burning of tyres in cement kilns as an appropriate way of dealing with that waste, but they will be very concerned that more toxic materials might be burned under the new proposals. What do the Government have to say about that?

Mr. Morley: What we say is that the very highest standards must apply when any material is burned in any incineration process. An impression has been given that a lower standard of regulation will apply to the burning of alternative fuels in cement kilns than in high-temperature incineration. That will not be the case. We will expect the Environment Agency to apply exactly the same strict standards as it applies at the moment, and each case will be considered on its individual merits.

Mr. Michael Clapham (Barnsley, West and Penistone) (Lab): My hon. Friend will be aware that the EU large combustion plants directive is intended to reduce nitrogen and sulphur emissions. However, the two approaches that have been suggested—the national plan approach and the emission limit value approach—both threaten jobs. Will he therefore robustly tackle the Commission on adopting an effective hybrid approach that would not result in a loss of jobs and would protect British industry?

Mr. Morley: I understand my hon. Friend's point on the large combustion directive. There are two alternatives, one of which is favoured by the manufacturing sector, and one of which is favoured by the coal sector. Outcomes are important to DEFRA: we want not only environmental standards but a system that reflects the operations and needs of the particular sectors. We are, of course, considering this issue, and we are talking to the Department of Trade and Industry. We understand his point very well.

Mr. Tim Yeo (South Suffolk) (Con): Is it not complacent to the point of irresponsible for the Minister to say, with less than a month to go, and with only five sites licensed to tackle hazardous waste, at least one of which is unlikely to come into operation, that facilities are now adequate? By trying to shove the blame on to industry, which is ready to rise to the challenge if only the Government would stop dithering over the detail of the regulations on the operation of licensed sites, the Government are trying to throw off their duties.

The Environment Agency has warned that there will be more fly-tipping. We know that there will be vast increases in the distances over which waste must be carried, and that the Government's brownfield development programme may be jeopardised by that. Will the Minister urgently address the concerns expressed by businesses, which want to meet the challenge but are unable to do so as long as confusion and dithering remain the order of the day?

Mr. Morley: First, may I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new role? It seems that Opposition Front Benchers are more into recycling than many other people, and I welcome that.
 
24 Jun 2004 : Column 1443
 

I can be accused of many things, but complacency is not one of them. We understand that there are risks when new regulations and changes are introduced. We must work with that. We set up the hazardous waste forum with the industry, and I do not seek to put blame on the industry. I merely wish to point out that DEFRA is not in the waste disposal business. I do not know whether it is a new Tory policy to nationalise waste disposal in this country. If so, that is quite interesting.

It is not the case that the details are not available. The industry knows exactly what needs to be done. It has been involved at every stage of the process—there have been six consultations since 1999, an independent report, the Babtie report, was commissioned to examine the issue, and we regularly talk to the industry and the Environment Agency. It is true that not all the sites have yet been permitted, but the agency is working them at the moment. Fifteen merchant site applications are in, not counting in-house sites, and the Environment Agency is dealing with the applications of 37 separate cell sites.

A reduction in sites in the short term is likely, and the cost of disposals will probably increase, but that is an inducement to reduce and treat waste. We do not in any way take fly-tipping lightly. There are always risks, and we will deal with them appropriately and will certainly actively pursue the matter.

Water Metering

7. Mr. Robert Key (Salisbury) (Con): What measures her Department is taking to promote the take-up of water metering in homes. [180210]

The Minister for the Environment and Agri-environment (Mr. Elliot Morley): We expect individual water companies, under the guidance of the Office of Water Services, to keep customers informed of their rights of choice in their method of charging, including the right to a free meter.

Mr. Key: Does the Minister agree that we all need to explain to people that the ever-increasing rise in demand for water relies on unsustainable levels of abstraction in southern England, especially in the Avon catchment? The only answer is to use less water. The best way of using less water is to relate the volume of water used directly to price.

Mr. Morley: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. He has been a long-standing campaigner in relation to unsustainable abstraction in the chalk rivers in his constituency. He knows that I share his concern. I very much welcome the fact that the number of households moving to water meters is increasing, and I agree that it is the most sustainable way to manage water. He will also be aware of a working group involving Wessex Water, English Nature and the Environment Agency, which is examining the problems of abstraction in his area. It reports to me, and I take a personal interest in that.

Mr. Peter Pike (Burnley) (Lab): I am one of those who already have a water meter, although I wish that I did not. My hon. Friend will recognise that water pricing policy and conditions vary from region to
 
24 Jun 2004 : Column 1444
 
region, and that the north-west is very different from the region of the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key). Now that people are becoming increasingly concerned about the level of increase in charges for sewerage and water services, is it not important to find a way to replace the rateable values, which no longer exist in reality but have been preserved as the system for charging most customers? They now have no relevance at all, and it is time that a new system was found.

Mr. Morley: I understand the point that my hon. Friend makes, but the alternative is for people to switch to water meters. Legislation provides for the free installation of water meters. An increasing number of people are choosing that option, and I expect that to continue. However, the price issue is very important, which is why we are carefully following what is happening in the price review and the work of the regulator. It is important to have a link between what people use and how they pay for it, and water metering is the best way of providing that.

Norman Baker (Lewes) (LD): But is it not simply indefensible, as the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) says, to continue to base most water bills on the theoretical value that a person could get from renting their property in 1973? Is it not indefensible that there is no link at all between consumption and the bill that lands on the doormat? Is the Minister aware that, in my constituency, South East Water plans to install a desalination plant, of all things—we normally associate such plants with the middle east—to produce enough water, because the Deputy Prime Minister wants more housing in the area? Would it not make more sense to have a proper system of universal metering? Should not the Government give a lead, rather than having metering by stealth, as at present? A system of metering with safeguards for those on low incomes would be sensible for the environment and better for consumers.

Mr. Morley: The hon. Gentleman will be aware, because he served with me on the Water Bill, that water companies are free to apply to the Secretary of State to have powers for metering in their areas. So far, no water company has made that proposal, but the hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that we have supported the move to metering. We think that that is the right way forward, but while there are many properties that are not on a meter, there has to be some means of calculating the price that they pay. I am sure that there are many weaknesses with the present system of rateable value, but the costs of moving to an alternative system would also produce winners and losers, and that system would still have problems. It would not necessarily give anyone a better advantage. A greater advantage is gained by continuing to encourage people to move to water meters, which is why they are provided free of charge.

Mr. Gordon Prentice (Pendle) (Lab): Is it not a paradox that some parts of the country are awash with water while others suffer drought? What consideration have the Government given to constructing a national water grid?

Mr. Morley: That has been discussed. My hon. Friend is right to say that there are huge regional differences in
 
24 Jun 2004 : Column 1445
 
water. The eastern region of England has less rainfall per head of population than Sudan. This issue is one not just of development but of proper water resource management. The costs of establishing a national grid through pipes are very high, and the establishment of such a grid by linking river systems would have environmental and ecological consequences that we could not ignore. We must take those factors into account.

Richard Ottaway (Croydon, South) (Con): This question is about not just how, but how much, people are charged for their water. The Minister will be aware that prices are going up, but has he fully absorbed why? The reasons include national insurance and pension liabilities, a new tax and financing regime and, worst of all, a lack of investment in infrastructure because of an artificial price cut in the run up to the last election. The pigeons are now coming home to roost, with a 30 per cent. rise in water charges. Will the Minister accept that that is wholly the result of Government action?

Mr. Morley: No, I most certainly will not accept that. We have an independent water regulator, although that seems to have escaped the hon. Gentleman's attention. Of course there are issues relating to price pressures on water and I do not dispute that there is a combination of those issues at work, which the regulator must take into account. Companies take them into account in their draft business plans. The biggest single factor is, of course, continued investment and maintenance of capital assets, which has led to a major clean-up of our rivers and beaches. That has led to the best quality water that we have ever had in this country. While no one welcomes price increases, people nevertheless want continued improvements in the quality of water that they enjoy—both for drinking and in relation to the aquatic environment of this country.

---