|
Sue Doughty (Guildford) (LD): I very much welcome the remarks made by the hon. Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping), who set out the case very clearly and constructively. The Liberal Democrats, too, have been following the debate after the publication of the strategy unit's waste development report, because much can be done. We have talked about charging, which does not necessarily mean a bill through the door. It can mean discounts and vouchers, and the opportunity to partake of council services using those vouchers. There is a whole range of schemes, but the clause does not define the sorts of charges or discounts that should be created. It is very much a matter for the local authority to decide what works in its area.
The whole purpose of the schemes is to encourage local authorities with good waste management strategies to take them one stage further to reduce the amount of waste going to landfill, which we all agree must be reduced in one way or another. The best way to do that is by encouraging and persuading, rather than by what is being done under the current system. The report ''Waste not, Want not'' suggested that, by 2006, 30 per cent. of collection authorities would have tried incentive-based schemes to reduce their waste. With 11 months to go, however, that is simply not happening. We have not yet reached the point at which local authorities can move to the freedom of direct charging, which I suspect is because of current legislation and Treasury rules, although again I would welcome the opportunity for local authorities to consider it if they believed it to be the right thing for their waste strategy.
The Government need to work with waste disposal authorities to implement a range of pilot schemes. The new clause very much assumes that pilot schemes will be advanced, that the Government will want to review them, encourage them and promote best practice. In a parliamentary question on 10 March 2004, the Liberal Democrats asked whether that could happen now. The Minister for the Environment and Agri-environment replied:
''Amendments to sections 45 and 51 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 would be required''.—[Official Report, House of Commons, 10 March 2004; Vol. 418, c. 1546W.]
Column Number: 359
We therefore tabled an extra paragraph to allow for that.
We want a variety of schemes to be implemented. We want to know how we can make progress with the best schemes and to see how we can deal with the scourge of landfill and the whole problem of waste. I quite accept the point made by the hon. Member for Sherwood that waste reduction, improvements to packaging and all the other strategies about which we talk so often in our debates are a part of the strategy for reducing waste.
The new clause is an interim solution in that it allows pilot schemes to be carried out. Eventually, it would probably allow the Minister to say that further legislation was required in the light of those pilot schemes.
3.8 pm
Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.
3.23 pm
On resuming—
Sue Doughty: I was discussing why it is important for local authorities to be able to undertake pilots in this area, and why the clause enables those pilots to take place. We must get some clear measurements, so we know where we are going with variable waste charging, and how we might make improvements. It is strange that other countries seem to be able to get substantial decreases in landfill but we are not taking the opportunity to get those decreases for ourselves.
There are ''what if'' questions. What if fly-tipping increases? We need to get some hard information, so we know what is happening, and what steps can be taken to decrease fly-tipping. We also need to know whether the measurements are volume or weight based. We have had debates on that before; local authorities sometimes get worried because volume measures of waste disposal would help them—particularly in dealing with plastics—but weight is generally the way that we measure waste at present. What if the costs are too great? Much of the research by Eunomia and others suggests that costs tend to neutralise as landfill tax increases; it is not a great cost on local authorities because if they can reduce landfill tax charges, that in itself will pay for the scheme.
Section 76 of the Local Government Act 2003 should in theory allow councils to give local council tax discounts, but it has not yet been used. One council wanted to use it to give council tax discounts to pensioners, but it had many problems with a legal quagmire. We must explore the problems associated with section 76.
Mr. David Ruffley (Bury St. Edmunds) (Con): Does the hon. Lady agree with me that it was a far-sighted, radical—and Conservative—county council that initiated the proposal to help pensioners' council tax payments?
Column Number: 360
Sue Doughty: I would like to agree with the hon. Gentleman, but I should say straight away that I am not an expert on the 2003 Act. I have been referring to it only in the context of this legislation. I cannot quite give him the satisfaction that he seeks, but I hope that he is following the argument about how the legislation would play a part in terms of council tax discounts in waste management. The fact is that that facility has not been used by councils: it seems to have led to a legal quagmire and has not been implemented.
We should like to know where the Minister believes that waste collection authorities are planning to use powers for council tax discounts, related to the amount of waste that households produce and how much recycled composting they carry out. Does he really think that councils can use existing legislation, or do we need our new clause if we are to avoid getting bogged down in legal problems? The Department does not seem to have issued guidance for collection authorities suggesting how existing legislation can be used. Is it going to do so?
The Minister was asked, in a parliamentary question in March, about the matter and he said:
''In its response to the Strategy Unit Report Waste Not Want Not, the Government undertook to carry out further work before a decision is taken on whether to enable local authorities to introduce pilot direct and variable charging schemes for collection and disposal of household waste. In cooperation with the Local Government Association and other stakeholders, and drawing on international experience, work is being undertaken to consider the practicalities of operating such schemes and how potential disadvantages could be overcome. The Government will consider the results of this work during 2004.''—[Official Report, 1 March 2004; Vol. 418, c. 1632W.]
We had all that consideration, but in response to another question asking for a statement on work investigating the possibility of direct and variable charging schemes, he said:
''The Department's work on variable household charging and household incentives for waste recycling and reduction is based on the body of existing, publicly available, research, supplemented by investigation into specific examples of such activity.''—[Official Report, 27 January 2005; Vol. 430, c. 458W.]
That is not satisfactory. It looks as if nothing is being done. Is anything happening? Other countries are able to get on with this, but we are not receiving enough encouragement from the Government. If they and the Minister are not going to accept our new clause, we should like to know what he will do to develop the issue. The hon. Member for Sherwood has hinted that he hopes that there is more in the pipeline, and if we cannot have it now, we might have it tomorrow. I hope that the Minister will be able to encourage us. Will his manifesto say that there are clear plans, perhaps not yet, but in the future? We need to know what direction the Government are taking.
There is tremendous potential for waste reduction and increases in recycling using the techniques that I have described. We know that such schemes work: over 1 million households in Europe are already using pay-by-weight systems. We know from research undertaken by the hon. Member for Sherwood, and other research conducted by Eunomia, that households can decrease their quantity of waste by up to 40 per cent. in weight. It promotes the separation of recyclable and compostable materials. We all want
Column Number: 361
that and we need it to happen, and as we are moving towards more stringent European requirements, the Government need it to happen.
There are many good cases justifying our new clause. I want councils to have the opportunity of trying out different schemes and reporting back to the Government so that we can reconsider the matter. If the Minister will not accept the new clause, we should like to know what he plans to do.
Mr. David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op): I rise briefly to support my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood, but first I welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Forth. I think that this is the first time that I have spoken under your chairmanship and I am delighted to do so, especially as I followed you at the Industry and Parliament Trust event this lunchtime.
3.30 pm
I shall make only a few quick points, because the excellent speeches from my hon. Friend and from the hon. Member for Guildford have said it all. I hope that the Government can give us an idea of the possible time scale for at least the introduction of some pilot schemes. If we do not consider the proposed approach at least worthy of experimentation, I do not understand how we shall address some of the exciting new ideas on recycling, composting and reclamation.
Reclamation is often left out of these discussions, but the reclamation industry could be one of the major industries in this country, because we have so many old buildings and facilities of which we could make much more use. That industry could punch well above the weight that it is currently punching at, but that will not happen unless people are actively encouraged to think of how they can dispose of things in positive ways, rather than, as they currently do, just sticking them in the dustbin and hoping that they get taken away or, at best, taking them to the tip and hoping that they get put in a hole in the ground. I hope that the Government realise that my hon. Friend's proposal is an idea whose time has come. As he said, the Select Committee sought at least an assurance that there would be a time scale.
The proposal underpins the point about fiscal incentives. If we are to change people's mindsets and the culture on waste, we must do something significant. As on climate change, we keep warning people and saying that things must change, but we must recognise that there will be some pain as well as pleasure. People have grown accustomed to creating more waste year by year, but we all know that that cannot continue.
The hope is that variable charging as a regime would concentrate the mind. To begin with, it would have to be implemented through pilot schemes. There would have to be incentives and allowances for those who could not afford to pay, whether they were lower-income families or pensioners, but, as my hon. Friend said, that is not beyond the wit of those who would have to think through the regulations. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will indicate that the Government are listening and keen to take this proposal forward, if not now, within the foreseeable
Column Number: 362
future, and that we might be able to append at least some ideology to the Bill, if not practical ways of implementing the idea.
|
