Gregory
Barker: Domestic waste constitutes just 9 per cent. of UK
waste. The largest single element is construction waste, just half of
which is recycled. That compares very disfavourably with, for example,
the Netherlands and Denmark, where they recycle about 80 per cent. of
their construction waste. What plans do the Government have to
encourage the reuse and recycling of building materials and,
specifically, the 20 per cent. of construction waste that is delivered
to building sites and never used? Do the Government’s plans
include a commitment to formal targets and do they intend to place
standards on the building
industry?
Mr.
Bradshaw: Those questions are not strictly related to the
European waste framework directive, but I shall happily answer them, if
you are content that that is in order, Mr.
Wilshire.
The
Chairman: I will let you
know.
Mr.
Bradshaw: On construction waste,
the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to point out that the debate in
this country is usually dominated by municipal and household waste,
which constitutes only about a tenth of the overall waste stream. The
reason is that the targets to which we are signed up, as indeed is
every other European Union country, for diversion from landfill, are
for biodegradable household and municipal waste. If we miss those
targets, we will be liable for fines under the landfill directive.
There is a very good reason for those directives—the
biodegradable waste going to landfill sites causes methane, which
contributes to climate
change. The
hon. Gentleman is right to point out that in the past our waste
strategy has not paid enough attention to the construction sector. He
acknowledged that we recycle a higher proportion of construction waste
than of household waste—about double the amount. However, we
need to do much better. The landfill tax escalator is, of course, an
important driver and we are looking very closely at whether we need to
set targets for construction waste as part of our revised waste
strategy.
On the need
to regulate at the other end, as it were, on procurement, I imagine
that that was the purpose of the last part of the hon.
Gentleman’s question. That is something that we are looking at
carefully as we prepare our response to the sustainable procurement
taskforce, which reported in the summer under Sir Neville Simms. We
will respond to the report soon.
Mr.
James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con): I am
sorry that I was a few minutes late and so missed the Minister’s
introductory remarks. Having read the documents with considerable care,
I was quite surprised to see that they were not printed on recycled
paper. That might have been a good way to lead the nation.
One thing
from paragraph 7.6 puzzles me: why is it that the “Water
Framework Directive” is going to be merged with the
“Hazardous Waste Directive?” Surely that should be the
waste framework directive rather than the “Water Framework
Directive”?
Mr.
Bradshaw: Will the hon. Gentleman give me that reference
again?
Mr.
Gray: Yes; paragraph 7.6, on page 4, under the heading
“Simplification of existing legislation”,
states: “The
Commission proposes that the Water Framework Directive should be merged
with the Hazardous Waste Directive”.
Mr.
Bradshaw: It is a typo, and I apologise. It is not our
typo, however; it is from the European Scrutiny Committee and so the
observation needs to be passed on to them. Also, I am pretty sure that
all paper in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is
recycled, although it may not say so at the bottom of every
sheet.
Mr.
Goodwill: The UK Government raised a number of concerns
about subsidiarity problems and the erosion of national sovereignty
regarding the way that some of the regulations are to be implemented.
How far do those subsidiarity concerns affect the UK, Malta, Cyprus and
to a lesser extent the Republic of Ireland? Do other member states see
such concerns as less important when it comes to building a qualified
majority, given that such states may have common borders with others
and therefore the possibility of more cross-border trade in both waste
and recycled products?
Mr.
Bradshaw: No; I do not think that that is an issue. I am
not an expert on the details of other countries’ waste policies,
but a number of other countries, such as Belgium—Flanders has a
very good reputation for its waste management—have similar
problems to ours over these issues. It is partly about subsidiarity,
but it is also about the fact that there are considerable differences
in the waste management policies, systems and technologies between
countries. We are keen to avoid a straitjacket approach that says we
have to do something in a particular way. We want and welcome a good
framework in which we use the technologies that this country has built
up over many years, and the particular characteristics of our waste
management sector, to achieve those goals.
Those concerns are shared by a
number of countries, as reflected by the amendments tabled at the
European Parliament—we have not had a chance to go through how
many hundreds of amendments there were. The proposals have already been
improved since being put before the European Scrutiny Committee at the
beginning of the year, and I anticipate that they will be improved
further as a result of concerns raised not just by the UK, but by a
number of other member states, that the proposals are a bit too
prescriptive.
Martin
Horwood: The Government maintain that
the directive supports the waste hierarchy with which we are familiar.
The hierarchy runs from prevention through reuse, to recycling, energy
recovery and finally landfill. The Liberal Democrats support the
Government’s position.
However, in its commentary on the directive, Friends of the Earth says
that it suspects that the introduction of life-cycle analyses into the
directive may undermine the hierarchy by placing prevention first and
reuse second, and then lumping the other three together. Are the
Government committed to clearly establishing the hierarchy and using
life-cycle analyses as a last
resort?
Mr.
Bradshaw: Yes. I have my disagreements with Friends of the
Earth on waste policy, but not on this issue; it is right. We support
the hierarchy, but it should not be a straitjacket, because there are
examples where one could make a case for exceptions. Life-cycle
analyses can help inform policy, but they are an inexact science.
Different life-cycle analyses often come up with diametrically opposed
recommendations. The analyses can be a useful tool, but they should not
be a rigid straitjacket for waste
policy.
Gregory
Barker: The EU strategy asks each country to break the
link between economic growth and waste creation, and countries such as
Denmark have been successful in breaking that link. What are the
principal policy tools that the Government believe will enable this
country to replicate Denmark? I should be grateful if the Minister
would be as specific as
possible.
Mr.
Bradshaw: We have recently had some encouraging
data on the link between economic growth and waste growth. Total
municipal waste arisings for the last year for which figures are
available show a 3 per cent. drop, which is the second only drop in
modern history but also the biggest. There was a smaller drop three
years ago, then a slight increase in the year in between, which is very
encouraging. It is caused by a number of things. I will not go through
the details of the landfill tax escalator again, but it is an important
driver.
The
Government’s recycling targets for local authorities have been
very important and the landfill allowance trading scheme, which began
last year, operates in a similar way to the emissions trading scheme.
Local authorities are given a landfill allowance and if they think they
will overshoot it they can buy in an extra allowance from local
authorities that are doing better in recycling. That seems to have
driven diversion from landfill, which increased by 10 per cent. in the
last year. Although
it is right to learn lessons from other countries that are doing well,
it should not be overlooked that we, too, are having a considerable
success in breaking that link.
Mr.
Goodwill: Reading through this document, one gets
the impression that the European Commission sees recycling almost as an
end in itself. The UK Government may have fallen into that trap, given
that they set targets for local authorities so that they will go for
the bulky, easy-to-recycle products such as paper and glass and not
more toxic waste materials such as batteries.
Does not the Minister think
that there should be more emphasis on the reuse of recycled materials
and a more demand-led strategy towards waste, rather than the current
situation which can lead to big surpluses in recycled products for
which there is no particular use,
which has happened in Germany? In one case I heard of, waste paper was
going to China as ballast in the bottom of a
ship. Mr.
Bradshaw: It would not have been allowed to go to China as
ballast in the bottom of a ship as that would be illegal unless it was
going to be recycled once it got there. As I said in answer to a
earlier question, there is nothing wrong with a global market in
recyclable goods in terms of the overall environmental life cycle and
climate change. It is better for China and India to be making goods out
of our recycled paper, plastic and so on to export to us rather than
cutting down trees or using virgin oil to make them.
It is not fair to imply that
the Commission has a misguided obsession with recycling. In contrast to
one or two reports in the medium-term past, in almost every case all
life-cycle analyses show that it is better to recycle stuff than to put
it in landfill, or to burn it. However, the hon. Gentleman is right to
say that we want to see more reuse, which is often the neglected bit at
the top of the waste hierarchy.
For those who think Ministers
lead glamorous lives, I spent five hours on Saturday travelling on a
train to Birmingham to attend the annual conference of the community
reuse, recycling and composting network, which was attended by
enthusiasts, I am sure from the constituencies of many of my hon.
Friends and Opposition Members, who do wonderful jobs in towns and
cities running the reuse networks. I want them to play a bigger role in
our future waste strategy.
Martin
Horwood: I want to raise the issue of
the possible redefinition of incineration, which is suggested in the
revision. Admittedly, that is where energy-efficiency benchmarks are
met, so there is a safeguard there. However, there is a particular
worry about whether it would sufficiently differentiate between
incineration and a new technology such as gas plasma, which produces
far fewer carbon emissions, far less toxic waste and far more
recyclable material—in this case, aggregate. Would the Minister
agree to meet gas plasma innovating companies—the
producers—to discuss the implications for their businesses of
that redefinition, and whether it would discourage or encourage
them?
Mr.
Bradshaw: If the hon. Gentleman would like to bring a
delegation to see me, I shall be happy to meet it. His request rings a
bell, as does advice suggesting that this is not the right time.
However, let him write to me again, and I shall consider his request. I
am not sure that he should read too much into the proposal to set a new
limit as to where incineration qualifies as recovery. Our view is that
that will not have a material impact on our waste policy. Given the
problem of climate change, anything that drives greater
energy-efficiency in incineration technology has to be a good
thing.
Mr.
Jackson: In view of his former remarks, I am full of
admiration for the Minister’s commitment to his portfolio. Let
me bring him back to aluminium cans. As he will know, the UK recycles
some 41 per cent. of its aluminium cans. That is less than in many
places in Europe. What is the Government’s policy on that, and
should we be doing more to encourage that specific form of
recycling?
Mr.
Bradshaw: Yes; there is no doubt that
aluminium cans form a waste stream that it is useful to recycle in
climate change terms, partly because of the considerable emissions
involved in the primary manufacturing process, and also because
aluminium is a valuable material. The recycling of cans is one of the
most rapidly increasing forms of recycling. Until now, local
authorities have not given it priority because, as the hon. Member for
Scarborough and Whitby said, our existing targets are weight based, so
they have tended to focus on heavier materials such as glass and paper
in order to get their figures up. However, the market is now kicking in
in respect of both aluminium and plastic, which is making it more
economically worth while for local authorities to recycle those
materials. I think that 80 per cent. of local authorities now recycle
plastic. I am not sure of the figure for aluminium, but I might be able
to tell the Committee before the end of this question and answer
session.
Gregory
Barker: The EU strategy wants greater transparency and the
enforcement of member states’ waste policies. In the UK,
fly-tipping is a particularly serious problem. With the decreasing
frequency of collections around the country, as more councils switch to
fortnightly collection, it has the potential to increase further. How
do the Government propose to tackle an increase in
fly-tipping?
Mr.
Bradshaw: One must be slightly careful about saying
categorically that there has been an increase. We have had the data for
only two years, since the Government introduced the flycapture
database. It could be that the hon. Gentleman is right, and that there
was an increase in the second year, but that could simply mean that
local authorities are getting better at monitoring the situation.
However, I accept that it is a potential problem. Under the Clean
Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005, local authorities have new
powers to take action against fly-tipping, including the imposition of
significantly increased fines and prison sentences. Fly-tipping has now
been made a criminal offence, so the police can also become involved,
and the Environment Agency takes very effective action against the most
serious offenders.
I only wish
that the courts would take environmental crimes as seriously as they
should. Often, the Environment Agency spends a great deal of public
money on taking cases through the courts, and then the fines that are
levied form almost no disincentive to the convicted parties to carry on
as they were doing.
Mr.
Goodwill: The Minister briefly mentioned
the vexed problem of plastics. It is interesting that there is no
directive on plastics, although they make up a large part of electronic
equipment and vehicles. We have directives on things like brominated
flame retardants and other hazardous substances which can be
incorporated in plastics. How does the Minister think we can best try
to recycle plastics? Schemes to separate different types of plastics
are too costly to be economically viable and simply bundling plastics
together produces a very low value product that can be used only to
substitute concrete or wood. Rubber, or synthetic rubber, from tyres is
used in cement kilns as a co-incineration fuel. Is the Minister adverse
to the idea of treating plastic as frozen oil and
recycling the plastic by burning it and thus displacing oil that
otherwise would have been burnt in those combustion
plants?
| 
