Mr.
Bradshaw: It is certainly preferable to create energy out
of plastics than to send them to landfill—plastics is one area
where the waste hierarchy works for a particular material. It is better
still to recycle them. I think that I am right in saying that about 80
per cent. of the plastics that are readily available on supermarket
shelves in the form of packaging, such as milk and juice bottles, are
reasonably easily recyclable. The hon. Gentleman is right. Many
countries on the continent that have a higher recycling level than we
do tend to burn a lot of plastic because it has a higher calorific
value and so it helps to create a lot of energy in those counties that
use combined heat and power. I would resist departing from the waste
hierarchy on plastics. It is better to increase the recycling of
plastics and, where they cannot be recycled, to use them to create
energy.
Martin
Horwood: The Minister referred to the many
amendments that were made in the Environment Committee of the European
Parliament. But there were a few amendments that were not passed which
I would commend to him. I would like first to mention one that amended
article 5 to set a binding target on total recycling of waste of 50 per
cent. by 2020. Would the Government support amending the revision to
include
that?
Mr.
Bradshaw: I do not think that we would. We have our own
target of recycling fairly near that. As part of the waste review we
may adopt similar if not more ambitious targets. We would not want the
Commission to adopt those binding targets because some countries with a
very good environmental record of waste management recycle around 40 to
50 per cent. and use the rest to create energy. They do not send any
waste to landfill. I would not want to insist that those countries
start recycling more and creating less energy from waste. It is very
much up to them. As long as they comply with the landfill directive and
move away from landfill, which they have done much more successfully
than we have done, it would not be right for the Commission to create
that kind of
straitjacket.
Gregory
Barker: New Zealand is at the forefront of waste progress.
It has committed to becoming a zero-waste country. It aspires to send
no waste to landfill, to reduce waste and then to reuse and recycle
wherever it is scientifically possible. Given that we are living in a
resource-limited world, and with those sorts of aspirations out there
around the world, does the Minister consider that that this great
document, which encapsulates the vision of the Commission, represents a
sufficiently ambitious and creative vision for, say, the next 20 years,
or is it just a workmanlike document for the next period? Is it really
a long-term sustainable
vision?
Mr.
Bradshaw: I think that it is, because it
recognises that things have moved on since the waste framework
directive was passed, which is the reason why the waste framework
directive needs changing. As the hon. Gentleman has rightly pointed
out, things have moved on, and we
now view waste much more as a resource than as waste. Climate change has
rightly risen up the political agenda, and the view was taken that the
existing waste directive needed to be audited for its climate change
impact. We are doing exactly the same with our domestic waste
policy. There are
attractions in a zero waste aspiration, although one has to be clear in
defining that. My understanding is that the New Zealand declaration is
very much an aspiration, and there is doubt about some of New
Zealand’s data, which we are interested in studying. A number of
European countries already have what they would call a zero waste
policy, which means a zero waste to landfill policy, and that is a
long-term aspiration that we should have, too. As long as one accepts
the waste hierarchy, wherein landfill is the worst possible option, it
makes sense not to send to landfill anything that can be recycled or
used to generate energy, which is where I would like to see us
aiming.
Mr.
Goodwill: My final question is about
waste engine oil, which is referred to at some length in the document.
I remind the Minister of how unintended consequences can come into
play. He may recall that following the implementation of the animal
by-products directive, under which the use of waste cooking oil as
animal feed was banned, much of the oil found its way into sewers and
watercourses following the collapse of that particular market. I am
concerned that we may be too prescriptive in specifying that waste oil
must be regenerated, rather than allowing it to be used as, for
example, a fuel in incinerators or cement kilns. If we are not careful,
we might end up with a situation similar to that of cooking oil, with
the result that a number of smaller garages and domestic consumers
would be tempted to dispose of the oil illegally rather than putting it
into a market that would give it some positive
value.
Mr.
Bradshaw: I hope that that will not be
the consequence. We welcome the simplification measures in the
proposals that will revise the waste oil issue. I am aware, however,
that some people—some hon. Members, of whom the hon. Gentleman
may be one, have been lobbied on this matter—do not like the
fact that if one burns recovered fuel oil, one must do so in compliance
with the waste incineration directive. That is the point that some
people in some sectors take issue with. I do not think that there is
any prospect of that changing: the latest court case, which took place
last week, came out in favour of the Environment Agency’s
definition of recovered oil as waste, which, if burned, must be burned
in compliance with the directive. I suspect that that will remain the
case.
Martin
Horwood: My final question relates to
concerns expressed by the Environmental Services Association, the trade
body for environmental waste disposal, that the directive does not
place sufficient emphasis on producer responsibility. If that were done
more explicitly, the association would, like us and the Government,
support the hierarchy, which puts prevention at the top and lays the
responsibility on producers to avoid, for instance, excessive packaging
and plastic bags. Would the Government support more explicit references
in the directive to producer
responsibility?
Mr.
Bradshaw: We would wish member states to
decide which preventive measures best suit them. There is already a
variety of approaches: some countries, such as Denmark, use product
taxes; others use voluntary or statutory targets. We have producer
responsibility on packaging and have recently signed up the
supermarkets to voluntary packaging reduction agreements. I would
prefer the overall framework of prevention to be set, but for
individual member states to decide which of the various incentivising
measures works best for
them.
The
Chairman: We have run out of questions. I call the
Minister to move the
motion. Motion
made, and Question
proposed, That the
Committee takes note of European Union Documents No. 5047/06 and
Addenda 1 + 2, Commission Communication; Taking sustainable use of
resources forward: A Thematic Strategy on the prevention and recycling
of waste, and No. 5050/06, Draft Directive on waste: and agrees with
the Government’s proposed negotiating position relating to the
revision of the Waste Framework Directive.—[Mr.
Bradshaw.] 5.10
pm
Gregory
Barker: My colleague in the European Parliament, Dr.
Caroline Jackson, MEP, a rapporteur, has done a great job in taking the
Commission’s waste prevention and recycling proposals through
that Parliament so far. Waste policy is one of the few concrete
resource efficiency policies established at EU level. Thus, the focus
on a low-waste and recycling society has a key role to play in our
moving towards a resource-efficient Europe and, importantly, in
stimulating innovation in this
sector. The proposals
represent a move forward towards a more comprehensive understanding and
a framework for tackling waste, which we Conservatives welcome. We
believe, as I think all hon. Members do, that waste is an
environmental, social and economic challenge that needs to be tackled
urgently throughout the EU, and particularly in the UK. Some small
progress has been made throughout the EU, but it is limited. On a range
of indicators, the UK is well behind where the Conservatives think it
should be, compared with other member
states. It is
important to recognise that throughout the EU there has only been a
slight decrease in landfilling despite increased recycling, which is
due to the overall growth in waste in line with economic growth. At
least 50 per cent. of paper and steel, 43 per cent. of glass and 40 per
cent. of non-ferrous metal produced in the EU are currently made from
recycled materials. Although those statistics may sound good, they mask
the underlying trend in gross waste production. The European
Environment Agency predicts that paper, glass and plastic waste will
increase by 40 per cent. by 2020, compared with 1990. A similar
increase in municipal waste of more than 42 per cent. is predicted by
2020 compared with 1995, according to the European Commission Joint
Research Centre. It is
clear that, by working with the EU institutions, some progress has been
made in key waste disposal areas, such as landfill and incineration.
However, a huge challenge remains. Progress to date falls far short of
what must be achieved if we are seriously to tackle the problems of
waste and its environmental impact and reduce our carbon dioxide
emissions in the face of
the great challenge of climate change. We cannot consider climate change
and environmental policy without effectively dealing with waste. The
UK’s approach needs to be bolder, and we need to set more
ambitious targets if we are to achieve sustainable waste management. We
need to make greater demands on ourselves as a society, not simply in
respect of how we deal with waste, but in terms of the amount of waste
that we
produce. Although
recycling is increasing in all member states, this progress is almost
entirely offset by the increase in the amount of waste generated. For
example, the amount of plastic waste going into landfill increased by
nearly 22 per cent. between 1990 and 2002, even though the percentage
of plastic waste being landfilled has dropped from 77 per cent. to 62
per cent. That apparent paradox illustrates how complex the issue
is. Waste in the UK
and across Europe has been increasing for many years, although there
are now a few signs that stabilisation may be happening. Municipal
waste in England decreased by a welcome3 per cent. this year,
and municipal waste in Belgium has already stabilised. It is a welcome
fact that the revision of the waste framework directive includes the
prevention of waste, rather than simply its management, as one of the
key
priorities. The
proposals require each country to produce a national waste prevention
programme. One of the findings from the analysis conducted for the
strategy was that no single waste prevention measure could work in all
member states, due to the variety of cultural and geographical
conditions from Latvia to the Atlantic coast. Prevention can be
achieved only by a range of measures designed and applied at a national
level—or even at regional or local level. Thus, while the
national waste prevention programmes will be mandatory, how waste
reduction is achieved will be up to individual states. That is to be
welcomed, but the greater flexibility must not become an excuse for
inaction. This
issue requires serious commitment from national Government. To date,
the Labour Government have failed to give a serious lead in this area,
and it is to be feared that that will continue to be the case under
these new proposals. Any programme must break the link between economic
growth and the environmental impacts associated with the generation of
waste. The Government must set clear and ambitious
targets. At the same
time, we must recognise that dealing with waste is not only a problem,
because it represents an opportunity in terms of jobs and business. The
waste management and recycling sector is growing rapidly. It is
currently estimated to be worth€100 billion, and it
accounts for between 1.2 million and 1.5 million jobs in the
EU. The
Government’s record on waste in the UK is not particularly
impressive. The UK produces about430 million tonnes of waste
per annum, according to the national statistics issued by the
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in, “The
environment in your pocket 2005”. Although municipal household
waste accounts for approximately 7 per cent. of the total, or about 30
million tonnes, the corresponding figure continues to grow in much of
Europe.
Let us consider the other
contributors to our waste: mining and quarrying waste is not subject to
control under the EU waste framework directive, and it accounts for
approximately 125 million tonnes, or29 per cent.; industrial
and commercial waste accounts for approximately 110 million tonnes, or
26 per cent.; agriculture accounts for approximately 90 million tonnes,
or 21 per cent.; and the figures for construction and demolition are 75
million tonnes, or 17 per cent.
Although municipal waste
accounted for a relatively small percentage of total waste, recycling
levels are far lower in this area than they are for other types of
waste—I alluded to that point during questions. In 2006, 23 per
cent. of municipal waste was recycled or recovered, with levels in
England encouragingly rising to 27 per cent. The Government are
discussing proposals to increase the national targets for household
waste recycling and composting to 40 per cent. by 2010 and 50 per cent.
by 2020, and for municipal recovery—including recycling,
composting and energy recovery—to 53 per cent. by 2010 and 75
per cent. by 2020. Although we broadly welcome those proposals, we
think that the Government still have a long way to go, not least
because, compared with the rest of the EU, the amount we currently
recycle is not nearly good enough—Austria and Belgium’s
recycling figure is more than 50 per cent.
Conservatives believe that
waste is worth recycling for three reasons. It not only cuts down on
landfill, but saves energy when new products are created—it is
worth pointing out that making an aluminium can out of recycled product
uses 95 per cent. less energy than creating a new one from scratch.
Better recycling also leads to cleaner streets as fly-tipping
decreases, so ithas a civic impact. Given that threefold win,
we must make recycling an absolute priority and not an environmental
afterthought. If
the Government want to make recycling a priority, they have an absolute
requirement to support local councils in their efforts to get the
public to take better care of their waste. Councils should be given
support to implement doorstep recycling schemes for consumers and to
offer one-stop advice shops for business. Labour has conspicuously
failed to guarantee a long-term framework for waste management within
local
councils.
Martin
Horwood: The hon. Gentleman is saying many things with
which I agree and bemoaning the overall lack of progress both at
European and UK level. He has suggested that we need more robust
targets. Will he give some precise examples of what such targets might
be?
Gregory
Barker: We need to go above and beyond the current levels.
I do not have a specific figure for the hon. Gentleman, but we need to
go beyond what the Government have set out and look at the best
practice in Europe. I mentioned that certain countries had already
reached our targets and gone beyond them. We are talking about targets
in the future, so I do not see why it should not be possible for
Britain to aspire to being at the forefront of Europe, rather than for
ever playing catch-up. I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a specific
figure, but I should like Britain to be at the forefront of what is
achievable, not at the rear.
Although
increasing pressure is being applied to local councils to improve
recycling, there are often great practical and financial difficulties
in implementing the schemes, because Labour has conspicuously failed to
guarantee a long-term framework. Since the Government launched their
flagship strategy in 2000, they have offered neither sustainable
sources of funding nor any sense of clear policy direction. All too
often in this debate, a failure of political will is the greatest
issue. The problem also has to do with the equity and fairness of
funding throughout the country. Simply put, Labour must make recycling
the priority that it deserves to be, but it must also address the need
to reduce waste production at source.
Incineration might need to be
an option, within a suite of other measures. Above all, however,
incineration should not be a fait accompli while our recycling levels
remain so pitifully low. That is why my party broadly supports the
EU’s proposals for waste minimisation. In particular, we support
the principle of life-cycle thinking, which examines the environmental
impacts at each stage in the life cycle of a resource or product. In
other words, waste policy must consider not only the pollution caused,
but how to contribute to reducing environmental
impacts. We support
the principle of reducing the production of waste at source, and we
support greater recycling and simplification of waste legislation. We
also support the view that waste products can be a resource in
themselves, such as through energy reclaimed from incineration or the
use of by-products, such as tallow, which as a fuel is
carbon-neutral. We
welcome the Commission’s decision to improve further the
efficiency of recovering energy from waste by setting an ambitious
benchmark for municipal incinerators. The new energy-efficiency
benchmark will determine whether an incinerator can be identified as a
recovery facility instead of a disposal facility. Waste processed in a
recovery facility can be counted towards mandatory recovery targets,
which are set in existing EU directives. The review of the waste oils
directive is also welcome, now that scientific research has shown that
it is better to regenerate waste oils than to combust them and recover
the energy. Those are clear examples of where the waste hierarchy must
also be understood in terms of the life cycle of
waste. However,
we are concerned that the proposals that we are discussing might be too
heavily focused on end-of-pipe approaches, such as reclaiming energy
from waste, to the detriment of the much greater demand side
efficiencies that waste prevention, reuse and recycling can deliver.
Numerous institutional policy documents, European Environment Agency
reports and the Commission’s own thematic strategy communication
highlight the continued lack of progress on tackling the ever-growing
quantities of waste.
To reverse
the trend of growing waste generation, the five-step waste hierarchy
must be not only reconfirmed, but vigorously implemented. To achieve a
low-waste and recycling society, the policy debate should focus not
just on diversion from landfill. The emphasis must shift to prevention
and, for waste that is still generated, reuse and recycling should
predominate. As short and medium-term objectives, the EU should
stabilise and then reduce its waste generation. As a long-term
objective, it should minimise all residual non-reusable or
non-recyclable
waste. In short, by 2020 the EU should be producing less waste, not
more, and should have moved from an average of 70 per cent.
incineration and landfill to at least 70 per cent. reuse and
recycling. However,
we must be careful not to be over-simplistic in our approach. Some
people, such as Friends of the Earth, are calling for a ban on the
landfill or incineration of reusable, recyclable and compostable waste,
but further research is needed before European law goes further in that
direction. The reality remains that we continue to have residual waste
that cannot be reused or recycled and must be dealt with. We must avoid
a self-defeating situation in which, in a drive to recycle waste, the
transportation of that waste causes greater environmental damage than
any benefit
received. We must also
remember that the situation in respect of waste is highly variable
across member states. The current reality facing waste policy is a
critical phase of integration of 10 new member states, where much waste
management infrastructure has still to be built. Europe has at least
two speeds of waste management. It is important that the changes
proposed are adapted to meet those realities. However, waste plans,
while taking account of the differences of individual member states,
must share the common targets across the
EU. Under
the better regulation drive, we need better implementation, which in
turn requires proper follow-up. It is critical that the waste framework
directive is indeed a good example of better
regulation—regulation that will set, define and implement
environmental objectives and give priority to prevention, and whose
implementation will be enforceable and adapted to the realities of a
multi-speed waste
Europe. Substantial
progress has been made in the disposal and reuse of waste, particularly
in Conservative-controlled councils, which dominate the
Government’s recycling league tables. The Conservatives believe
that waste is worth recycling, but oppose the new definition of
recycling as outlined in the Commission’s proposals. Such a
definition would simply add to the monitoring and licensing costs of
recycling waste that already exist. As my hon. Friend the Member for
Scarborough and Whitby pointed out, it is essential that we ensure that
recycling markets are supported from a demand point of view and that
recycling does not just become an end in
itself. The proposals
are therefore welcome, but clearly they will need further consideration
as they progress. I look forward to working closely on them with the
Government and European colleagues. If we get the balance right between
landfill limits, waste taxes, support for the waste hierarchy in the
light of life-cycle thinking, and categorisation as a recovery facility
only for energy-efficient incinerators, we will make real progress on
tackling the UK’s waste
problem. We
will support the Government where we believe that they are doing the
right thing. However, ambitious targets and bold action are required at
all levels of Government in implementing this strategy. We believe that
the Government should promote the development of totally renewable
energy from waste technologies, and encourage the most environmentally
friendly methods of residual waste disposal, while also focusing on the
eventual phasing out of residual waste. A national waste prevention
programme under the revised directive
is an opportunity to transform waste policy in this country. I am sure
that such a policy would have the broad support of our
constituents. 5.28
pm
| 
