Martin
Horwood: I, too, welcome the opportunity to scrutinise the
thematic strategy, the draft revision and the related repeals. I will
be delighted to tell UK Independence party supporters in my
constituency that I have been involved in a small way in the removal of
at least one piece of European legislation that has now become
superfluous. I will also be delighted to tell them that the hon. Member
for Scarborough and Whitby appeared to regret that there was no
directive on plastics, and therefore to be supporting additional
European
legislation. This
measure comes at what is an historic moment in several different ways
in humanity’s use of resources. Hon. Members have referred to
the threat of greenhouse gas emissions to our global civilisation in
many respects and the fact that we have at best 10 years to prevent a
catastrophic escalation in climate change. Waste specifically
contributes to that—3.4 per cent. of UK greenhouse gas emissions
come directly from waste—but, in general, waste on the scale on
which we see it in this country is still symptomatic of a society that
is generally more wasteful of its resources than it should be, using
more energy, more water and more land than is really
necessary. However, we
are also at an historic turning point in world history in another
respect. The UN’s population division estimates that, in 2007,
for the first time, most of the world’s population will be city
dwellers. That represents a historic shift towards a less
resource-efficient lifestyle. London alone requires 125 times its own
area to provide the resources that it consumes. At the moment, it
recycles only 18 per cent. of its waste. I shall not rehearse all the
statistics that the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle recited, but we
are clearly failing to recycle as much as we
should. This is not
just about recycling and greenhouse gas emissions, although London also
emits 60 million tonnes of carbon dioxide a year. It produces 4 million
tonnes of household waste, 11.4 million tonnes of industrial waste,
400,000 tonnes of sulphur dioxide, 260,000 tonnes of nitrogen oxides
and 7.5 million tonnes of wet digested sewage sludge. Such charming
statistics underline the importance of the directive in encouraging all
EU states, but particularly the UK, to raise our game.
The Library
told me its latest comparative figures. They are not fantastically up
to date, it must be said, but they are presumably the latest that allow
comparison between states. The UK was emitting 600 kg of municipal
waste per capita in 2004 and was then 12 per cent. above the EU25
average. In 2002-03, it was still 13th in recycling rates for municipal
waste, and at 69 per cent., its landfill rate was still well above the
EU average.
Perhaps one
of the first issues that the Minister should address is whether, in
quite rightly supporting the subsidiarity principle, we are perhaps
looking at something of a fig leaf for the UK’s performance. For
instance, in 2002, the Prime Minister’s strategy unit
suggested a practical step that would allow local authorities to pilot
schemes to develop local incentives to reduce and recycle more. It was
not a controversial suggestion, nor even an Opposition suggestion, but
at the last hearing, the Government were still thinking about allowing
it. It is alarming that that step has not been taken. It could have led
to council tax discounts for composting, prizes for recycling and so
on. At the moment, the Government are still thinking about allowing
even pilot schemes. For the life of me, I cannot think what danger is
inherent in them. As I
said in my question, some articles in the directive to which the
Government have objected on grounds of subsidiarity seem largely
harmless. I referred to article 10, and the Minister did not seem
entirely sure what the objection to it was. He imagined, he said, that
it was to do with the precise definition contained in more detailed
guidance. I suggest that he should consider in more detail the real
requirements and whether there is really anything in them to object
to. If Her
Majesty’s Government can find opportunities to bring powers and
regulations that need not be exercised at EU level back to the national
level, they would certainly have my support, but there is a tension
between encouraging subsidiarity here and in other member states,
encouraging flexibility, which is obviously a good thing, and the
desire for EU legislation to be effective. The hon. Member for Bexhill
and Battle produced many statistics to demonstrate that recycling and
waste management are not yet particularly effective at an EU-wide
level, in that implementation is reportedly very poor. That is the
whole reason for revising the directive in the first
place. We
welcome simplification, particularly measures such as the waste oils
directive’s repeal and incorporation into a single directive. We
welcome the improvement of performance indicators and definitions of
best practice. All of those changes will give greater certainty to
businesses, including the purchasers of recycled products, as well as
to municipal authorities. In so far as Her Majesty’s Government
support that, we support
them. I suspect that,
amid the detail of the Government’s position on the subsidiarity
principle relating to fairly minor measures in the directive, some
bigger issues are being missed. The first is the waste hierarchy. I was
pleased by the Minister’s response to my question, as he remains
strongly committed to the hierarchy that runs from prevention to reuse,
recycling, energy recovery and finally landfill.
I was also pleased that the
Minister shares Friends of the Earth’s worry that the directive
may actually undermine that hierarchy by lumping together the last
three issues: recycling, energy recovery and landfill. In fact, I am
even more concerned by the Conservatives’ position, which seems
to be that they were happy to see that take place and that, in many
respects, they equate energy recovery with recycling. Perhaps the hon.
Member for Bexhill and Battle will correct me if that is an unfair
criticism.
Gregory
Barker: We were trying to make a clear
differential between efficient energy recovery and old-fashioned
incineration, and in looking to the future, we were trying to say that
we hope that there will be a role
for efficient scientific energy recovery. That is not the same as the
incineration that we know and have experienced in this country in the
past.
Martin
Horwood: I am somewhat reassured by that, but I am still
concerned by the Government’s position, which appears to be to
support the hierarchy at home, but then be content to see it diluted at
European level. The hon. Gentleman’s answer on whether or not we
should have 50 per cent. targets on recycling imply that he is content
to see other states, in a sense, damage the common environment by
choosing their own path and hierarchy and allowing subsidiarity to
undermine the support that exists in this country for the waste
hierarchy. Denmark is an obvious example of such a state, because it
achieves a very low level of landfill disposal by having a very high
level of incineration—more than 50 per cent. in the latest
statistics that I have seen.
The Minister said in response
to my question that he thought the use of life-cycle analysis was the
exception rather than the rule, that the waste hierarchy, quite
rightly, should not be a straitjacket and that we should use life-cycle
analysis where it is useful. In so far as the Minister will propose
that at European level, I will support him. I am slightly concerned
that the Conservatives appear—unless I am wrong again—to
support the life-cycle
analysis.
The
Chairman: Order. I am in a generous mood, but we have had
two occasions when Conservative policy has been mentioned during the
discussion of directive. I should be grateful to hon. Members if they
could limit making such comments to two
occasions.
Martin
Horwood: I am grateful to you for your direction,
Mr. Wilshire.
The commitment to the waste
hierarchy is heightened by the redefinition of waste incineration as
recovery. The Minister suggested that that would not have a material
impact. If that is so, why are we suggesting that it should go forward
if a risk is attached? Energy efficiency benchmarks are not the only
measure by which we should judge waste disposal and recovery processes,
and anything that further fuzzes the definitions and priorities seems
dangerous. I gave a
concrete example in my question relating to gas plasma technology,
which uses a high temperature gas and not combustion to separate the
constituent parts of the waste, after recyclable materials have been
removed. I am not sure whether that is more or less energy-efficient
when used for energy generation, but it certainly produces less carbon
dioxide, much less toxic waste and much more recyclable material than
incineration. Gas
plasma technology may or may not pass the required benchmark and end up
in the same category as traditional incineration plants or even the
newer incineration plants. I am pleased that the Minister has agreed to
meet gas plasma developers to discuss exactly how the directive will
affect their business and whether or not it will incentivise gas plasma
technology, which still produces some carbon dioxide and toxic waste,
but is obviously preferable to traditional incineration.
On toxic waste, in allowing the
boundaries to be muddied between energy recovery and recycling,
weare possibly opening the door to an increase in
incineration, which would increase the amount of toxic waste going to
landfill. That is close to our heart in Gloucestershire, because there
is a toxic landfill waste site at Wingmoor farm, not far from my
constituency, and to which there is huge public opposition.
An organisation called Safety
in Waste and Rubbish Disposal was formed in 2001, when a local resident
discovered that the landfill site adjacent to her home was being filled
with hazardous waste. In particular, she was alerted to the presence of
fly ash, which is a by-product of municipal incinerators and is not
only highly caustic, but contains traces of heavy metals such as
antimony, arsenic, cadmium, copper, lead, mercury and
dioxins. Anything that
unintentionally presents an opportunity to reverse the UK’s
downward trajectory on less hazardous waste and that allows more, not
less, waste to go to landfill should be resisted. I am alarmed at any
proposal that might lead to the large scale burning of plastics, which
again seemed to be what the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby was
suggesting. We must make it clear that the hierarchy stays in
place. If there is
concern that the reason for the change in definitions is to prevent a
drift towards more landfill because incineration and landfill are
somehow equivalent, it is unnecessary. Friends of the Earth’s
analysis suggests that it is unnecessary to incentivise the movement of
waste away from landfill, because there are already two directives that
provide legally binding targets to divert biodegradable waste from
landfill. That is why the EU Environment Committee, at its meeting on
28 November, rejected under any circumstances the reclassification of
incineration as recovery. The Liberal Democrats support that, and I
press the Government to maintain their commitment to the strict
five-point hierarchy, to put incineration in its proper place and not
to shift the goalposts.
Two wider issues have received
insufficient emphasis. First, recycling received insufficient emphasis
in the directive. The Government love targets, so here is a golden
opportunity to introduce some, with Liberal Democrat support. Friends
of the Earth suggest a70 per cent. target for total waste by
2020. On this occasion, the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle said
that he would support more robust targets, although he declined to say
what they would be.
In the European Parliament,
Chris Davies of the Liberal Democrats suggested amending article 5 to
introduce a 50 per cent. target, and amending article 4 to set a target
of stabilising EU waste by 2012, with annual reductions of at least 1
per cent. every year until 2020. He also suggested an amendment to
introduce an obligation on the Commission to support member
states’ measures to achieve that reduction. The amendments were
mysteriously defeated, but I hope that the Government will support
their reintroduction; it would be in the Government’s interests,
as their record on recycling is not fantastic and they might benefit
from the Commission’s measures.
Secondly,
there is the issue of producer responsibility. I have mentioned the
Environmental Services Association’s concerns about that, but
the Minister’s response was
unclear. He seemed to say that producer responsibility was important,
but that he would not press for its inclusion in the directive and that
he was happy for member states to decide whether it was important.
Given that many producers of materials—certainly packaging
materials—operate EU-wide, that decision is not appropriate for
subsidiarity. It would apply best throughout EU markets, and it would
be beneficial if the Government pressed for producer responsibility to
be made a much higher priority. Finally, a question hangs over
the directive. My colleague in the European Parliament tabled
amendments to article 1, suggesting the incorporation of a fundamental
principle: the protection of the environment and of human health and
well-being. Waste prevention is not an end in itself; it is about
protecting the common environment, and human health and
well-being. The EU
can do much better than the directive’s current vision. The
Government’s negotiating position could be clearer and more
radical, and they could be more committed to taking to a European level
many of the good principles that they have expounded in this
country. I
acknowledge the positive steps that Her Majesty’s Government
have taken, and particularly some of their innovative steps, such as
the national industrial symbiosis programme. It is an innovative means
of prevention and of encouraging companies to exchange materials,
rather than sending them to waste. However, if at EU level the
Government are content to pay lip service to the hierarchy that sets
prevention at the top and landfill at the absolute bottom, I would find
it difficult to support their negotiating position in full, even though
I would support those positions that could lead to more subsidiarity,
more simplification and more efficient legislation. I am particularly
worried about the open door that they seem to be offering with a major
increase in incineration—and thereby an increase in toxic
landfill. 5.45
pm
Mr.
Bradshaw: We have had an interesting and constructive
debate, and I am grateful to my parliamentary colleagues for their
interest. I agreed with much of what was said in summing up by the hon.
Members for Cheltenham and for Bexhill and Battle. I shall give some
clarification on one or two points.
The hon. Member for Cheltenham
may be interested to know that the latest figures for London show a
recycling level of 21 per cent. It is not correct to say that we did
not implement the local incentive pilots; we did it last year, and he
can see how successful they were. That is another commitment
delivered. The hon.
Gentleman was right to say that we are concerned not about the networks
referred to in the document but about insistence on the best available
techniques. I shall briefly explain why. Such a provision would
constrain the flexibility of member states to specify the general rules
for permit exemptions even for low-risk waste recovery and recycling
operations. For example, it could mean low-risk activities such as
bottle banks being subject to the imposition of BAT. That
would be completely disproportionate. It would serve no useful purpose
and it would massively increase costs, and I am sure that the Liberal
Democrats are as concerned as we are that the costs should be
maintained at a proportionate and sensible level. I would caution the hon. Member
for Cheltenham on drawing attention to the attempts of his Liberal
Democrat colleague in the European Parliament to delay the arrival of
waste stabilisation. That is not particularly consistent with the
approach that he took in the rest of his speech. I have been advised
that his European colleague was successful in delaying the date on
which waste stabilisation should occur from 2008 to 2012, and it was
also the subject of a press release by the Committee.
As I said earlier, we have
already achieved not only stabilisation but reduction, so I am rather
disappointed that the Liberal Democrats should be arguing in the
European Parliament for a watering down of that part of the proposal.
However, most of the amendments passed by the Committee were a great
example of constructive engagement by the Conservative party in Europe,
and I join the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle in paying tribute to
the rapporteur, Caroline Jackson. They show that constructive
engagement can achieve things for the United Kingdom as a whole.
However, we were not particularly happy with that amendment.
The hon. Member for Cheltenham
was wrong to say that our revised waste strategy envisages a massive
extension of incineration—or, as it is more accurately
described, energy from waste. The 2000 waste strategy envisaged that
about 33 per cent. of our waste stream would need to be incinerated by
2020. As a result of the hugely improved recycling rates since Labour
came to power, we believe that we will need only 25 per cent. of our
waste stream to be used to create energy by 2020, which is a far lower
proportion than for most comparable European countries, particularly
those that are often held up as having good and sustainable waste
policies.
That leads me
to the comments of the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle. I was
disappointed that he brought party politics into the debate, although I
was pleased to hear him acknowledge the large degree of consensus on
the question. However, he provoked me slightly when he said that he was
dissatisfied that the UK was constantly playing catch-up. But catch-up
from where? We are catching up from the derisory 7 per cent. recycling
figure that we inherited in 1997. We have quadrupled recycling in the
last eight years from 7 per cent. to27 per cent.
It is all very well to talk
about targets, and we have ambitious targets. However, just as the
Conservatives preached to us about targets on climate change, I can say
that it is no good having targets unless we will the means to achieve
them—and that means policies. The hon. Gentleman was gracious
enough to acknowledge, following the intervention from the hon. Member
for Cheltenham, that the Conservatives do not yet have any policies,
but I am keen to find out as soon as possible what they are and how the
targets will be
achieved. The
hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle rightly said that it is important to
focus more on reduction, and our new waste strategy will do that. I was
delighted that he
said that it was important to support local authorities. I have been
waiting for the Conservative Front-Bench spokesman on waste to say
something about that to balance the frankly outrageous criticisms from
the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) almost daily in
the tabloid newspapers of local
authorities— | 
