Previous Section Index Home Page

27 Feb 2007 : Column 1171W—continued

Sites of Special Scientific Interest: Oxford

Mr. Andrew Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if he will make a statement on the exclusion of the (a) Brasenose Wood and Shotover Hill, (b) Iffley Meadows, (c) Littlemore Railway Cutting, (d) Lye Valley, (e) Magdalen Quarry, (f) New Marston Meadows and (g) Rock Edge sites of Special Scientific Interest in Oxford, East from the application of the Environmental Liability Directive. [121944]

Barry Gardiner: The Environmental Liability Directive defines the species and natural habitats which fall within its scope. These are species and habitats protected under European legislation.

The directive further provides for member states to decide whether or not to bring within its scope species and habitats that are not covered by the relevant EU legislation, but which are designated for equivalent protection under national legislation. The habitats and the species in Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) fall within this category. The consultation document on options for implementing the directive makes clear the Government’s policy of not going beyond the minimum requirements of European directives unless there are exceptional circumstances justified by a cost benefit analysis and following extensive consultation with stakeholders.

The regulatory impact assessment identifies relatively small net benefits from extending the scope of the directive to SSSIs. The Government’s provisional view is that the existing range of targeted measures aimed at improving and maintaining the condition of SSSIs provides the best way forward.

Tsunami

Paul Flynn: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if he will introduce
27 Feb 2007 : Column 1172W
a tsunami watch around the edge of British estuaries associated with a history of tsunamis. [122741]

Ian Pearson: The probability of a serious tsunami impact on the UK is very low. The most plausible extreme projections suggest such waves would be very unlikely to overwhelm defences for major centres of development, which are designed to resist storm surges.

A flood warning system is in place in areas most at risk, and emergency plans are regularly tested (most recently through the Environment Agency’s Exercise Triton). The Met Office also has well-developed systems to warn local authorities and other key organisations of severe weather events.

We have already commissioned research into appropriate enhancements to existing forecasting and warning systems to improve their ability to cope with a wider range of extreme events, including tsunami-type conditions. Because such events are very rare, it is important that the systems we develop can deal with to a wide range of other extreme scenarios, if they are to be kept fully operational and regularly tested.

Waste Disposal

Gregory Barker: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimate he has made of the cost per tonne of each of the waste disposal recovery and recycling methods available to local authorities. [123560]

Mr. Bradshaw: Waste disposal recovery and recycling costs, per tonne, were estimated as part of the analysis underpinning the partial Regulatory Impact Assessment for the Review of Waste Strategy Review 2000. The following table shows the assumed capital and gate fee costs (2003-04 base)(1).


27 Feb 2007 : Column 1173W
Gate fees £/t (year)
Plant scale kt/y Capital cost (£ million) 2003-04 2009-10

CA Sites

4.40

22.50

25.20

Materials reclamation facilities (MRF)

10

1.70

52.30

68.60

40

4.60

31.60

41.40

100

10.30

24.50

32.20

Dirty MRF

70

3.00

38.20

42.80

150

6.00

34.20

38.40

250

9.00

31.60

35.30

Green waste composting

10

1.40

43.80

41.40

30

3.00

33.80

31.90

50

4.50

20.70

29.40

Biowaste composting/digestion

20

6.00

68.70

76.90

50

6.80

53.60

60.00

150

24.00

48.00

53.80

Mechanical treatment/residue to EfW

50

29.90

73.30

113.80

100

52.60

60.20

88.20

200

86.80

49.40

67.50

MBT compost/RDF

50

53.00

106.60

181.50

100

62.50

67.10

105.20

200

79.50

52.20

66.20

MBT compost and residue landfill

50

13.50

66.80

74.80

100

23.20

55.60

62.30

200

35.20

46.60

52.20

EfW incineration

100

54.60

52.50

86.40

200

88.20

45.70

64.90

400

125.70

35.80

43.50

ACT Gasification/pyrolysis

30

21.10

127.90

127.90

100

38.90

81.50

81.50

150

54.60

70.00

70.00


These are average costs used to estimate costs at the national level. Exact costs will vary from authority to authority depending on various factors including housing density and availability of different types of plant.

Updated figures will be available in the full Regulatory Impact Assessment to be published in the spring.

Waste Management: Private Finance Initiative

Gregory Barker: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what criteria are applied when a local authority is considering a private finance initiative response to cope with landfill diversion. [123561]

Mr. Bradshaw: The aim of the private finance initiative (PFI) criteria is to ensure that PFI credits are allotted to projects that offer value for money and contribute to the £11 billion(1) investment necessary to meet the demanding targets for landfill diversion. The criteria also ensure that projects will continue to meet requirements and provide long term continuous improvement.

Following detailed consultation, Defra published revised criteria for waste PFI projects in May 2006.

In addition, a new streamlined application process for waste PFI credits was announced on 9 February 2007 to encourage partnership working, including joint
27 Feb 2007 : Column 1174W
working with neighbouring authorities, and regional or multi-area partnerships. Eligibility will be based, in part, on compliance with the already published waste PFI criteria, and partly on additional criteria, to be published in May this year. The additional criteria will focus on scale, deliverability, readiness as well as environmental objectives.

Gregory Barker: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what proportion of municipal waste private finance initiatives in (a) the last year and (b) since 2000 have been awarded to projects (i) solely based on recycling, (ii) solely based on energy via waste and (iii) based on a mix of recycling and energy recovery. [123562]

Mr. Bradshaw: It is rare for a waste private finance initiative (PFI) project to have just one technological solution or one waste processing facility. Essentially, PFI credits are awarded to authorities to deliver increased diversion of biodegradable municipal waste from landfill. Once they have analysed sufficiently the technical, environmental and economic options, an authority can choose to deliver this diversion by adopting a range of waste management technological solutions.

All waste PFI projects have a recycling element included. However, none of the projects have been funded solely on the basis of undertaking recycling. A project eligible for PFI credits needs to demonstrate how it will complement longer term national targets for recycling.

Some of the waste PFI projects specifically exclude energy from waste (EfW) as a waste processing option.

The following table provides data on the waste PFI credits awarded to projects in the last year and since 2000.


27 Feb 2007 : Column 1175W
Project scope In the last year PFI credits (£ million) Since 2000 PFI credits (£ million)

Solely on recycling

None

None

Solely on energy from waste

None

None

Mixture of recycling and energy from waste(2)

Cheshire(1)

40.00

Greater Manchester(1)

100.00

Shropshire(1)

35.80

Cornwall(1)

45.00

Central Berkshire(1,3)

37.00

East Sussex, Brighton and Hove(1)

49.00

Northumberland(1)

40.80

Nottinghamshire(1)

38.31

Surrey(1)

85.50

(1)These projects are scoped in such a way as to treat a proportion (waste stream) of the total waste arisings in an EfW facility. The remaining proportion(s) are treated in other waste management facilities using different types of waste processing technology. For instance, the Cheshire project will treat a proportion of its total waste in an EfW facility, and a proportion in a mechanical biological treatment facility.
(2) Data are provided for projects based on a mix of recycling and energy from waste
(3) Central Berkshire comprises the councils Reading, Bracknell Forest and Wokingham.

Next Section Index Home Page