Clause
69Waste
reduction schemes
Joan
Ruddock: I beg to move amendment No. 103, in
clause 69, page 32, line 40, leave
out ‘may only be brought’ and insert
‘come’.
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss
Government amendment No.
104.
Joan
Ruddock: I assure the Committee that the amendments are
small and technical. Perhaps it is unfortunate that we have not yet had
the debate on waste incentives as it might not be entirely clear why we
have tabled these amendments. We have done so to remove the link that
exists between regulation-making powers relating to waste reduction
schemes and the orders that will designate authorities as pilot areas.
Within the proposals of this part of the Bill, we wish to see pilots
undertaken by local authorities on waste reduction incentive schemes.
For example, the regulations might be needed to allow local authorities
to show waste charges and rebates on the council tax bill, or to enable
them to collect outstanding charges more effectively through the county
court and in relation to appeals processes. Under the existing
drafting, the legislation prevents any such regulations being laid in
Parliament until orders are made designating pilot
authorities.
The
amendments will allow the Secretary of State to make regulations using
the relevant powers before the pilot authorities are formally
designated. That will ensure that authorities interested in piloting a
waste reduction scheme can be provided with a clear legislative
framework by the time they are formally designated as pilots. As is the
position at the moment, the regulations will not have any effect until
the pilots are designated, and the amendments do not change the scope
of the existing regulation-making powers set out in schedule
5.
I hope that I
can assure the Committee that these are minor and technical amendments
that will ensure that the Government can provide certainty for the
pilot authorities, rather than them having to wait for the making of
the designation orders.
Gregory
Barker: I have taken what the Minister said on board.
These are tidying-up amendments and they are relevant only in light of
our debate on the Government and Opposition amendments that follow. I
do not propose to delay our discussion. We will deal with the more
substantive changes to schedule 5 in the next group of amendments.
[Interruption.]
Amendment
agreed to.
Question
proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the
Bill.
Miss
McIntosh: It is good to note, Mr. Atkinson,
that even those in the highest echelons can sometimes be caught
unawares by electronic
devices. This
is our first opportunity to discuss this part of the Bill. I do not
wish to take issue with what the Government are proposing, but this is
a Bill on climate change. It is interesting to see that this part has
been added to the Bill, so I wonder whether the Minister will explain
why that has happened. This part of the Bill—clause 69
onwards—does not seem relevant to climate change.
That does not mean that matters to do with waste
disposal and energy from waste cannot help to reduce emissions, but the
measure seems very heavily geared towards the domestic
household. In a few
moments we will move on to schedule 5, but the issue is more about what
is not in clause 69. I would like to have seen some review and emphasis
of the EU packaging directive to show that the Government are on course
to reduce packaging. I am concerned that, in respect of Government
approaches to things, we seem to penalise the end user every time yet,
in many instances, the end user has no control over the packaging,
particularly in respect of supermarkets and food. I should like to have
seen some reference in clause 69 and related clauses to other waste
issues, including food waste and anaerobic digestion. Many other issues
could have been dealt with under this part of the Bill, especially in
clause 69, so why did the Government not do
so?
Steve
Webb: I agree with what the hon. Member for Vale of York
says. Inevitably, as we discuss the succeeding clauses, we will dwell
in great detail on the sorts of schemes that local authorities might
run with regard to residual domestic waste, incentives on householders,
and the things that councils can do to penalise or reward people. This
is probably the right place, under the general heading of waste
reduction schemes, to probe the Minister on the thing that our
constituents say to all hon. Members: “We’d throw less
away if, when we left the supermarket, there was less in our trolleys
and shopping
bags.” It
is unfortunate that the scope of the waste reduction schemes covered by
clause 69 is limited, under schedule 5, to just domestic schemes.
Householders have limited control over a lot of the residual waste that
we will be talking about. They can do something about it, but are often
lumbered with it. We should now be asking the Government what their
part of the bargain is regarding the duties that they are
placing on manufacturers and retailers to minimise packaging and waste
generally. We
will be focusing overwhelmingly on what the householder can do and what
sticks and carrots councils can apply to them, but this is the right
point in the Bill to ask the Government what they are going to do to
make it easier for householders to avoid the sticks and to benefit from
the
carrots. Mr.
Nick Hurd (Ruislip-Northwood) (Con): I add my voice to
those expressing disappointment that the Government have chosen to bolt
this on to the Bill. This is an enormously important and groundbreaking
Bill. It only has one value and that is as a framework Bill designed to
put in place a much better process for setting targets for reducing
greenhouse gas emissions, revising those targets and holding the
Government of the day to account for performance on meeting those
targets. We hope that the Bill will be scrutinised around the world. It
would have been much better to have kept it pure in purpose, but the
Government have not been able to resist the urge to add a few more
baubles on to the Christmas tree, which dilutes the value of the
Bill. I
am interested in why it was necessary to add this provision to the Bill
and whether there was consideration of other mechanisms to introduce
legislation that would have enabled what are, in effect, some pilot
projects in local authority areas. The measures dilute the Bill, so why
were they necessary?
Joan
Ruddock: I shall respond to the last point first. I am
asked why it is necessary to add to the Bill. I am surprised that
Opposition Members do not see the connection between reducing waste and
climate change. Waste in this country has, historically, gone to
landfill, thus causing an immense problem with the production of
methane, which Committee members have drawn to our attention as a more
potent gas than even
CO 2. The
problem involving huge quantities of waste and methane is of enormous
concern in relation to mitigation. There is an absolute necessity to
reduce what goes into landfill, and that is why the proposals are in
the
Bill. 4.15
pm
Gregory
Barker: With the greatest respect, I do not think that my
hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood doubted that for a minute.
He was simply saying, “Why pick on waste?” Why is there
no provision in the Bill for carbon capture and storage? Why is there
no provision in the Bill for microgeneration and feed-in tariffs? Why
is there nothing in the Bill to promote combined heat and power? Why
does the Bill not address the expansion of Heathrow airport? Why does
the Bill not address energy efficiency? The list goes on and on, so my
hon. Friend made a good point.
Joan
Ruddock: The hon. Gentleman has just given a list of all
the things that are bound to be considered when the Government seek to
mitigate emissions from the various sectors that he has just described.
The measure is being proposed because it does not exist elsewhere. We
are the only country in the EU15 that does not allow local authorities
to charge for some aspects of waste removal. There is a strong reason
behind the measure. It comes before us because local government asked
central Government to make such powers available to local
government. As
Conservative Members know, their party controls a significant number of
local authorities, and the Local Government Association, which is
Conservative-controlled, has an environment committee, the chair of
which is Paul Bettison, who is well known to us all. He said in
response to a Communities and Local Government Committee
report:
“This
report rightly points out that it is only councils, in consultation
with local people, who can decide the best system for collecting waste
and boosting recycling rates. Although pilot schemes are a step in the
right direction, the power should be there for all councillors to
reward hard working families who do their bit for the
environment...The Government should bring forward amendments to
the Climate Change Bill to give councils the power to introduce
incentive schemes as the Committee has
recommended.” It
seems that the chair of the Local Government Association’s
environment committee is enthusiastic that such measures should be in
the
Bill. As
I said at the outset, waste in landfill is a major problem. It is not
sustainable, and 3 per cent. of all UK greenhouse gas emissions come
from methane from biodegradable waste in landfill. Waste reduction
schemes may have an important role to play in encouraging people to
throw away less and to recycle
more. The
hon. Member for Vale of York asked why there was concentration on
domestic households and what the Government were doing to try to
persuade those who produce so much packaging waste to produce less
and to decrease what I acknowledge is enormous frustration among
householders about the packaging waste issue. First, she mentioned the
EU packaging directive. As she is aware, there are two: one is
concerned with the recycling of the waste that is produced, and the
other is concerned with minimisation of waste. In Brussels, we have
pressed very hard for more to be done on the minimisation of waste. We
do not believe that that directive has worked well, and we have pressed
for action on it. That has not been forthcoming to date, but we always
hope. In the
meantime, we have tried to agree voluntary arrangements with major
retailers, and I am pleased to record that those who have entered into
the voluntary Courtauld agreement have done so on the basis that there
will be at least an end to the growth in packaging waste by the end of
this year, and a reduction by 2010. In the meantime, on the advice of
the Waste and Resources Action Programme, which is funded by the
Government, there has been the lightweighting of packaging and a
reduction in its amount in ways that, unfortunately, consumers often
cannot see. In defence of retailers, some packaging is necessary, and
some good work has been done, but there is a great deal more to do. We
are pursuing that in every
way. The
hon. Member for Vale of York also asked about food waste, which is one
of the most extraordinary aspects of our society. We throw into the
waste stream a third of all the food that we purchase, and that is
costing UK citizens £10 billion a year. That is a horrific waste
at this time. We want to do more about that across Government. We are
making considerable inroads with the “Love Food Hate
Waste” programme, which was launched by myself and the Waste and
Resources Action Programme. We are aware that the public are
particularly sensitive to the issue at this time, and they are
receiving these messages about reducing food waste and the necessity of
doing so.
As I have
dealt with all the questions, I will return to what we are trying to do
in the Bill. Local authorities asked for such opportunities. We know
that they have made progress, but they want to do more, and we need
them to do more. Over the past 10 years, recycling rates have
quadrupled and they now stand at around 33 per cent. As hon. Members
will know, we still lag far behind much of Europe and that is why we
need to do more. Householders have a vital role to play. Municipal
waste accounts for more than a quarter of the waste sent to landfill in
England, and household waste forms a large part of that.
To enable us
to do more, we need to try out new possibilities. We cannot afford to
sit back and say that things will never work, especially when research
shows that waste reduction schemes really help. We know that from other
countries. A particularly good example is Sweden where, in one of its
municipalities, residual waste as a result of such schemes fell by 45
per cent. in the first year of the scheme, and waste separated for
recycling or composting rose by 49 per cent.
Likewise, in
Seattle, where householders pay according to the size of their bin,
recycling tonnages have increased by 60 per cent., and participation in
recycling has increased by 80 per cent. That is undoubtedly why local
authorities have proposed to Government that they should have the
opportunity to incentivise householders to reduce the amount of waste
that they produce and to
recycle more. The Bill proposes that we allow up to five local
authorities to pilot schemes. However, those schemes will not have been
tried in this country before, which is why this is a very modest
proposal. We
want to learn from the pilots and from the response of both the
authorities and the public. Once we have evaluated the impact of the
pilots, we will be in a position to decide whether or not to roll out
the powers more
widely. Clause
69 introduces schedule 5, which provides the legislative framework for
waste collection authorities to set up a waste reduction—or a
waste incentive—scheme. Householders who throw away the least
will receive a rebate from the local authority and, under some schemes,
but not necessarily all, householders who throw away the most will pay
more. Under
the schemes, many people will be better off. That is because any money
that is received by the councils in charges will have to be paid back
to residents. That is on the basis of the condition called
revenue-neutrality. Overall, residents do not pay any more to the
authority. Gordon
Banks (Ochil and South Perthshire) (Lab): I wonder whether
the Minister will explain her point about some householders paying more
and some paying less. Is it based on how many people inhabit a house? A
house with two occupants would have a different “budget”
to houses with four or five
occupants.
Joan
Ruddock: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his
intervention. The whole point of having pilots is to try to work out a
fair system. Concern has been expressed that larger households will
produce more waste than smaller ones. Strangely enough, research shows
that proportionately, smaller households produce as much waste, and
occasionally more. It is quite complicated, because we have a lot of
research under way, which WRAP has undertaken. In the case of those
schemes, the pilot authorities must have regard to vulnerable
households, which could include larger households. It is quite
possible, whatever the design of the scheme, that there would be an
allowance for larger
households.
Martin
Horwood: I am not arguing against permissive powers, and
in general we favour the freedom of local authorities to experiment
with the consent of their electors. As well as larger
households—in other words, families with children—there
is also the issue of small households that might not have the space to
compost organic waste or put it in relatively smelly wormeries. In one
case, they do not have sufficient space in a small flat, and in the
other they would almost certainly break their tenancy agreement and act
against the interests of public health. Does she accept that that is
also an issue and that the guidelines on social justice in that respect
need to be drawn pretty broadly?
| 
