Joan
Ruddock: In response to the final remarks of the hon.
Member for Cheltenham, I give him every assurance that this is not a
new measure—I have been at pains to stress that before. At the
moment, local authorities issuing a section 46 notice can specify how
waste will be collected from a residence. Once they have done that, if
people do not comply, they may refuse to take away the additional
waste. As I said in relation to the intervention made by the hon.
Member for Vale of York, that does not mean to say that they will
refuse, but they may refuse. If there were any risk to public health,
they would have to collect. This provision already exists; local
authorities may refuse to collect and some
do. There
have been some questions about this. We have put clear provisions in
the Bill to make it obvious that this is the law and that the power
exists. The waste section of the Bill in schedule 5 will insert new
schedule 2AA into the Environmental Protection Act 1990. I think that I
have answered the points made by Back
Benchers. Amendment
agreed
to. Schedule
5, as amended, agreed
to.
Clause
70Waste
reduction provisions:
piloting Amendment
made: No. 104, in clause 70, page 33, line 18, leave out
from ‘exercised’ to end of line 19 and insert
‘at any time after the coming into
force of this section.’.—[Joan
Ruddock.] Question
proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the
Bill.
Miss
McIntosh: I will take this opportunity to correct the
record. When we debated clause 69 on Thursday, I was recorded in column
334 of the Official Report as saying “clause 60”.
I will ensure that that is
corrected. I
will press the Minister on a couple of points so that she can respond
to some criticisms that have been made. We have had lengthy debates
last Thursday and today on why five pilot areas have been designated.
Subsection (4) will give the Government the power to change
the pilot
areas. Does that mean that there can be additional pilot
areas or that a pilot area can be substituted? Is
five the maximum? How does she envisage subsection (4) being
interpreted? The
Minister will recall that the Communities and Local Government
Committee report described the thrust of clause 70 as a “massive
retreat” because it will limit the number of recycling incentive
schemes to just five local authority areas and because the Government
have capped the amount that local authorities may offer as incentives
or take-in charges. Perhaps the most serious criticism is that it
delays any possibility of England-wide schemes until after 2012-13. Is
she confident that the Government will be able to introduce an
England-wide scheme before that date? What date do the Government have
in mind? Does the clause mark a departure from the Government’s
waste strategy along the lines suggested by the criticisms, or does the
Minister believe that the clause is in keeping with the
strategy? I
have had a little read of “Erskine May”, as one does from
time to time. Subsection (5) will exclude the prospect of an instrument
being treated as a hybrid instrument. Is that a standard procedure? I
am sure that the Minister will find that help is at hand. The Commons
is not as used to this procedure as the Lords because hybrid
instruments are largely used in the Lords. Such instruments give the
public the opportunity to petition. I do not know whether that could be
seen as a delaying tactic, given the strength of feeling about clauses
69 and the amendments to it. What was the thinking behind the
Government’s seeking to exclude the possibility of a hybrid
instrument?
Joan
Ruddock: The hon. Lady is correct to suggest that I might
require the help that is at hand in dealing with her final point about
hybrid instruments. I have looked at the provision and taken a briefing
on it, but as we are in a formal Committee, I will read what is
provided to me in due course to be on the safe
side. The
hon. Lady referred to the Communities and Local Government Committee
report, which said that the clause was a “massive
retreat”. Everyone who has spoken has indicated that these are
subjects on which people feel strongly. We have considered, therefore,
that moving immediately to the roll-out of schemes across
the country would be premature, given the controversy that they have
generated. That is why we thought that it would be much better to start
with pilots and to have a limit of five pilots. In no way does
that go against our waste strategy, as outlined a year and a
half ago. We said that we would create such powers and they are
being created, albeit by beginning with piloting.
The
Government have said that we want to have substantial results from
those pilots before proposing any roll-out and that we want a
parliamentary debate on those results, so the timing could be as the
Committee has suggested. That is not a huge problem because we are
already on target for the 2010 requirement under European law to reduce
the amount of waste going to landfill, and we believe that we can
achieve the 2013 target. It is beyond that time that we know we will
have a huge challenge to meet the 2020 targets. If the schemes were to
be rolled out within that time frame, it would be a way of rising to
the challenge of the difficulties that face us regarding the 2020
target for the reduction of waste going from households to
landfill.
On
the issue of capping the amount that could be charged, although we have
not really been referring to charges, based on the schemes that we have
studied from overseas, the indicative amount that might be charged
would be of the order of £50 over a year. That is not a huge
amount. As I said previously, there has been a great deal of excitement
about this, which has come primarily from the hon. Member for Brentwood
and Ongar, and it has been suggested that we could be talking about
£1,000 a year. We want not only to make it clear that that is
ludicrous, but to reassure people by saying that we will take the power
to cap in case any local authority wanted to propose anything that was
unreasonable.
I am now
getting the advice that I need, although there is much of
it—[Interruption.] It keeps coming, so I do
not know whether the opinion is changing. I am told that hybrid
procedures do not state that there will be full public consultation, if
that helps anybody. If a scheme does not start, a designation order can
be revoked and another designated in its place—that is the
precise answer to the question about changing where a scheme is. Apart
from as provided for under that power, only five may be
designated. It
is reasonable to remind the Committee that we are talking about five
pilots, not a scheme throughout the country, so the question of the
hybrid procedure would relate to a small number of cases. I confirm
that such an instrument would allow the public to petition. There is no
doubt that that could result in the process slowing down. However, of
course, there will be full public consultation on all the secondary
legislation
proposed. Question
accordingly agreed
to. Clause
70, as amended, ordered to stand part of the
Bill. 12.45
pm
Clause
71Waste
reduction provisions: report and review
Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Miss
McIntosh: The Minister referred last Thursday to £2
billion of PFI credits available for waste infrastructure, and said
that there is no prohibition on any form of scheme. Some incinerator
schemes are coming forward, and there is an additional £10
million available for anaerobic digesters. She
said: “It
is now accepted that no serious health effects result from
incineration.”——[Official Report, Climate
Change Public Bill Committee, 3 July 2008; c.
333.] I beg to
differ with the Minister’s conclusion. Waste strategies are
coming forward in each local authority, and several include heat in
some shape or form, whether that is straight incineration or not. I
repeat the request that I made in connection with clause 69. In
relation to the provision for a report or review in clause 71, and an
interim report in clause 72, will the Government elaborate on what was
said at column 333 so as to end the public disquiet on that form of
waste reduction?
I do not know
if the mailbags of other hon. Members reflect my own, but in the Vale
of York, at any mention of heat, a local action group is immediately
set up—outside the confines of the Committee, I could show the
Minister
five ongoing campaigns. In relation to the reports, will the Minister
use her good offices to have a public discussion and end public
disquiet about the matter? Joan
Ruddock: Unless I am wrong, the hon. Lady is not dealing
with any provision that exists in clause 71. Those reports are about
the pilots. What she talks about has nothing to do with waste
collection; it is to do with waste disposal and incineration—she
refers to heat, but I think that she means incineration
plants.
Miss
McIntosh: That is a form of waste reduction. It means
sending less to landfill. Does the Minister say that none of the pilots
will look at anything other than recycling?
Joan
Ruddock: The pilots are about incentivising behaviour and
the way that householders separate household waste into recyclables and
residual waste. The destination of residual waste is a decision for the
disposal authority. In some cases, that is the same authority as the
collection authority, in others it is separate. Those decisions do not
relate to the provisions in the Bill. I responded to the points, but
they remain outside the provisions of the clause. I will write to the
hon. Lady about where to find information that can satisfy the public
about the safe operation of incinerators.
Question
put and agreed to.
Clause 71
ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses
72 to 74 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Schedule
6Renewable
transport fuel
obligations
Martin
Horwood: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in
schedule 6, page 75, line 38, leave
out subsection (2) and
insert— ‘(2) It is the duty
of the Administrator to ensure that only renewable transport fuel
that— (a) causes or
contributes to the reduction of carbon emissions over its total
lifecycle from planting or production to use,
and (b) contributes to
sustainable development and the protection or enhancement of the
national or global environment
generally, qualifies as a
permitted fuel under this
Act.’. If
we were in any doubt as to whether terms such as
“renewable” and “sustainable” are used
loosely, it has been clarified by the debate about biofuels, which are
a clear example of something that is renewable—all biofuels are
from a renewable source—that can be unsustainable. Most hon.
Members will know of examples of wheat grown in north America that
requires so much energy to be grown, fertilised and
transported—
Martin
Horwood: I am sorry, the Minister is right to correct me.
That maize requires so much energy that it may be making a contribution
to climate change rather than tackling it. There are examples of
deforestation in
other parts of the world that might be making way
for the production of otherwise sustainable biofuels. Yet this is an
area where there is a potential for CO 2 reduction, and I am
sure that many of us have examples of sustainable approaches to
biofuels, using algae or switchgrass, or more energy-intensive crops
such as sugar beet—provided that they are not grown on
deforested land. There is also short rotation coppice, with willow in
the UK. In my constituency, a company called Green Fuels sources local
reused cooking oil and turns it into biodiesel. That is a very
sustainable approach to providing transport
fuel. However,
we are in a fast-moving policy landscape, as the Government would like
to call it. Only yesterday, the Secretary of State told the House of
Commons in the context of the Gallagher report,
that “Professor
Gallagher also concludes that there is a risk that the uncontrolled
expansion and use of biofuels could lead to unsustainable changes in
land use, such as the destruction of rainforest to make way for the
production of crops. That might, in turn, increase greenhouse gas
emissions, as well as contributing to higher food prices and shortages.
The Gallagher report therefore concludes that the introduction of
biofuels should be slowed until policies are in place to direct biofuel
production on to marginal or idle land and until these are demonstrated
to be effective.”—[Official Report, 7 July 2008;
Vol. 478, c.
1169.] And lo,
within 24 hours an opportunity arises in this Bill to make such a
policy change, through amendment No. 1 to schedule 6 on the renewable
transport fuel
obligation. We
are operating in the context of wider European policy, including the
2003 directive that mandates European nations to increase the
proportion of road fuels from renewable sources to 5.75 per cent. by
2010, and the imminent renewable energy directive, which may raise that
target to 10 per cent. by 2020. We agree with the Government’s
statement, although it has come late in the day, that action is
required at EU level to modify that imminent biofuels target and to
place a moratorium—I would say—on biofuels targets until
we have strict sustainability criteria in place. Yet the Government
have pressed ahead with some policy in their own right, including the
renewable transport fuel obligation introduced in April.
It is
possible—although not necessarily likely—that the EU
directive might not be agreed before April 2009, and that even if the
push for a change in EU policy fails and the directive comes in we
might be allowed to develop stricter criteria. Such criteria might not
prevent the importation of other biofuels—I gather that that
would be prevented under the directive—but they might provide
the basis for the kind of regime that we have seen in other sectors,
where labelling and public information might lead to more sustainable
procurement policies being implemented by businesses or Departments.
Nevertheless, we might still be able to contribute to a more
sustainable policy on
biofuels. The
Secretary of State said yesterday that she had done the two main things
that this Government seem to do on environmental policy. One is to
commission a report—she has done that and it was clear in its
conclusions. The second is to begin a consultation—she will
formally consult on slowing down the rate of increase in the renewable
transport fuel obligation. In her concluding remarks, she also said
that “I
will not hesitate to alter our policy if that is what the science
suggests is appropriate.”—[Official Report, 7 July
2008; Vol. 478, c. 1171.]
This seems a golden
opportunity to do just that. If we cannot do it in this Bill, I would
like to hear from Ministers what exactly the Secretary of State meant
by altering Government policy as opposed to EU policy. Could the
biofuels targets be amended, and could we introduce conditions such as
those in amendment No. 1, which link fuel not only to the
physical fact of renewability, but to the actual
“reduction of
carbon emissions over its total lifecycle”,
which is the kind of
sustainability criterion that we want to see throughout Europe? Is such
a measure permissible and technically possible within Government policy
at the moment, even in the context of European policy? We hope that it
is, and that it will give us freedom to pursue a more sustainable
policy on biofuels, even if European policy is moving slowly in that
direction.
| 
