The
Committee consisted of the following
Members:
Chair:
Annette
Brooke
Baron,
Mr John (Basildon and Billericay)
(Con)
†
Benyon,
Richard (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment,
Food and Rural Affairs)
†
Bridgen,
Andrew (North West Leicestershire)
(Con)
Dowd,
Jim (Lewisham West and Penge)
(Lab)
†
Field,
Mr Frank (Birkenhead)
(Lab)
Godsiff,
Mr Roger (Birmingham, Hall Green)
(Lab)
†
Goodwill,
Mr Robert (Scarborough and Whitby)
(Con)
†
Jones,
Graham (Hyndburn)
(Lab)
†
Kawczynski,
Daniel (Shrewsbury and Atcham)
(Con)
Mann,
John (Bassetlaw)
(Lab)
†
Moon,
Mrs Madeleine (Bridgend)
(Lab)
†
Morris,
David (Morecambe and Lunesdale)
(Con)
†
Nokes,
Caroline (Romsey and Southampton North)
(Con)
Paisley,
Ian (North Antrim)
(DUP)
†
Reed,
Mr Jamie (Copeland)
(Lab)
†
Reevell,
Simon (Dewsbury)
(Con)
†
Reid,
Mr Alan (Argyll and Bute)
(LD)
†
Wright,
Simon (Norwich South)
(LD)
Annette Toft, Committee
Clerk
† attended the
Committee
Fourth
Delegated Legislation
Committee
Tuesday
8 March
2011
[Annette
Brooke
in the
Chair]
Draft
Waste (England and Wales) Regulations
2011
10.30
am
The
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural
Affairs (Richard Benyon):
I beg to
move,
That
the Committee has considered the draft Waste (England and Wales)
Regulations
2011.
It
is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Brooke. The
regulations are being made to transpose, in England and Wales,
directive 2008/98/EC on waste, which is known as the waste framework
directive. The directive is the foundation stone on which all EU waste
legislation has been built. The directive was originally adopted in
1975 in what was then known as the Common Market. At the time, most
waste was disposed of through landfill or incineration. However, the
waste framework directive has developed over the years as our awareness
of the environmental consequences of waste disposal and the
unsustainable use of resources has grown. The directive was
substantially revised in 1991, and its scope was extended from disposal
to include the recovery and recycling of waste. In recognition of the
increasing international trade in waste for recovery, the 1991 revision
also introduced an EU-wide definition of waste.
The latest
revision of the directive builds on those solid foundations. Its aim is
to place much greater emphasis on the sustainable use of resources by
taking measures to prevent the production of waste and making better
use of the waste that continues to be produced. It also simplifies
regulatory controls by incorporating the hazardous waste directive into
the revised directive and repealing most of the waste oils directive.
However, protecting the environment and human health remains a key
objective.
The
fulfilment of the directive’s objectives is of interest to
almost everyone—householders, local authorities and businesses,
big and small. We have developed our proposals to transpose the
directive in close consultation with those customers and stakeholders.
The process was begun by the previous Government, who consulted on the
transposition of several key provisions. The coalition Government took
that work forward and consulted last year on a draft of the transposing
regulations.
In
transposing the directive, we have sought to keep costs to business,
local authorities, regulators and taxpayers to the minimum. Many of the
directive’s requirements can be met without imposing additional
measures or burdens and do not involve additional costs. Where new
controls are necessary, we have adopted a light- touch approach. I can
assure the Committee that the transposing regulations do not gold-plate
the
directive.
A
key new provision of the revised directive is the five-step waste
hierarchy, which is to apply as a priority order in waste management
legislation and policy. Our proposals for implementing the waste
hierarchy through minimum changes to the planning, permitting and waste
transfer note arrangements were well supported in consultation. They
were widely recognised as representing a light-touch
approach.
The
revised directive also sets new targets for 2020. The first is to
recycle 50% of waste from households. The second is to recover
70% of non-hazardous construction and demolition
waste. The regulations impose no new measures to meet those targets,
because current projections are that existing policy
measures—notably the landfill tax— should be sufficient
to ensure that we meet them. No requirements in the transposing
regulations directly affect issues such as the frequency of local
authorities’ collection of household waste, charges to
householders—so called bin taxes—or the enforcement of
waste collection services
The revised
directive requires member states to introduce “separate
collection” of wastes, where practicable, by 2015. The previous
Government obtained clarification from the European Commission that
what is known as co-mingled collection—where recyclable
materials are collected together for subsequent separation—is an
acceptable form of separate collection under the directive, provided
that it results in materials of sufficient quality to be recycled. The
Government are satisfied that commingled collection is capable of
providing the right quality of recycling material, so the transposing
regulations that we have laid before the House confirm that commingled
collection is a valid form of separate collection.
The
regulations therefore contribute to the coalition Government’s
policy on localism, by ensuring that decisions on the best ways to
collect household waste remain a matter for local authorities. The
regulations would allow local authorities to make those decisions and
to provide the waste and recycling services that their local residents
want.
The
regulations also provide scope for residents and local groups to
contribute to the big society, such as by setting up local re-use
networks and helping to prevent
waste.
10.35
am
Mr
Jamie Reed (Copeland) (Lab):
It is a pleasure to face the
Minister again, in the spirit of constructive opposition that I think
he is now used to meeting from me. It would be a surprise if he were
not. I should make it plain from the outset that we shall need to
return in detail and at length to the issues in the statutory
instrument. It is too important simply to be given blithe assent by
Members on both sides of the House. In truth, all of us in this room
today will live with the consequences of our actions in this policy
field for the rest of our
lives.
I
am not seeking to take today’s business to a Division. However,
there are questions that require some serious analysis and rapid
thinking from the Government if we are to meet our objectives and
improve our environment and
country.
As
I have mentioned, Labour Members fully support the implementation of
the waste framework directive. The Minister spoke at length about the
need for a directive, its history and the reasons why it was
introduced. The revised directive simplifies regulatory controls, seeks
to establish a five-step waste hierarchy and establishes binding
targets for household recycling and recovery and for the recycling and
recovery of waste from the construction industry. Not least among its
objectives is a desire to protect human health.
Applied properly,
effectively and in an integrated way across Government, the revised
directive should result in benefits for business, the economy and the
environment.
The
European Parliament and Council adopted the
directive in November 2008 and member states were required to transpose
it by 12 December 2010. Labour Members have no wish—and nor, I
am sure, does the Minister—to encourage infraction proceedings,
but I understand that they are already in their early stages following
the infraction letter of 26 January from the Commission to the
Government. When will the Government respond to the infraction letter?
Will the Minister make the letter from the Government available to
Members of the House as soon as possible following its receipt by the
Commission? Will he tell us how and why the Government failed to
transpose the directive into law by the date established by the
Commission?
The
implementation of the directive requires the embrace of householders,
local authorities and others, and as the Minister said, businesses of
all types, from a two- person operation to a large-scale industrial
operation, will require clear guidance and direction about what it
means, what it covers and how it affects them. When will the Department
produce that guidance and when will the Minister make it available? If
we are to succeed, surely we need that sooner rather than later. Will
the Minister also provide clarity with regard to the role of the
Environment Agency as the main competent
authority?
As
to guidance, will the EA publish separate guidance from that provided
by DEFRA? Will that guidance be provided in lieu of
guidance from the European Commission? How will
what we all anticipate will be significant reductions in EA and DEFRA
staffing affect those processes? Has the Minister done an assessment of
how reduced capacity in the EA and the Department will affect the
implementation of the
directive?
Although
we support the directive and its implementation, we are concerned about
the scope of the Government’s ambition and the speed of
implementation and policy generally in this area. The CBI recently
warned the Government about what I think could be called timidity in
their approach to waste policy. It rightly identified a series of quick
wins that the country could secure if the Government were bolder and
more ambitious—from providing massive business opportunities to
helping to meet climate change targets, bolstering our energy security
capability and helping to unlock infrastructure investments from the
private
sector.
One
of the key policy obstacles to that delivery and to the effective
implementation of the directive is a comprehensive understanding and
ownership of the importance of waste policy and related issues across
Government. Will the Minister tell us today what plans are in place in
the Department of Energy and Climate Change, the Department for
Business, Innovation and Skills, the Department for Communities and
Local Government and the Treasury, that show beyond doubt a
co-ordinated Government approach to waste policy and a recognition of
the changes required, particularly in planning law, if we are to
capitalise on the opportunities that face local government in the waste
recycling and recovery
industries?
DEFRA
should be showing leadership across Government on those issues. Yet I
am afraid we hear far too little about the much-vaunted waste review.
Could the Minister tell us why that is and what is stopping
that?
The directive
places binding targets on us to reduce the amount of municipal waste
that we send to landfill by 35%, and to recycle at least 50% of
household waste by 2020. The CBI estimates that these drivers alone,
the minimum drivers—the impact assessment makes it clear that in
England the Government seek only to achieve the minimum target for
compliance with the directive—will require £10 billion of
investment in approximately 2,000 new waste management plants,
as 300 of the UK’s largest existing landfill sites have to
close. We have less than 10 years to do that—less than 10 years,
in straitened economic circumstances, to find on average over
£1 billion per year to invest in the infrastructure
that we need to meet our targets. That will require private and public
investment. How credibly and specifically do the Government intend to
achieve that? Will the Minister provide us today with detail of how
that will be done? What discussions has he had with the Treasury about
the contribution that it will inevitably have to make towards that
effort? I hope that the Minister will be able to provide us with
specifics, not
generalities.
As
much as this agenda is centrally directed towards the protection of
human health and our environment, let none of us forget that if we want
it to be—and I am sure that all Members on both sides of the
House do want it to be—it is about the creation of a stronger
and more resilient national economy. Snow or not, the last economic
growth figures for Germany were exceptionally strong, particularly in
contrast with the performance of our economy over the same period.
Waste industries play their part in the creation of that national
economic strength. Germany recovers, re-uses and incinerates far more
of its waste than we do, sending far less to landfill than we do, and I
believe that its waste policies do have a role in underpinning its
national economic
resilience.
I
briefly mentioned the investments required if we are to meet our
targets. Earlier I mentioned the impact of spending cuts on DEFRA and
the Environment Agency, but Members from all parties know that local
government is facing swingeing cuts, which are likely to hamper its
ability to undertake its core duties. Article 11 of the directive calls
for binding household waste recycling targets of a minimum of 50% by
2020, and, by 2015, for at least a separate collection of paper, metal,
plastic and glass. At this point I must commend the superb work of both
WRAP and the Campaign for Real Recycling, which I know many Members
have been approached by in recent
days.
There
are two issues here. Given the cuts to local authorities and parts of
local government, does the Minister think that the reduced capability
of local authorities will have any effect on our ability as a country
to meet our national targets, and if not, will he explain why that is
the case, and will he publish the analysis that he must have done on
why the targets will not be compromised by the cuts? Will he also
publish the detailed proposals for how each English region will
contribute towards meeting the targets? There is a genuine fear of
drift in this area, given the collapse of the regional spatial
strategies.
Secondly,
given that evidence suggests that kerbside sort recycling collections
deliver better economic and environmental results from household waste
recycling, what steps are the Government taking to end commingled
collections? I know that the Minister mentioned that briefly in his
remarks, but are the Government taking
steps to end commingled collections? Does the Minister accept that
kerbside sort collection, if established as the norm, could transform
the waste
industry?
Is
the Minister also certain that the continuation of commingled
collections is a legally sound practice and will not be subjected to
any legal challenge? Kerbside sort is the recycling method proven to
maximise the value of materials sent to recycling. As turmoil in north
Africa and the middle east sends oil costs spiralling, so the value of
the waste we produce also rises, and right now the commodity price of
waste is rising daily.
The
Government need to answer a series of important questions. We will not
divide the Committee. We do not seek to encourage infraction
proceedings, but DEFRA must now step up to the mark and show strong,
clear leadership in this policy area throughout
Government.
10.44
am
Richard
Benyon:
I thank the hon. Member for Copeland for his
customary tenacity and for his co-operation with this very important
piece of legislation. He has raised a number of questions which I will
seek to answer, although some of them will inevitably be answered by
the waste review. I will come to that
later.
The
hon. Gentleman’s first question referred to the infraction
letter, or the letter that seeks to inquire whether the United Kingdom
is dragging its heels. Provided the House approves this measure today
and another place does so next week, the measure will be transposed by
the end of this financial year—by the end of March—and we
believe that will satisfy the Commission, albeit two or three months
late. We thought it was better—as did, I believe, the previous
Government—to rather overplay our consultation to ensure that we
are absolutely not gold-plating the revised directive, and that the
measures in it are achievable, and that we shall be able to be held to
account both for minimising the impact on business and local
authorities and for achieving what we all want to achieve in dealing
with waste in an environmentally sensitive
way.
The
hon. Gentleman asked about guidance. Let me run through the guidance
that we are providing at the moment. We propose to make available,
after the necessary consultation, to accompany the transposing
regulations in England, overarching guidance on the transposing
regulations, including a revision of the guidance on the existing waste
framework directive provided in the context of the environmental
permitting system; an easy-to-follow guide for business on the
transposing regulations; a post-consultation version of the guidance on
the definition of waste; guidance on hazardous wastes; guidance on the
registration of professional waste carriers and collectors and dealers
and brokers of waste; a revision of the duty of care code of practice
provided under section 34 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990; a
post-consultation version of the waste hierarchy guidance referred to
earlier; guidance on the separate collection provisions of the revised
directive and the transposing regulations; and a revision of the
guidance provided in a planning policy statement that has already been
made. I think that gives an idea of the level of guidance that we are
giving. If there are other areas in which hon. Members have information
to the effect that we need to improve
that guidance, I am happy to hear from them, because we want to make
this work. The guidance will be available from the end of March to fit
in with the transposition of the
directive.
The
hon. Gentleman asked about the Environment Agency’s capacity. I
am assured by the leadership of that excellent organisation that it
will have the capacity to deal with this, and they are confident and
they take their responsibilities in this area very seriously. He is
right to hold the Government to account for our vision in terms of
dealing with waste. I can reassure him that we have a very clear
vision, which will form the fundamentals of the waste review, which
will be published in May. It will show that this Government are taking
a firm leadership role in this. I am afraid I cannot go into details
without pre-judging what will be in that review. It is being worked on
closely under the leadership of my colleague Lord Henley. It has
involved a great many people and organisations to produce a piece of
work that will show that, yes, we must comply with directives and we
must avoid infraction and that is what we are about today, but our
ambitions for dealing with waste and for moving towards a zero-waste
society need to be coherently, intellectually and measurably laid out,
and they will be in that document.
The hon.
Gentleman is absolutely right also to raise the question of green
growth. He is right that if we develop our technologies and the
intellectual understanding behind green growth, jobs and economic
growth will be available. If we support measures such as anaerobic
digestion and other measures of dealing with waste, we can produce
jobs; we can benefit society, we can benefit the environment, and we
can see a direct advantage to our
constituents.
The
hon. Gentleman talks about local government. It is important that local
government feels that it can transpose the directive, and that is why
the impact assessment goes into great detail about what level of
activity will be required of government to deal with the revised
directive. I emphasise the word “revised” because the
vast majority of what is being carried out here is already being done
by local authorities, as the directive has been in place for many
years. We are asking them to tweak their policies and
activities.
The hon.
Gentleman asked about the commingled collection of recyclates. As I
said, this is important because it could be the subject of a legal
challenge. That is why, at the European Council, the previous
Government sought comfort from the European Commission that continuing
collection of commingled recyclates would constitute separate
collection. The understanding that was reached very clearly states that
it would, provided that a proper separation of those recyclates took
place. Ultimately, we believe that it is down to local authorities to
find the system that better suits their communities, provided that
there is a measurable result at the end of the day, that we can see
that they are not in some way cheating the system by collecting
commingled recyclates, and that there is a proper separation, for which
there are many techniques.
Graham
Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab):
I am interested in what the
Minister is saying. Where there are commingled recyclates, local
authorities will have high collection rates but problems with
contamination. Where there is kerbside separation, collection rates are
much lower
and it is part of the Government’s agenda that local authorities
will be fined if they do not meet the EU directive 50% collection
threshold. Will local authorities who are really struggling at 40% be
asked to continue with kerbside collection and then have an EU fine
imposed on top to make it even more difficult to be imaginative with
getting kerbside collection up? Does the Minister think that local
authorities, rather than the UK Government as a whole, should be
directly fined for not meeting the 50%
threshold?
Richard
Benyon:
The threshold is an England and Wales figure, so
to avoid falling foul of the directive, we have to comply with that
across the country. We have to be able to prove that, on average across
the country, we are achieving that. The hon. Gentleman asked about the
threshold in terms of local authorities and he made a good point. My
local authority is a complex area for collecting waste. It has a large
rural area and some compact urban areas. It has no landfill, so it has
to transport waste to other facilities nearby, but it achieves a
recycling rate over 50% and it does not commingle collection. This
matter cannot be directed from a Minister’s desk in Whitehall.
Different local authority areas will have different factors to take
into account, such as distance to facilities and the technologies that
exist in their areas. Many will knock this 50% threshold out of the
park and they should be applauded for doing so. I hope they will be
applauded for doing so by their electorates, because this issue now
comes much higher up the political agenda in local elections than it
did a few years ago. Local politicians are being held to account, so
the decisions should remain with them.
Graham
Jones:
I want to press the Minister on EU fines for
England and Wales on waste collection. Does he support the individual
fining of authorities that do kerbside collection and that are
struggling to reach 50%, as suggested by the Secretary of State for
Communities and Local Government? If so, does he accept that the
authorities that are struggling will move towards commingled
collection?
Richard
Benyon:
I cannot predict that. I can tell the Committee
that local authorities will not be fined individually for not achieving
50%. I can give that assurance, but we have to achieve the 50% figure
overall. If we are failing, it will be lamentable because we have only
to look across the channel to see some countries that achieve much
better than the directive threshold. That is a vision and aspiration
that the waste review will go into in some detail.
I assure the
hon. Gentleman that, while if one believes in localism, one must trust
local authorities, I recognise that the incentives must be towards
proper recycling. If people are going down one particular route, we
must measure whether recyclates are being separated properly.
In response
to the last point that the hon. Member for Copeland made, I am
confident that local government is the right level for strategic
thinking on this. Of course, there will be co-operation between local
authorities. There has to be, because it is impossible to deal with
every element of waste within the boundaries of a particular local
authority. We recognise that some have relatively small geographical
areas of high-density population while others cover vast rural areas.
There will be huge co-operation between local authorities.
I am
confident that we can meet the basic minimum that the directive
requires us to do. We are doing it because we have to meet the
requirements of the directive, but we are also doing it because we want
to do it. We want to be good stewards. We recognise that the decisions
that we take now on waste will long affect future generations. It is
right to change the framework in which we view these matters because
when that framework was introduced in 1975, the vast majority of waste
was buried. Now it cannot be, and rightly so. I hope that the
provisions will ensure that we move in the right direction. I look
forward to debating them further with the hon. Gentleman when we
publish our waste review in the spring.
Question
put and agreed
to.
10.57
am
Committee
rose.