| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I shall be happy to do that. I shall place a copy of the letter in the Library of the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be committed to a Grand Committee.
Moved, That the Bill be committed to a Grand Committee.—(Lord Hunt of Kings Heath.)
9.35 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I have given notice to the noble Lord that I wish to speak. I do not want to oppose the Motion, but I seek an accommodation. I am totally in the hands of the Government on this matter.
I ask for an assurance that on the two issues of married couples and the total and absolute ban on homosexuals, amendments concerning those matters should not be taken before the Grand Committee, but should be taken on the Floor of the House. The reason is that the process of debate, certainly for noble Lords on the Back Benches, is completely different on the Floor of the House from that in a Grand Committee. There is a greater freedom and these are matters where, as the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, pointed out, we want the confidence of the people for the Bill.
I will co-operate on the clauses and the amendments. I do not seek to be technical at this time, after the dinner hour. However, I should be very grateful if the Government could take my point.
Lord Grocott: My Lords, discussions held in the normal way by the usual channels on this Bill have resulted in the decision that it should go to a Grand Committee. While I very much recognise the expertise and experience of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, on these and many other matters connected with the proceedings of the House, I would put it to him that there is ample protection of the rights of all Members of the House at Report stage in the normal way.
I assume that the noble Lord would prefer the greater freedom of Committee proceedings to re-examine and re-debate certain issues, but in the normal way, an agreement on the way of proceeding with the Bill has been reached. I would not wish even to attempt to give an undertaking about any different method of proceeding, other than to say that clearly it is extremely important that, on controversial issues such as those about which I know the noble Lord feels strongly, the House should debate them on the Floor of the House. The question is whether his view that the proceedings on Report are insufficient is the one that should prevail, or whether in discussion with the usual channels we could find a mechanism for dealing with the matter.
However, I simply want to say that the House does have its own methods of protection and I would put it to the noble Lord strongly that the Report stage of a Bill is extremely effective.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I should like very briefly to respond. No, the Report stage is not the same thing. The Bill comes to us pre-cooked, whereas what we want to do is to cook it. I put it simply because the hour is late: no, the Report stage process is wholly inappropriate for Back Benchers to deal with such issues.
Lord Grocott: My Lords, I am afraid that when we move into culinary debate then I am completely out of my depth. I can say only that these matters are regularly discussed and debated through the usual channels. We shall simply have to leave it at that.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, as the Government Chief Whip said, the issue of whether the Bill should go to a Grand Committee was discussed. In order to reassure my noble friend, I should say that any discussions which take place on Grand Committee cannot lead to any decision. Neither the Government Chief Whip, myself nor anybody else can undertake that no amendments will be moved in Grand Committee—that is up to individual Peers—and no doubt discussions will take place on these controversial issues, but the very process of Grand Committee means that if an issue remains controversial it is bound to come back to the Floor of the House. I am sure that we shall all do our best to ensure that it is properly discussed when it comes back to the Floor of the House in order that the House can make good and proper decisions on the controversial issues. The Bill can then proceed on that basis.
I accept that that explanation is not 100 per cent satisfactory to my noble friend, but most of the Bill is not of a controversial character. Only the aspects to which my noble friend draws attention are matters of high controversy and we shall do our best to handle those issues as sensitively as we can when the Bill comes back to the Floor of the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Landfill (England and Wales) Regulations 2002
9.36 p.m.
Lord Whitty rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 26th March be approved [25th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it may be helpful in my opening remarks if I outline what the Landfill (England and Wales) Regulations do, what their effect will be and how they fit within the framework set out in the Government's national waste strategy.
I note the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, and the opportunity that it offers to discuss the proposal for a directive on waste electronic and electrical equipment. However, I am moving these regulations at this point. I shall focus my opening comments on this subject and come back to his remarks on the WEEE directive, as we must call it, at a later stage, save to say that the delay his amendment seeks would cause us problems. The amendment explicitly calls for a delay which would in practice put us at odds with the EU, with possible infraction proceedings. We are already behind in transposing this directive. We should have done so by July 2001, but in substantive terms that is not at present a problem as the requirements of the directive come into force only in July of this year. However, we need to ensure that we have transposed the directive by then.
The regulations implement the technical and regulatory requirements of the EC landfill directive in England and Wales. Many of the landfill directive's requirements are already reflected in controls on landfill sites which are currently regulated under the waste management licensing regime. However, these regulations will introduce some key changes to current UK landfill practice. These include the classification of landfills as sites for either hazardous, non-hazardous or inert waste; an end to the current UK practice of co-disposing of hazardous and non-hazardous waste with effect from July 2004; the introduction of waste acceptance criteria setting out the types of waste that can be accepted at each of these three types of landfill; the requirement to treat most wastes before landfill; and bans on landfilling certain wastes, including liquid wastes, certain hazardous wastes and used tyres.
The regulations require operators to submit site conditioning plans to the Environment Agency setting out how the landfill site will meet all the requirements of the regulations.
The regulations will also, over a transitional period to 2007, bring all landfill sites under the pollution prevention and control regime, the PPC regime. This will provide for a single, consistent and coherent regulatory regime for all landfill sites regardless of size and classification. It will thus avoid the difficulties of running two separate regimes for landfill—waste management licensing and pollution prevention and control—in parallel. This has been welcomed by the waste management industry.
The regulations we are considering today do not cover the targets in the directive for the diversion of biodegradeable municipal waste from landfill. We have consulted on a system of tradable landfill permits to enforce these targets and we shall be bring forward separate legislation covering those requirements in due course.
We have consulted widely on our implementation plans. A consultation paper on our proposal for implementation was issued in October 2000. This was followed by a second paper in August 2001 including a draft copy of these regulations. The Environment Agency has also consulted on the wide range of guidance it has produced to assist operators in preparing for the requirements of the directive.
The landfill directive was a key, perhaps the key, driver behind the UK waste strategy. If we implement the directive successfully we shall go a long way to meet the aims and objectives of the strategy.
The regulations will in particular help us to meet the target in the strategy to reduce the amount of industrial and commercial waste landfill to 85 per cent of 1998 levels. We must focus on recovering value from such wastes and reduce the environmental impacts of disposal. These regulations will assist that process by banning certain wastes from landfill altogether and by requiring wastes to be treated before landfilling.
Government policy is to minimise waste and to recycle and compost as much as possible of what is produced. There will always be a place for properly managed and regulated landfill, and these regulations will ensure that that is the case. But increasingly this must be as part of a much more balanced and sustainable range of measures for getting the greatest use of our resources in the first place. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 26th March be approved [25th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Whitty.)
9.42 p.m.
Lord Glentoran rose to move, as an amendment to the Motion, at end to insert "but this House calls on Her Majesty's Government not to bring these regulations into force until the implications of the Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Directive (COM (2000)347) on central and local government have been explored fully".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it was not my intention to have this debate in the middle of the night. I had hoped that we might have had a more liberal but short and punchy dinner hour debate on the directive and waste management. I have to declare a rather ancient interest. I have no remuneration now but I was part of Redland plc which at one time owned and controlled such waste. I was personally responsible for running waste disposal operations in Northern Ireland.
The directive is yet another from Europe for which I believe that the Government are not prepared. The directive will make a very significant change to waste disposal operations in this country. As the Minister said, it will enforce within two years the separation of all waste which is disposed of in landfill sites into hazardous and non-hazardous. It will require and gives commercial opportunities for pre-treatment of hazardous waste.
The waste disposal industry is a significant industry in this country. It is linked with and, with dotted lines, controlled by the British Government and the directives which come from Europe. Without a clear strategy from government both in reaction to directives such as this from Europe and in our own self-interest, the tremendous skills and technology available within the waste disposal industry are not being fully utilised, commercial interests are being held back and at some stage opportunities are lost.
I shall not continue for too long because it is late. However, there are a few issues that are worth mentioning. We believe that continued improvements in regulatory standards are essential: they are essential drivers to the delivery of greater environmental sustainability. We welcome the landfill directives and the landfill directive regulations that are needed to fulfil our commitments to Europe.
There is a need for consistent and co-ordinated regulation across the United Kingdom. We have a problem—or perhaps I should say the Government have a problem: Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are under separate legislatures. Stormont and Edinburgh will take their own routes and their own time, which, unless government action is taken, can—and will—cause an embarrassment in the disposal of some of the more difficult waste that needs to be removed. In my opinion, it is important that the kingdom should come together; and that the Government, along with the other legislatures, should find a means of meeting the requirements of the European directives.
I have already mentioned the need to treat waste before it is disposed of, and this is certainly a significant opportunity for improvement. However, it is also a significant problem that will need to be controlled. When one has waste that is legally difficult to dispose of—I have been in that situation commercially as regards printing inks and cyanides, leaking barrels of various nasty substances—the temptation is huge for the smaller businessman to make a quick buck and tip it illegally into a small empty quarry or some similar place. The need for tighter controls than we have today on this sort of issue is vital.
There is also the problem of incineration. This should not be a problem. Again, the incineration industry has huge opportunities for business, for profit and for commercial exploitation of the best and right way to go forward, but the industry also needs a lead from a government-coherent strategy. The bottom line is that it is seriously important for us to meet these directives for the future, especially in a country the size of ours that produces such massive volumes of waste.
It is inevitable, and I suspect expected, that there will be a significant cost burden to be borne. As I understand the situation, it has not yet been decided where that cost burden will lie. However, it will surely lie somewhere between local authorities, the private individual and government subsidies. It is most important for the Government quickly to provide and produce a strategy, along with accompanying plans, which will cover those problems. I do not want to repeat this, but we do not need another fridge mountain issue as a result of the WEEE directive. This time I believe that we are just about on the ball. We have perhaps lost 15 months, but there is time for the Government to catch up before the directive becomes law. Let us ensure that the proper strategies are in place; that the technologies are available; and that everyone understands what he has to do to meet this requirement and is aware of the directive.
Perhaps I may ask the Minister a few questions. I wonder how many sites will, in the Government's reckoning, need to have their licences changed. I wonder whether we have enough sites to dispose of our hazardous waste. They are few and far between—or they were in my day—particularly when we look at compliance as regards liquids. Where is the Government's strategy? When will Her Majesty's Government catch up with the Euro-game? What are Her Majesty's Government doing to assess the future cost to the country and how the funding will be found to get ahead of the game in terms of waste management? I beg to move.
Moved, as an amendment to the above Motion, at end to insert "but this House calls on Her Majesty's Government not to bring these regulations into force until the implications of the Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Directive (COM(2000)347) on central and local government have been explored fully".—(Lord Glentoran.)
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page