Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I have listened with care to the Minister. Before responding to his remarks, I wish to express my gratitude to all noble Lords who have spoken in support of the amendment, including the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, my noble friends Lady Byford and Lord Plumb, as well as the slightly more hesitant support offered by my noble friend Lord Swinfen, who rightly raised the question of selected waste. However, having listened to what the Minister had to say in response, it is clear why the word "selected" has been introduced.
As I would expect of a government, the Minister has enunciated in the strongest terms his clear intention to try to make the system safe. However, it will depend on the risk assessment. The difficulty is that before the foot and mouth outbreak a risk assessment would have suggested that it could not happen, but it did. That is the nub of this problem.
Catering waste is not to be sent for composting and the use of such compost is to be banned on pasture. That is fine, but if it is used on adjacent arable land and cattle stray on to that land, who can say what will happen? It is not unknown for animals to stray from their areas. There are to be more rigorous forms of treatment where catering waste is involved, but when we consider biodegradable municipal waste, comprising the garbage that we heave into our own dustbins, it obviously includes food residues and residual animal waste products. They may be satisfactorily or unsatisfactorily treated; they may be cooked or uncooked, such as in the disposal of rare steak. We must consider the dangers.
I hear what the Minister says about regulations which are to follow after the completion of the risk assessment and I take his point that heating compost may have certain disadvantages with regard to the final product. I am well aware of the work being done in this area.
If the Bill had reached the end of its parliamentary process today, I would be inclined to take the Minister's words a little more seriously, but today's procedure is not the end of the process. The Bill has yet to be sent to the Commons and thus there will be plenty of opportunities to consider the matter further. At the moment I am not satisfied with the Government's response. I asked for specific assurances, but they have not been given. To be honest, I did not think that the Minister would be able to give those assurances, although I thought that it would be worth asking for them. In the circumstances, I should like to test the opinion of the House.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 18) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 125; Not-Contents, 107.
Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
1.8 p.m.
Clause 25 [Activities to which Chapter 1 does not apply]:
Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 20:
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment relates to the application of the landfill tax escalator. It requires that after 200607 the moneys from the landfill tax escalator, which are already committed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, should be dedicated to the research, investment and so on required by the waste disposal industry if we are to meet national targets.
It has been estimated that an annual expenditure of £1.5 billion for the next 10 years will probably be required if we are to meet the directive in the way intended. At the moment the Government are investing in the order of £7 million or £8 million per year in this field. There is, of course, a good deal of private money and investment going in and the total turnover of the waste industry amounts to a large sum of money. But we are talking about new investment and the money has to come from somewhere. If the costs of disposal are being deliberately increased in order to prevent waste going to landfill, there is merit in the revenue generated being reinvested in the new process plant required to meet national targets.
This is a fairly simple principle. It is one which every Chancellor of the Exchequer, and therefore every government Minister, is bound to resist. But it is a case worth arguing. We believe that this should be done. I beg to move.
"APPLICATION OF THE LANDFILL TAX ESCALATOR
(1) Commencing in the financial year 200607, the whole of the portion of landfill tax above £15 per tonne in each year will be disbursed to the allocating authority for each area.
(2) The allocating authority for each area will apply the disbursement received under subsection (1) to
(a) research into ways of reducing the amount of all waste going to landfill,
(b) capital projects designed to treat biodegradable municipal waste to prevent it from going to landfill,
(c) capital projects designed to treat biodegradable waste to reduce the amount of all waste going to landfill, and
(d) schemes designed to benefit the local community where waste treatment projects are sited.
(3) The allocating authority for each area shall ensure that capital projects for treating biodegradable municipal waste are
(a) sited within the boundaries of the location controlled by each waste disposal authority that is applying for funding, and
(b) supplied with waste mainly collected within the boundaries of the locality controlled by the relevant waste disposal authority.
(4) The allocating authority for each area shall by regulations ensure that private waste disposal companies shall also be entitled to use the facilities resulting from subsection (2)."
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page