---

The noble Baroness referred to the targets being long term. I draw her attention to the executive summary on targets at page 11. The first target is set for 2010 and we are now in 2007, so they are not all long term. The targets dates are 2010, 2015 and 2020. The noble Baroness is right that we have actively to manage them on a year-by-year basis. It is no good going to sleep for a few years and asking, “How have we done?”. That will not be effective.

The noble Baroness asked about EU packaging and my honourable friend Ben Bradshaw, the Minister with detailed responsibility, contacting the Commission. The idea is to get the process Europe-wide. We need to have as level a playing field as possible with packaging because of our massive inter-trade within the community. It would not be cost effective for suppliers to have different packaging for different countries. Nevertheless, I am absolutely certain that we need a European-wide answer on this.

The noble Baroness referred to infrastructure, the PFI, capital allowances and support for anaerobic digestion and she equated support with money. The usual phrase is: “We need support. We need assistance”; in other words, “Will the Government give us money?”. If the Government can help to create a market—this is where the public good of the Government comes in—for entrepreneurs to make a lot of money out of recycling, eliminating waste and getting energy out of waste, that would be much more productive than providing subsidies. But the noble Baroness is right that comparisons will be made. The 3,000 anaerobic digestion plants on German farms are there because of a 20-year tax break by the German Government to the farmers. I am not denying that. Anaerobic digestion is fine and I am a big supporter of it. I first came across it when I was in Northern Ireland as a Minister, and there it was a very important project. There are projects all around the country, including a big one at Bedfordia and the experimental plant at Ludlow.

As to the smaller anaerobic digestion plants and the creation of electricity, they have to be connected to the grid. We have to make sure that we do not make it impossible for groups of farmers or others using the food waste to connect to the grid, which is quite an expensive operation.

As to incentives for local authorities, I suggest that noble Lords look at pages 16 to 19 of the consultation document. There is no single solution. Local authorities have a menu to choose from of bin volume-based schemes, frequency-based schemes, sack-based schemes—that is, buying the sacks—or weight-based schemes. Example one is on page 19, example 2 is on page 20 and example 3 is on page 21. This shows exactly how such schemes can work, with cash coming back to people who have recycled more than the norm and payments being made by those who have not bothered to co-operate, either because they have to pay for a higher volume of waste to be removed or, if it is a sack-based scheme, they have had to buy more sacks. The issue of fines does not come into it. If you recycle and dispose of less than the norm, you will gain financially. That is the exercise here. A separate financial arrangement will be made with regard to council tax. That is an important point. There will be no knock-on to the council tax; it will operate quite separately. In this country, we do not allow our local authorities to give such incentives, but other countries do. We will have to legislate for that, and I understand there will be an opportunity, as they say, in forthcoming legislation.

With regard to fly-tipping, I can only reinforce what was said during the original exchange at Question Time. Incidentally, local councils will not be able to bring in those incentive schemes unless they have developed kerbside recycling for at least five products and been proactive on fly-tipping. In other words, whatever the local populace might say, they cannot just come in and say, “We’re going to have this incentive scheme where you pay a bit more or a bit less”. All the infrastructure must also be in place to make it easy for people to dispose of products and to be proactive so that there will not be any increase in fly-tipping. Rather, the authorities must actively operate against it. A package is therefore laid out to make it revenue-neutral and as positive for customers as possible.

3 pm

Lord Judd: My Lords, I for one warmly welcome the Statement from the Minister and congratulate the Government on their commitment. The challenge to us all in both Houses now is how we support the Government in the means to achieve the targets that have been set out. Means will be at least as important as aspirations.

One of the biggest waste challenges of our generation has been the industrial waste bequeathed by the industrial revolution. As we embark upon a new energy policy, as we were discussing yesterday, will my noble friend assure the House that at the centre of the Government’s strategy will be a determination to ensure that the infrastructure necessary for the new energy policy will be as environmentally sensitive and friendly as possible?

Does he also agree that waste comes in sinister forms on occasion? I am very open-minded about the contribution to be made by nuclear power, but does my noble friend not agree that if we are talking about waste, it would be the height of irresponsibility to go down that road, with all its grave implications for future generations, until we are certain about the safe disposal of nuclear waste?

Lord Rooker: My Lords, the answer to the first part of my noble friend’s question is yes. On the other part, I am no expert on the nuclear issue, but I have noted a somewhat hysterical view on the disposal of nuclear waste given as an excuse by certain people not even to debate the use of nuclear power. Disposing of and safely looking after nuclear waste can be put to bed from an engineering and technology point of view. That would remove the hysterics which are stopping people even having the debate on nuclear.

Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I was much encouraged by what the Minister said about the need to create incentives and conditions for the ultimate disposal of the large quantities of waste that will still exist even if that figure of 27.5 per cent is doubled. Waste disposal contractors have a problem with getting planning permission for building incinerators or other major plants for disposing of this waste. Will projects of that sort be covered by the Planning Commission proposals made earlier this week in the White Paper on planning?

The Minister mentioned, rightly, methane and greenhouse gases. Is there any possibility of bringing such plants within the European Union emissions trading scheme so that, if they can produce the kind of technology that limits the output of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, they can get the benefits of that through the scheme? The planning and energy proposals that we had yesterday could both be very relevant to the problem of disposing of over 50 per cent of the waste that cannot be recycled.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, the noble Lord has hit the nail exactly on the head. There is no magic bullet here; there is a package of measures that are consequential on each other. We want to get energy out of waste, however we do it. Obviously getting heat and power is better than getting just the power, but getting the power is important. We want to avoid landfill. As has been said, one-third to 40 per cent of food that is purchased is wasted. Six million tonnes of wood go to landfill every year. There is an enormous amount of energy loss, and a huge amount of potential energy. So it does not make sense for the Government to come forward with a strategy like this, trying to meet these targets, and then say, “By the way, we can’t give planning permission” and things like that.

Clearly we have to be sensitive on this issue. We do not want large amounts of waste food and so on being transported around the country. Therefore smaller localised plants are better. Such plants are probably nearer centres of population, though, so you have to take account of that, but it is common sense that the planning permission arguments and the renewable energy use should be linked to the waste strategy so that everyone benefits. Certainly the climate will benefit, as will future generations.

The noble Lord’s point on the emissions trading scheme is well made. If you can create a market, the private sector will do the business without massive public government subsidies. That will help to create a market, as will the increase in the landfill tax.

Lord Dubs: My Lords, I warmly welcome what the Minister has said today, particularly what he said about plastic carrier bags. Some of the timings in the Statement seem to be rather long. Is there any chance that some of these deadlines could be brought forward? It would not be beyond the wit of Government, local authorities and individuals to speed things up, given the obvious urgency of the problem.

Many people would want to co-operate fully with what the Government seek to do—many individuals, many householders. Would it be possible to ensure, either through the Government or through local authorities, that we get better advice on how we can be environmentally sensible about waste disposal? My noble friend talked about wood being burnt. I am not aware whether or not it is right to have a bonfire these days. If not, how does one dispose of such waste? There is all sorts of advice that the Government could ensure we received so that we could co-operate more fully in helping them to achieve their laudable aims.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I am not sure about bonfires either, although I was in Northern Ireland last weekend and saw the early construction of the bonfires, ready for July. They are very large.

On the issue of timing, my noble friend is right. Much of what we are setting out, though not all of it, will require primary legislation. An early slot will be needed. There are Bills flowing through the system for both the next Session and the Session after, so I would expect us to have reasonably early debates on these issues. I cannot say when—I am in no position to do that—but we will not be slow in bringing forward the necessary legislation, even if it is required to be tacked on to other relevant Bills.

Lord Marlesford: My Lords, I congratulate the Government on a package that contains some pretty good stuff. Not for the first time, I wish the noble Lord were in line command of the whole thing, because he is robust and practical and I suspect he would get things done.

I am a little surprised that there is no mention of the highly successful approach in the United States of making containers—tins, glass and plastic bottles—returnable. It started over 20 years ago in Oregon, and has now spread to a number of states. The net result is that if the affluent discard things, the less affluent pick them up and get some money from the shops when they return them. Of course that adds to the cost initially, but the cost of packaging, including its environmental impact, has to be paid by the consumer, and should be.

On fly-tipping, I should like to put on the record suggestions I made to the Minister after the exchange in the House two or three weeks ago: a mandatory sentence for conviction for fly-tipping, not of a fine and certainly not of imprisonment, but, for the first offence, of 50 hours of litter-picking, and of 100 hours for subsequent offences. I doubt whether many people would commit more than once offence.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his comments—well, I am not very grateful for the first part. There is a reshuffle coming up in a few weeks’ time, and that kind of remark is not helpful.

I do not have the answer on segregated returns, but I know that there is a reference to what happens in Canada and parts of the United States in the full document. I do not think that anything has been proposed or initiated that does not happen somewhere in Europe or elsewhere in the modern world. We freely admit that we are way behind, and we have a lot to learn.

The noble Lord is quite right that he made a suggestion about fly-tipping. I put it to the department and I hope that the answer will not be, “We can’t do that, as it would affect people’s human rights”.

Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall: My Lords, I join other noble Lords in congratulating the Government on this strategy. It is an excellent initiative. All noble Lords are no doubt exemplary in how they dispose of their waste, but not everybody is, so this is a useful addition to the overall culture.

The strategy, which I have not had a chance to look at in detail, talks about culture change; it requires people to change their habits. Does my noble friend know, or could he find out, what percentage of waste recovered by local authorities had been discarded randomly in the street or out of cars? My hunch is that it is a very significant percentage. It does not count as fly-tipping because it is not targeted in quite the way that fly-tipping implies, but it creates an enormous environmental hazard and amenity loss. For example, in hedgerows which have been recently cut, among the green waste is a great deal of waste such as plastic bottles and bags and paper bags that have been chewed up by the machines used to clear the verges. If my noble friend knows what percentage of waste recovered by local authorities results from this sort of problem, can he say what additional incentives the Government or local authorities may be able to bring forward to discourage such littering? There used to be litter laws and litter louts—now we talk about waste, but it comes to the same thing. It is anti-social behaviour, and I am not clear to what extent that will be tackled under this strategy.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for raising this point, which goes a bit beyond this debate. I do not know what the figure is for local authorities regarding littering as opposed to fly-tipping—we understand the distinction. I will see if I can get one.

On my noble friend’s first point, page 2 of the executive summary shows that the vision will require changes by producers and consumers. It will involve producers, retailers and consumers. Businesses and individual households, local authorities and the waste management industry will have opportunities to change their behaviour. The waste management industry is huge and uses a whole range of professional techniques. It will, I hope, be given a big boost, which is very important because it will then make a positive contribution. However, this will require a cultural change. People might think that they cannot play a part but everybody can. The explanation and the detail of the consequences of this package and the consultation with local government will, I hope, show individuals how they can make a connection. It will be different for all of us, but we can all make a contribution.

Lord Rea: My Lords, will my noble friend revisit the question of anaerobic digestion, which was first brought up, very constructively, by the noble Baroness, Lady Byford? I declare an interest in that my brother-in-law has developed a very good anaerobic digestion scheme in the district of Craven, in North Yorkshire. However, he is having difficulty getting this implemented, partly because of an obstructive attitude from the existing waste disposal authorities. He has a lot of approval from environmental lobbies and people in the district but the local authority is not willing to move. I do not think the objection is about linking to the grid, as my noble friend mentioned. Would it be possible for encouragement to come from central government to demonstrate that this is an extremely sensible plan which fits in with the necessity to curb global warming while helping to get rid of waste?

Lord Rooker: My Lords, my noble friend’s brother-in-law must live in a very backward part of the country with a backward local authority and backward local suppliers. There are about 100 plants around the country, some of which deal with farm waste. Food waste has to be combined with farm waste, or green waste has to be confined with food waste, to get the recipe—the gases and the temperature—right. There is a substantive product from anaerobic digestion. The Environment Agency is very close to getting a digestive standard so that that product can be used on the land. There is an outcome to the process—it is not just the gas and power generation. I suggest that my noble friend’s brother-in-law contacts my department. We will certainly be able to provide the backwoodsmen up north with better information.

Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, will the Government please stop castigating poor old householders for putting out rubbish? We are not responsible for the amount of rubbish that comes into our houses. We have coming into our houses endless rubbish, principally in the form of packaging, over which we have remarkably little control. Could the Government start on packaging?

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I accept the noble Lady’s point. We have mentioned packaging. We are not being onerous on householders. We are seeking merely to move away from the tradition of putting all one’s waste in a dustbin, whether it is food, garden waste, paper and cardboard, glass or aluminium cans, and simply saying to people, “Here is a facility provided by the local authority. Will you just take the time to separate your cardboard from your paper, and your aluminium cans from your glass? We the local authority will provide a kerbside recycling system so that this waste does not all end up as daunting landfill, although anything that can’t be recycled clearly has to be dealt with that way”. That is not asking too much of society.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, we have a major blockage in the drainage system. In about 10 minutes’ time, something called a “sludge gulper” will be set up. I am afraid that it will be slightly noisy, but I assure your Lordships that it is better to get rid of the waste products.

I warn all noble Lords that the Whip on duty will sound like somebody who is running a boating lake during the debate of the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, if anyone goes even 10 seconds over their time. The time has been so tightly allocated that, even if everyone sticks to their allocation, the noble Lord will have only 60 seconds in which to withdraw his Motion.

Public Services: Rural Areas

3.19 pm

Lord Inglewood rose to call attention to the state of the countryside and to the provision of public services in rural areas; and to move for Papers.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, now that the Minister has stopped talking rubbish, I am delighted to call attention to the state of the countryside and the provision of public services in rural areas. In doing so, I declare myriad interests: financial and emotional, past and present, direct and indirect. They are in the Register of Members’ Interests, and I leave it to your Lordships to decide whether I am simply an advocate of self-serving self-interest or whether I know a little bit of what I am talking about. I must explain that I both enjoy and am interested in cities. In the remarks that I am about to make, I shall be quite deliberately general.

I think that it was about nine months ago that I was asked by a Member of your Lordships' House to attend a dinner of the Hansard Society. We spoke about a number of things, including, inter alia, the problems associated with the common agricultural policy. I dropped in the remark that I thought that whatever else happens, one must have some sort of policy for farming and the countryside. My interlocutor, who was a Member of the other place, on the opposite Benches from me, looked absolutely blank. That was a terrible indictment, because in the countryside and rural Britain, we are talking about 80 to 90 per cent of the surface area of the country. One cannot simply abandon it. If one does, it leads to dereliction, and there is nothing more expensive to put right than that. If one looks at the amount of money that has been spent in inner-city areas since the war, it makes what has been spent on the countryside pale into insignificance.

Against that background, what is needed? There are three parts to this: first, we need a good policy; secondly, we need sound means of delivering that policy; and, thirdly, we will require social measures as appropriate to deal with some of the problems that are left. When one thinks about the countryside and those who live in it, it is important to make one distinction: between the many people who are living and working in the countryside with the benefit of money that has been earned and made elsewhere and the second section of the rural community—perhaps I may call it “indigenous”—which is living and working in a low-wage, low-wealth-creating part of the economy. They are the people on whom we should be concentrating in our remarks today.

In thinking about the countryside, one has to start with agriculture and forestry, because, even if they are not the biggest economic sector in large parts of rural Britain, they are nevertheless at the heart of it. Certainly, in my own home area of Cumbria, tourism is worth more money to the community than agriculture, but when there is no agriculture, there is no tourism.

When thinking about farming and agriculture, one has to remember also that we have a common agricultural policy. I should have thought that it is a policy that no one in this Chamber, or anywhere, would invent from scratch, but it is what we have and we have to work with it. Moreover, it is getting better. It is an improvement that we do not now find that we are paying for public goods through a mechanism which is coupled with production. However, the policy fails. It fails the test contained in the Treaty of Rome which states inter alia that one of purposes of the common agricultural policy is to ensure a fair standard of living for the agriculture community, in particular by increasing the individual earnings of persons engaged in agriculture. It also fails the test of fair trade, which, as I said to the noble Lord, Lord Truscott, at Question Time about a fortnight ago, is a principle that also lies at the heart of domestic agricultural policy.

I am afraid that some of this will be old ground for the Minister, but the real immediate problem is the collapse of the delivery system of the policy that we have. Of course, the Minister himself is not as an individual directly responsible for that. However, as the Minister standing at the Dispatch Box, the buck stops with him. The sins of the father are being visited on the son. I pay tribute to the Minister, as my noble friend Lord Marlesford did. I was talking to one his colleagues on the Benches opposite the other day who said, “What a marvellous Minister he is—he gets away with murder week after week”. But he need not worry about the reshuffle because, if my experience and that of my noble friend is anything to go by, the Government will not pay any attention to anything we think.

---