| Waste and Emissions Trading Bill [Lords]
|
|
Norman Baker: The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful case. Does he agree that local authorities Column Number: 186 throughout the country are making decisions about incinerators now, so if in a year or two the Treasury introduces an incinerator tax, for example—which we support—it will be of little use because local authorities will have made contracts for 25 years?
9.15 amGregory Barker: That is exactly the point that I was endeavouring to make. The hon. Gentleman has encapsulated it and I am grateful to him for that help. It is now that the decisions are being made. The contract in East Sussex has already been signed. If the measures are not to be encapsulated in the Bill, they should have been in the Budget. We must now wait 12 months for another Budget. Mr. Peter Jones, not the esteemed leader of East Sussex county council but Biffa's director of external affairs, told ePolitix.com yesterday:
He continued:
He concluded:
Tinkering is what we will do today if we do not agree to new clause 32. We all know what the problem is and we all know the size of the challenge, but we are just tinkering with the system. For the Minister to say that the Government may return with a new Bill at an unspecified date or that there are already sufficient legislative powers is simply not good enough. It will be to the eternal discredit of us all if there is a new generation of huge incinerators in the next 20 years because we failed to make a change in time to prevent them, because we failed to embrace the technologies that the hon. Member for Stafford spoke about and because we failed to address the fears that the hon. Member for Stroud articulated. We have a responsibility to be bold and creative, to take the initiative and to encourage the Minister, who is able and hugely respected, to have the courage of his convictions. He should speak for all of us and make this not just a tinkering Bill but one that pushes the envelope across the table. Sue Doughty (Guildford): We had an extensive debate on incineration on Tuesday which was, sadly, cut short because of lack of time. I do not want to repeat what was said then, but further points should be made before leaving the topic. We all agree that incineration is not desirable, and the Minister has indicated that he is not comfortable with it. The two Opposition groups have also indicated strongly that they are not comfortable with the Column Number: 187 situation. We all agree that we must reduce the total amount of waste sent to landfill and not just the increase in that amount, which is all that we are doing at the moment. That is how we can meet the EU directives and move towards a sustainable waste strategy. Yet we are still in a mess.It is curious that we Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives seem to be putting forward a more radical approach. I am heartened by the fact that the Committee has chosen not to score political points because we are all vulnerable to the problem of what councils have been forced to do in the interests of expediency, as opposed to what they could be inspired to do given carrots and sticks to move them forward. I am aware of at least one county in which nearly all the borough councils are against incineration, and the county's MPs also seem to have concluded that incineration is a bad thing. The county council is still proposing that incineration should take place, and the leader of the council is using his position as chair of the regional non-elected assembly to push for incineration. Much of the reason for that is the lack of viable options. We will not oppose any proposal for a moratorium on incineration, although we have some concerns about the detail of new clause 32. The hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker) generously said that certain parts of it could be improved, and I take that on board. One need not be young to be passionate about this subject. I shall probably have grandchildren one day, and I want things to be good for them. Hopefully, there is a ray of sunshine that is converting even older people—if we are not already converted. The problem may only be a matter of wording, and I am sure that hon. Members will be able to help me. The new clause suggests that there should be a moratorium on incineration until
That would seem to suggest that if it is not economically viable, and we have heard many reasons why it may not be, we might quickly find that incineration is the only solution. Subsection (b) of new clause 32 suggests that recovery of energy is acceptable from those forms of waste
Given that we can do a lot with the recyclates—I think this is referred to in other clauses—I am slightly worried about that phrase in the new clause. The problem is how one interprets it. If one wanted to be hostile, one might say that, given those conditions, it would be very easy to get out of the moratorium. I would welcome any comments on that. Under the present fiscal regime, sustainable waste management is not economically viable, and I share the concerns of others that the Bill includes nothing about a waste tax, which would give local government the opportunity to plan for sustainable waste management. Column Number: 188 Gregory Barker: I will not have a chance, unless I intervene now, to respond to the points that the hon. Lady is making. I understand what she has said, but it is absolutely critical that recycling and incineration are grounded in good economics. We must understand that there are economic drivers at work. We cannot divorce ourselves from the real world and pile huge costs on to the public. We must be economically responsible as well as environmentally ambitious. If we divorce the two, we will not achieve our environmental ambitions. Sue Doughty: I thank the hon. Gentleman for clarifying that. My concern is that, until the Government do something about a decent waste tax, the provision will not be economically viable. Gregory Barker: I absolutely agree, which is why subsection (c) says that there will be a moratorium until
That was the key point that I made earlier, and it is the most important part of the new clause. Sue Doughty: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that point. We have many problems in creating a sustainable waste strategy. The hon. Member for Stafford mentioned pyrolysis and gasification. At present, pyrolysis tends to work better when there is a single waste stream rather than a mixed one. We would be forced to sort waste at source, and if pyrolysis is to be used we should ensure that we optimise it and are comfortable with it. New clause 32 does not include any reference to health risks, and although, as my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes pointed out, those can be exaggerated, they remain a real concern. The strategy unit report wisely called for a review of the health risks associated with each form of waste disposal, and I would like that to be done as quickly as possible. The public worry about gasification, landfill and incineration, and they have difficulty in following the figures that are bandied about. If an incinerator is proposed for their area, they worry, for example, about the technology that will be used in it, without being aware that it might be different from that used in other incinerators. Gregory Barker: The hon. Lady is absolutely right to say that new clause 32 makes no mention of health risks. I thought long and hard when drafting the clause about whether I should insert such a reference and decided not to. The health risks trouble me, but I know that the Minister has emphatically rejected the suggestion that there are significant health risks. I did not want that to be a cause of disagreement in the Committee; I wanted to make it as easy as possible for Labour Members to support the new clause. Sue Doughty: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that explanation, although I do not entirely agree with him, as the strategy unit report recommends that the health risks be assessed. In fairness, it is difficult to develop a waste strategy, as the chief executive of the Environment Agency says, when few methods of waste disposal, whether sustainable or non-sustainable—and we do not believe incineration to Column Number: 189 be sustainable—are entirely desirable, particularly if one lives next door to them. Would in-vessel composting create the same public concern as incineration? The report is essential to inform the public and Members about the relevant health risks so that councillors, who must bear responsibility for the people in their area, can make appropriate decisions.We would support a call for a moratorium on incineration. We can do a great deal without incineration, although the Minister has said that he has reservations about zero waste. Steps can be taken to make huge reductions in the amount of waste that is sent for incineration. In-vessel composting of waste, and basing small plants close to where waste is generated—the proximity principle—would be more sustainable than the whopping great incinerators that nobody wants. The waste sent to in-vessel composters could be pre-sorted to recover materials to be reused for a much more constructive purpose. In-vessel composting can render materials inert and thus avoid the seagulls and vermin that landfill attracts. A great deal more can be done to stimulate the exchange of materials at amenity sites, and I attended a meeting of Guildford council to discuss its plans for such a site at Guildford. Several people were very disappointed because they felt that although there will be much more opportunity for recycling and sorting waste, much more could have been done to facilitate the marketing and exchange of materials for reuse. That would have been the most environmentally desirable option. Waste contracts could be reduced to 10 years instead of 25 years—we are all wincing at the fact that some councils have got themselves into 25-year contracts. Incineration will be the preferred option because the economics of such contracts will dictate it. We could provide better education for people, and I pay tribute to the Minister for his efforts in that regard. Most of us go back to our little flats at night and want to unwind. We find ourselves sitting with a mountain of paperwork, copies of debates and so on, and we flick through the television channels to catch up on the news or on anything that is not current affairs, and clear our minds ready for the next day. What should I see on the Disney channel late at night but the Minister, with a child interviewer, demonstrating how to recycle at a plastics bank? The Minister is doing his best to reach a particularly important group.
9.30 am
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2003 | Prepared 10 April 2003 |
