| Waste and Emissions Trading Bill [Lords]
|
|
Norman Baker: I am grateful to the Minister for his exposition in response to the amendments that my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Sue Doughty) and I tabled. I assure him that the intention was not to make it more difficult to meet the targets—far from it. We want industry and waste disposal authorities to meet them. We tabled the amendments because we wanted to ensure that the flexibility that the Minister wants people to have in meeting those targets did not create loopholes through which people could take their waste. The three-year storage arrangement opened up the possibility of people classifying waste as being in storage, even though that may not have been the intention when the waste was first received. The purpose of the amendments was to prevent that loophole from arising. Column Number: 267 We are also concerned about multi-faceted sites—those that are not simply landfill sites or waste transfer stations, but which have multi-faceted functions. Waste could be moved around such sites and reclassified accordingly. The Minister may say that that will not happen, but that is the issue raised by the amendments. Having heard the Minister's response, I am happy not to pursue the amendments. However, I hope that he will take our concerns on board. They may be misplaced, but I hope that he will ensure that they do not become a reality. Mr. Meacher: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's objective. We certainly do not wish flexibilities to develop into loopholes. The exclusions are set down in article 5 of the EU directive, which cannot now be altered unless the European Council decides to do so. I repeat: the Bill fulfils the requirements that that directive places on the UK. The provisions will not have the effects of which the hon. Gentleman spoke, for the reasons that I have given. However, I take his point and assure him that we will keep an eye on the matter and that if there is any evidence of what he mentioned, we will take action. Norman Baker: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Mr. Meacher: I beg to move amendment No. 19, in
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 88, in
'as outlined in Regulations relating to concerns associated with animal health'.
Mr. Meacher: During the Third Reading of the Bill in another place on 6 March, a definition of composting was added to the clause. We have given due consideration to the matter and have decided to remove that definition from the Bill—hence the amendment. I strongly emphasise that the Government take all aspects of biosecurity seriously. We would not introduce any measure that increased either the risks to public or animal health, or the vulnerability of the rural economy—including agriculture—to an outbreak of animal disease. After the searing experiences of both BSE and foot and mouth, that is the unquestioned priority. However, there is no need for a definition of composting in the Bill. Composting is only one of the measures that will be included in strategies for meeting targets for the reduction of biodegradable municipal waste sent to landfill. The list is not exhaustive and other methods of meeting landfill allowances may be included. In using measures to divert waste from landfill, the requirements of all other relevant legislation must be met, which include restrictions on the processing of catering waste. The Bill is not the right vehicle for imposing broader restrictions on composting. The composting time/temperature treatment standard is set out in the Column Number: 268 EC animal by-products regulation, which will apply from 1 May—in a few days' time. The regulation sets a treatment standard of 70ºC for one hour for animal by-products, but allows member states to introduce national standards for premises where only catering waste will be treated.Mr. Bill Wiggin (Leominster): I did not hear that. Mr. Meacher: Did I not say 70º? I certainly intended to. The consultation that we have recently completed proposes such national standards for the treatment of catering waste. Those standards are in line with an independent risk assessment that has been carried out on behalf of the Government, and fully protect animal health. The standards will be in the Animal By-Products (Identification) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2003, which will come into force in May and will replace the Animal By-Products Order 1999. If we are going to move away from landfill as a method of dealing with waste, which we are, it is important to offer options that move us up the waste hierarchy. Working to the definition that is now laid down not only is almost impossible—some biodegradable materials heated to that level would, I am told, burst into flames—but would, more seriously, render the resulting material useless as compost. Such material would become sludge and would not be effective for composting. It is vital that composting of catering waste is one of the options. Nobody, least of all me, wants the only alternative to be incineration. Amendment No. 88 would amend the definition of ''composting'' in clause 22(4). It seeks to provide for regulations to specify what is meant by ''selected waste'' in that clause. I hope that, for the reasons I have already mentioned, it will be clear that the definition of ''composting''—and therefore this amendment—is unnecessary. I repeat that this Bill is not the right vehicle for the regulation of composting. First, if we were to adopt the definition that was put forward in another place, it would not work in practical terms. Secondly, this Bill is not the right place for a definition of composting, or its regulation. I hope that the Committee will support the Government amendment.
9.15 amMr. Wiggin: I took what the Minister said very seriously, particularly his comments on animal diseases, and I know that no Government would want to see another outbreak of foot and mouth disease. It is a shame that the inquiries that the Government sponsored did not identify whether the pork pie theory of how the disease was brought into the country was confirmed, and therefore it is very difficult to be able to promise, as the Minister would love to, that this disease will not reoccur. Particularly now, when we are hearing about SARS, we are all very worried, particularly in my constituency, about avian influenza. I know that there is a host of other animal and human diseases that cause a great deal of consternation. We want to do the right thing. I hope that the Minister will elaborate a little more on the scientific reasons why their lordships chose Column Number: 269 98ºC instead of 70ºC. I am sure that there are extremely good reasons why 70ºC was enough for the European Union legislation, but I suspect that the reason that 98ºC is on the face of the Bill is that that is the ultimate temperature which no pathogen can survive. There are certain organisms, which are found in volcanic areas, that can survive at very high temperatures. That may be what their lordships were thinking of when they put 98ºC on the face of the Bill. I also appreciate that the animal by-products rules are coming in, and perhaps they will be sufficient. In my constituency there is a company named Biorganics that composts feathers, and it would very much like a clear definition of what constitutes an animal by-product. I have written to the Minister about that.I know that the Government want to produce a workable Bill and that the clause that we are discussing was agreed in another place, with the express understanding that it would make the Bill safer. I hope that in the Minister's closing comments he will clarify why 70ºC is adequate and 98ºC is too high. If that is the case, I am sure that his good intentions will shine through. I should like him to deal with the logic of why it was put on the face of the Bill, rather than simply tell us that it is enough. Norman Baker: I listened carefully to the Minister and I have read the relevant sections of their lordships' Hansard on the matter. Their lordships appear to be concerned about the biosecurity threat that they believe would be caused if insufficient heating were required. However, I accept absolutely the Minister's point that to heat to 98º would effectively render useless the material that is heated. The House of Lords seems to have decided that if composting could threaten biosecurity, the biosecurity threat should be dealt with irrespective of the consequences for composting. That is a stark choice, and I imagine that all hon. Members would want to find a way around it. We want to ensure that biosecurity dangers are eliminated as far as possible, but the composting industry is an important element of waste strategy and it should be allowed to continue and prosper. On my trips around the country, I have received representations from those involved in composting, who warn that if undue restrictions are placed on composting, such as that which comes from the Lords, it will effectively rule out composting. I cannot counter that argument. On a number of occasions, we have told the Minister and others that we do not want landfill or incineration, and there is a range of alternatives. In all honesty, we should not rule out one of the main alternatives, which is what I think would happen if the Bill included a 98º requirement. Notwithstanding what was said in the House of Lords, including comments from the Liberal Benches, I therefore conclude that it is appropriate to accept the Government amendment and for the reference to 98º to be removed. It is important that the Minister is clear about what will be achieved with the 70º figure. He cannot simply say that it is an EU ruling. We want more justification than that. We are not here simply to act as a cipher for Column Number: 270 EU directives. We want to know what will be achieved by having a lower temperature, and we want to know the qualification and quantification of the risk involved. What assessment has been made of the biosecurity threat that will remain if the temperature is set at 70º?I am happy to go along with the Minister if he can tell us that the risk will be minimal, but I want to hear it said explicitly before voting on the matter. It is important for the farming community. More generally, it is important for human health—and for the taxpayer, bearing in mind the cost of foot and mouth and BSE in recent years. Lastly, the Minister said three times that the Bill was ''not the right place'' to regulate composting. I disagree profoundly. We are debating the Waste and Emissions Trading Bill, and composting is waste of a sort. I apologise for returning to our debate on Second Reading, but we are not debating the ''EU landfill implementation Bill''. It is a waste Bill, and we should be looking at waste more widely. We are not here simply to implement EU directives. It is impossible to debate the Bill without looking at the implications for composting. It is relevant because the House of Lords has drawn attention to it; it is included because of the knock-on effects. We must look at the waste stream in its totality. I disagree with the Minister's assertion. If the Minister can convince us that 70º will provide the biosecurity protection that we want, I shall be happy to go along with it, but we need to hear it stated more explicitly.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2003 | Prepared 29 April 2003 |
