Waste and Emissions Trading Bill [Lords]

---

[back to previous text]

Mr. Meacher: I shall respond briefly. If the hon. Gentleman and his party are determined to vote on the matter, so be it. However, I want to make this clear: sterilisation is mentioned in respect of the rendering process; here, we are talking about composting. The hon. Gentleman said that one would not put into one's mouth something that had been cooked at 70º, but we are not suggesting that people should eat the composting—[Interruption]. I shall come to that point, because I think that the lower temperature is adequate to kill dangerous pathogens. There is no dubiety about it.

The hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings was generous in his comments, but I do not accept his view that I am shaky or uncertain about it. I am not. I am very clear about it. If scientific experts from across the EU are absolutely clear, which they are, that cooking the material at 70º for one hour is adequate to kill all harmful pathogens, I see no reason to doubt them. If a temperature of 98º—which was imported from a completely different context—is going to kill the useful agents as well as the harmful ones, and render material unsuitable for composting, it seems irrational to insist on that temperature. We must take account of that problem.

Mr. Hayes: That would be more convincing if we knew what proportion of compost material fell into the category of products that were likely to be injurious to human health—such as animal by-products. If the Minister had had the courage to put 70º in the Bill, it would have been altogether more

Column Number: 278

persuasive. His argument for not doing the latter is that we should not be talking about composting—an argument that I entirely reject. His argument for not explaining the former is covered by his suggestion that 30 per cent. of municipal waste might fall into that category. We need more precision, and more boldness.

Mr. Meacher: On the hon. Gentleman's first point, about the division between green waste and food waste, I cannot at this moment provide him with a split of the 33 per cent. However, whether it is half and half or two-thirds and one-third is not the point; the key point is that we are talking about the destruction of damaging pathogens, whatever the percentage between the two.

The other question is whether 70º should be included in the Bill. I tried earlier to convey to hon. Members that the Bill is not designed to include all the details on the whole of waste strategy. It is perfectly adequate for the matter to be dealt with under other legislation, and it does not have to be replicated in the Bill. We do not need a different definition, or even a repetition of the same definition, in the Bill. I repeat that a temperature of 70º maintained for one hour for animal by-products comes from the EU animal by-products regulation, and that will apply from Thursday of this week.

In addition, I said that there have been extensive consultations and that the Animal By-Products (Identification) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2003 will come into force by the end of May. It is not that I am being cowardly in refusing to put it in the Bill; it is in other legislation, and it is entirely appropriate for reference to be made to that legislation in the Bill. We do not have to repeat everything that is included in regulations.

Norman Baker: I understand what the Minister is saying, but he will accept that there is a difference between regulations and primary legislation, especially in the seriousness attached to such proposals—[Interruption.] He does not accept that. I accept it, however, which is why I make the point.

The question is this. The Minister appears to be putting forward the happy suggestion that a temperature of 70º will destroy all harmful pathogens but not the beneficial nature of the material. Does he mean that a lower temperature will destroy everything harmful but not that which is beneficial?

10 am

Mr. Meacher: On the hon. Gentleman's first point about regulation, I referred earlier to the EC animal-by products regulation. An EC regulation is an alternative, binding instrument to a directive. The directive has to be transposed, usually over 18 months, with a small margin of discretion on the part of member states. An EC regulation becomes binding and operative in every member state on a particular day—dare I use the word ''fridges''? That was precisely the problem: we had no opportunity to transpose the directive in a way that was consistent with our situation. I also referred to our own animal by-products regulation. Again, I disagree with the hon. Gentleman inasmuch as regulations—secondary

Column Number: 279

legislation—are not somehow subordinate or less important legislation. They are binding, but we do not need primary legislation. There is always pressure on the Government timetable, and if we can make something binding without having to introduce primary legislation, it is clearly preferable for the Government to do so. However, there is no lack of legislative force.

The hon. Gentleman also asked whether it was not a little convenient that a temperature could be found, in this case 70ºC, that means that the useful agents survive but the damaging pathogens do not. I understand his slight touch of cynicism, doubt or disbelief, but I am assured that it can. The important thing is that the damaging pathogens are killed and that other agents can survive. Indeed, many agents in the natural world can survive perfectly well. I happened to read extensively over Easter about hyperthermophiles, which survive in vents at considerable submarine depths at temperatures of 110ºC or 115ºC. So it is perfectly possible for microbes or other bacteria with a useful function to survive at temperatures above 70ºC. I can only assure the hon. Gentleman that that is the advice that I have received from the technical experts, which there is no reason to doubt.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 9, Noes 4.

Division No. 6]

AYES
Ainger, Mr. Nick Dobbin, Jim Drew, Mr. David Havard, Mr. Dai Kidney, Mr. David
Meacher, Mr. Michael Tipping, Paddy Whitehead, Dr. Alan Wright, Mr. Anthony D.

NOES
Barker, Gregory Hayes, Mr. John
Robertson, Hugh Wiggin, Mr. Bill

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 22, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 23

''Scheme year'' and ''target year''

Mr. Hayes: I beg to move amendment No. 67, in

clause 23, page 15, line 37, leave out '2019' and insert '2015'.

The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:

No. 68, in

clause 23, page 15, line 38, leave out '2010, 2013' and insert '2009, 2010'.

No. 69, in

clause 23, page 15, line 39, leave out '2020' and insert '2016'.

No. 89, in

clause 23, page 15, line 40, after 'may', insert

', after a consultation following the guidelines laid out by the Cabinet Office in the code of practice on written consultation of November 2000'.

No. 90, in

clause 23, page 15, leave out line 43.

Column Number: 280

No. 91, in

clause 23, page 15, leave out line 44.

No. 92, in

clause 23, page 16, leave out line 1.

Mr. Hayes: The amendments return us to the derogations, which we debated earlier, which the Government can take advantage of in meeting the tough targets under the Bill. It is a matter of debate whether we should apply for those derogations, and we held such a debate during the Committee's first sitting. I fully acknowledge what the Minister said about the targets being testing. It may be appropriate again to consider the change of culture that will be required to meet those targets. In some respects, that will be a significant hurdle for local authorities that are not yet up to speed in terms of dealing properly and effectively with waste. I suspect that the Bill, as a legislative instrument, will not simply be a stick for local authorities but will stimulate creative thinking. In the end, it may be quite a positive force and may make authorities think again about how they deal with such matters, about the rules that they draw up and about the culture that they adopt. I am therefore rather optimistic about its repercussions.

Notwithstanding that optimism, it is important to emphasise that the targets are onerous. There must be absolute clarity about whether we shall be forward thinking and ambitious, and about taking the necessary steps in the time set down for us or apply for extra time. When the Committee first met, the Minister said that we would probably need to apply for more time in the early stages because of where we were starting from. Our 1995 levels—our historical position in this regard—are not as good as they might be; they certainly do not compare favourably with those in the rest of Europe. We landfill more waste than other European countries do. As we heard at the beginning of today's discussions, the problem is exacerbated by the growth in the number of households and in the amount of waste generated. Those are separate issues, but both are relevant to our discussions. The problem, therefore, is not simply that we are starting from a level at which we do not want to start, but that the trend when it comes to changing the culture in the way that I described is not a healthy one.

None the less, we need clarity, which is why we are probing the issue of derogations once again. The Committee should be under no illusion that Opposition Members are looking to wreck the Bill or to undermine its intent. I assure hon. Members that the amendments are not designed to do that, even though they might be taken as a political attempt to do so. They are intended to probe the Minister on precisely where he stands as regards the dates and deadlines. He has been frank with us about the targets and about the likelihood of achieving them. As he said, however, we must achieve them; we have no choice about that. The penalties for not meeting them are extremely significant.

Our mutual aim is to be rigorous and demanding when it comes to those whose culture needs to change. That is why we need to have clarity, to send the right signals and to be absolutely straight about when and

Column Number: 281

how people must reach the destination that we all want them to reach. That is why we have once again probed the issue of derogations and asked the Minister to be absolutely firm and clear about where he sees us going and about the time scale.

 

---

Prepared 29 April 2003