Waste and Emissions Trading Bill [Lords]

Public Bill Committee, 10 April 2003.

Standing Committee B

Waste and Emissions Trading Bill [Lords]

Michael Meacher (Labour, Oldham West and Royton)

I wish to clarify a point that was raised in Committee on Tuesday by the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker). There was discussion about clause 13(3), which provides for regulations enabling the monitoring authority or persons authorised by it to carry out certain inspection functions in relation to landfill operators. I mistakenly suggested that provision might be limited to a specific organisational pattern in Northern Ireland. That is not the case. The clause does not limit those who can act as agents for the monitoring authority. However, such agents would, of course, need to be authorised by the monitoring authority. It is highly unlikely that a debt collection agency would be so authorised, which I think was the hon. Gentleman's concern.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

I am grateful to the Minister for his willingness to put the record straight. My concern is not limited in the way that the Minister indicates. I fear that the power is wider than has been suggested, and reserve the right to return to the matter on Report, subject to the usual agreements.Clause 17 Strategy for England

Clause 17 - Strategy for England

Win Griffiths (Labour, Bridgend)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 4, in

clause 17, page 11, line 28, leave out 'or energy recovery'.

Amendment No. 5, in

clause 18, page 12, line 40, leave out 'or energy recovery'.

Amendment No. 6, in

clause 19, page 13, line 28, leave out 'or energy recovery'.

Amendment No. 7, in

clause 20, page 14, line 16, leave out 'or energy recovery'.

Amendment No. 8, in

clause 22, page 15, line 28, after 'sorting', insert

', but not including incineration'.

New clause 5 - Strategies for incineration: England

New clause 6 - Strategies for incineration: Scotland

New clause 7 - Strategies for incineration: Wales

New clause 8 - Strategies for incineration: Northern Ireland

New clause 9 - Strategies for incineration: England

New clause 10 - Strategies for incineration: Scotland

New clause 11 - Strategies for incineration: Wales

New clause 12 - Strategies for incineration: Northern Ireland

New clause 32 - Moratorium on new municipal incinerators

David Drew (Labour/Co-operative, Stroud)

I am delighted to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Griffiths. I shall be brief, because my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) summed up neatly most of what I wanted to say.

I should like to add a couple of points about the moratorium on incineration, which is favoured by both Opposition parties. I do not understand the logic of the moratorium. I believe strongly that the move towards incineration is wrong; it arises for two reasons that are outside our control. First, it is the line that most of our fellow EU states have chosen. Being a tinge Eurosceptic, I am uncertain as to whether the desire to prioritise incineration over landfill exists because the majority of states have chosen to go along that route. If they had gone along the landfill route, we would have a different perspective on the most unacceptable way of getting rid of waste. I am sceptical when landfill is portrayed as the worst of all evils—it is an evil, but it is put over as the worst because that is helpful to other EU states, which find that position beneficial in the short run.

If my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping) were here, he would be able to comment on the investigation of the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, during which Committee members went to Denmark where, pleasingly, they have a differential tax system. They tax landfill most heavily, but they also tax incineration, which is something that we could learn from.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

I am listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman, who seems to be saying two things. First, he is saying that incineration should be even further down the hierarchy, in which case there would be greater justification for a moratorium. Secondly, he supports a tax on incineration: does he share my disappointment that such a tax was not included in yesterday's Budget?

David Drew (Labour/Co-operative, Stroud)

I would like to go further in that direction. Until a strategy is put in place, however, it will be difficult to implement a tax regime. We have learned from the gruesome experience of the climate change levy that it is necessary not only to implement the tax but to win the arguments. Although I support the CCL, we must change people's consciousness, which has been difficult.

The obsession with incineration, which could be seen as the easy, simple solution in this country, has come about through decisions taken outside our control. I do not want us to go down that route. In Denmark, the great evil is landfill, and people's mindset is such that they do not want it near them and are happier to have an incinerator. The mindset in

this country is very different. With the best will in the world, we can take a national position, but our devolved planning system makes it impossible to get planning permission for incinerators. It may be possible further to increase capacity where there is existing landfill, but, as I argued on Second Reading, landfill is an urban solution. It may have limited merit in urbanised communities, where, unless waste is exported, it is hard to remove the most difficult waste from the waste stream.

In conclusion, I believe that waste has must be dealt with at the level at which it occurs, which means households and, more particularly, local authorities. As long as the resources are made available, I would return the responsibility to local government, which has the planning means to exercise its right to oppose incineration. We do not therefore need a moratorium. Local government should also take responsibility for leading people to find better ways to dispose of rubbish or encouraging them not to create it in the first place. I feel very strongly about that.

Moratoriums do serve their purpose, and there is always a suspicion that they will make things better; but I do not think that a moratorium will make things better. It will simply delay our reaching the point at which we decide that we must use methods other than landfill and incineration to reduce and to remove waste.

I am not very happy with the various new clauses that have been tabled, although I understand why they have been. The Minister kindly came to my constituency, where people who are against incineration lobbied him. We should be honest and open with them and say that incineration is not the preferred method. Local authorities should be encouraged not to go along that route, which should be a clearly stated national strategy that is picked up locally.

Gregory Barker (Conservative, Bexhill and Battle)

I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) and sympathise with several of his points. However, I did not follow why he could not support the new clauses tabled by the official Opposition and the Liberal party. I did not understand why he could not vote with us on this occasion for a moratorium on new municipal incinerators.

To summarise why we tabled the amendments, there is a signal lack of ambition in the Bill and that is a wasted opportunity. The Minister has made great play of the fact that the Bill is relatively narrowly focused—it does a specific job to do with landfill. I am sure that in its narrow focus it will be a good Bill, and all the better for having been considered by the Committee. However, the Bill lacks the drive, purpose and vision that are all too wanting in the Government's policy on the environment. As a member of the Environmental Audit Committee, I tell hon. Members that that is a recurring theme throughout the Government's approach to the environment.

That lack is not due to a lack of trying on the part of the Minister, who is widely respected for his views and commitment on the issue. However, his reputation does not speak for the Government. During the Committee's proceedings the Minister has pressed us to trust his assurances that he is in earnest when addressing the problems of the waste hierarchy. However, the sad reality is that the Minister is unable to commit the Government in a way that many hon. Members and others would like him to. Although I do not mean it as a personal criticism, a totem of the Government's lack of commitment to the green agenda is the fact that this able Minister is not a member of the Cabinet. [Hon. Members: ''Hear, hear.''] I have flattered and embarrassed him and I am sure that that will not do me any good. If the Government were convinced of the need to put the green agenda at the heart of policy, they would have a Minister with such convictions in the Cabinet, yet they do not. Although I am sure that the Secretary of State is a safe pair of hands, she is better known for her love of caravanning than for her commitment to reducing carbon emissions. That must change.

When the Secretary of State last gave evidence before the EAC, she chided me for my youth, which I can do nothing about, although it will change over time. She said something like, ''When you were just a lad, Mr. Barker, I was, blah, blah, blah, working the system back in the 1970s.'' However, she had a point: our differences might be a generational thing. My generation and younger generations are more ambitious and want to see a more holistic commitment to the environment, but the Bill signally fails to live up to those hopes and ambitions. They are addressed in new clause 32, which proposes a comprehensive response to the need for a new, firm, statute-based hierarchy for waste. We need to minimise, reduce, recycle and compost more—there is cross-party support for that view. The issue boils down to whether we are prepared to give such a regime real teeth, statutory backing and resources.

Although the Minister has detailed several good initiatives and has worked hard over the years to bring forth various measures, a thicket of individual initiatives is no substitute for a single, holistic, thought-through programme, and it is unfortunate that we still do not have that.

The Minister has talked about new technologies and the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) mentioned new types of gasification and pyrolysis and exciting new technologies. They could create a new generation of incineration projects that will go a long way to dispel a lot of widespread and well-founded public fears about incineration. The reality, however, is that the Bill does absolutely nothing to address the need for those technologies or to incentivise their manufacture. Nor was there anything in the Budget yesterday to address the need to bring on such initiatives.

In responding to points about the huge incinerator building programme, which will double large scale incinerator capacity over the next few years, the Minister implied that the new generation of incinerators comprised only micro-projects,

employing the very latest technology, but that is simply not the case. His own parliamentary answers show that the incinerators on the list would handle about 220,000 tonnes a year on average, resulting in increased capacity of 2.7 million tonnes a year. These are not small, community-based, cutting-edge technology plants; they are big, old-fashioned, large scale incinerators.

That is the situation in my constituency, and I have the same concerns and address the same problems as does the hon. Member for Lewes. The problem is that we must not only take people's rubbish from a long way away, but commit to doing so for up to 20 years, because of private finance initiative rules. Long after people in East Sussex will, we hope, have grasped the recycling and reuse nettle, there will still be a huge, insatiable demand for rubbish to burn in these huge plants. It may have to come from Kent, Surrey and London, and even from across the channel.

The Bill sends out the signal that we are starting to address the landfill issue, but that we are not prepared to do anything meaningful about the huge long-term threat of incineration. The 20-year contracts for huge plants make the issue urgent. We cannot wait for a review with no date attached to it or for the Treasury to get around to thinking about this; we need action now. New clause 32 gives us an opportunity to address the problem—here, today, in this sitting.

Nothing in the new clause should trouble anyone who is serious about the environment and who has thought through the problems of incineration; nothing in it should prompt profound concerns. It may not be perfect; indeed, I can vouch for the fact that it may not be, because I had a hand in drafting it. However, it is the best measure available. If the Government do not support it, perhaps they will support the relevant Liberal Democrat new clause.

There are two issues at the heart of new clause 32. One is the hierarchy—ensuring that everything that can be recycled or reused is removed from the waste stream before it goes to incineration. The other relates to fiscal measures; they are the most pressing issue and the most glaring omission from the Bill. The Bill will displace waste from landfill to incineration. The Minister can protest as much as he likes, but he is a lone voice on this issue. I doubt that a single major, credible witness in the environmental field would stand up and say that there will be no economic displacement from landfill to incineration as long as the Treasury fails to introduce new measures to address the economic imbalance.

It was, I think, the hon. Member for Stafford who took me to task for referring simply to fiscal measures, but I did so deliberately. I am not prescribing whether they should involve a tax, tax relief, a tax subsidy, a grant or an incentive, but we must address the fact that the new technology is making incineration cheaper, while landfill is becoming more expensive. Like flood waters, waste will not disappear. Putting a barrier on landfill will simply redirect a growing amount of waste towards incineration.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful case. Does he agree that local authorities

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?

Gregory Barker (Conservative, Bexhill and Battle)

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:

''It's hardly surprising that the Chancellor has failed to respond to calls for levelling the financial playing field for innovative resource efficient processing technologies compared to the landfill option. This merely confirms what we have come to expect when considering the Prime Minister's rhetoric, which has more ambition than substance.''

He continued:

''Given the relatively marginal impact on corporate costs compared to the immense gains in resource efficiency, society is the long term loser.''

He concluded:

''At least we know that with Gordon Brown's timetable we won't achieve parity with landfill until 2011—well beyond the 'crunch' period of 2006/8 when many European obligations land on the mat.

The absence of any reference to enabling legislation in this finance act with regard to charging households for waste merely confirms the political fears this administration has when tinkering with environmental economic instruments.''

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 (Liberal Democrat, 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

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

''each responsible local authority . . . can provide for the separation and recycling of domestic waste where it is economically viable''.

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

''which it is economically non-viable to recycle, given the inferior quality of the recyclate''.

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.

Gregory Barker (Conservative, Bexhill and Battle)

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 (Liberal Democrat, Guildford)

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 (Conservative, Bexhill and Battle)

I absolutely agree, which is why subsection (c) says that there will be a moratorium until

''the Government has introduced fiscal measures which act as a disincentive to incineration and encourage reuse and recycling.''

That was the key point that I made earlier, and it is the most important part of the new clause.

Sue Doughty (Liberal Democrat, Guildford)

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 (Conservative, Bexhill and Battle)

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 (Liberal Democrat, Guildford)

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

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.

Ashok Kumar (Labour, Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland)

We need a statue now.

Sue Doughty (Liberal Democrat, Guildford)

Yes. I was most intrigued that Disney should have repeated the programme late at night. It must have been entranced by the film; perhaps it was thought to be the most important programme that could be shown at that time. I do not normally watch Disney, but it was an arresting sight.

David Drew (Labour/Co-operative, Stroud)

Would the hon. Lady agree that among those who need to be educated are councillors, inasmuch as they have absolutely no reason to talk about incineration and are able to consider alternatives? I suspect that the incineration process is

driven by the industry, which wants to keep that option open—I heard what the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle had to say. However, councillors have it within their power to find alternatives means of disposing of their waste.

Sue Doughty (Liberal Democrat, Guildford)

I thank the hon. Gentleman for making that good point. Those of us who have been worrying about what councils are doing are conscious of the influence of the waste industry, particularly on council officers. If we are not effective in explaining that officers can take a more independent view, councillors might be getting slightly biased information about what they can do. That is where the health report based on the recommendations of the strategy unit could be helpful, as it would assist councillors in understanding the pros and cons of various methods of incineration.

New clause 5, in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes, would deal with our concerns about incineration. We do not describe other methods because there are many alternatives to incineration; if we did include them, we would for ever be changing them, as new technologies became available month by month. We simply suggest a moratorium until the review of the health and environmental impact is completed. We need a strategy for reducing the amount of waste not only to landfill but to incineration. The simplest thing to do would be to extend the landfill tax to incorporate incineration.

Those points are included in the new clause. It also provides for consultation of those bodies that are representative of the interests of local government. It is interesting to note that an unelected region could make recommendations about our waste.

Alan Whitehead (Labour, Southampton, Test)

On the question of consulting local councils and their associations, would the hon. Lady be willing, as a direct result of this debate, to ask the Association of Liberal Democrat Councillors whether it would be prepared to do as my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud said and put out information to its local members on the inadvisability of entering into long-term incineration contracts? I say that with some feeling because in my part of the world the political party that was most keen to do that was the then ruling Liberal Democrat group; indeed, it signed on the dotted line for a 25-year incineration contract between Hampshire county council and a private sector company.

Sue Doughty (Liberal Democrat, Guildford)

I take those comments in a generous spirit, given that none of us wants to make political capital, as I could about certain other councils and county council leaders. I said what I did to reflect the fact that there is no political group formed by the major parties that has not signed such a contract, perhaps because the level of education has not been adequate.

I have some good news for the hon. Gentleman: our parliamentary team is now working with the Liberal Democrat group in the Local Government Association and with leading councillors. Given the limited resources available to us from parliamentary and

other funds, we want to ensure that what we are saying goes back to local councillors, so that they understand what we are doing in Parliament and realise what opportunities they have. We are in direct communication with Liberal Democrats in the LGA for that very reason. I can understand why the point has been made, and I am glad to say that the work is already in progress.

Alan Whitehead (Labour, Southampton, Test)

I should add that, at that stage, the contract was supported by the Labour group on the county council.

Sue Doughty (Liberal Democrat, Guildford)

I cannot say any more. I accepted the hon. Gentleman's original point in a spirit of generosity and he has followed that through, which is very welcome. I agree with many points that were made earlier, especially the strong speech made by the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle about incineration. New clause 5 fully encapsulates our concerns. I do not know how you, Mr. Griffiths, propose to deal with the alternative new clauses on the same topic, but we will press for a vote on new clause 5.

David Kidney (Labour, Stafford)

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr. Griffiths. If the Minister was seen on the Disney channel showing off recycling facilities, I hope that they were not Mickey Mouse measures.

I want to make two points, which I preface by saying that I do not wish to detract in the slightest from the powerful speeches that we have heard from all quarters about the dangers of large-scale incineration. The dozen or so projects in the planning system clearly place pressure on the Minister, and he needs to attend to that.

I should like to speak about the new technologies that I have mentioned in interventions and on which other hon. Members have commented. They cover a range of activities. At one end, they are not to do with waste recovery at all but with renewable energy—they enable us to burn in a carbon dioxide-neutral way products like wood, willow and miscanthus and produce electricity or combined heat and power. The same technology can also recover energy from mixed waste, and, using pyrolysis and gasification, it can produce electricity and heat in the same way.

That range of technologies can also assist in recovery and recycling. The autocleave, or steam cleaning, processes can take waste that has been recovered and turn it out cleaner than it went in. The same technology can clean the difficult wet recyclables, such as paper with bits of food on it, which need more than steam cleaning, through integrated treatments known as ITT—I regret that I do not know what that stands for. The process involves a range of activities and it would be wrong to tag it all as incineration. I do not overlook, although it is not part of the technology, other processes such as aerobic and anaerobic composting.

It is worth making a small point about fiscal measures. Such technologies, where they are of proven environmental benefit, attract 100 per cent. capital allowances on both purchase and installation in the

year in which they are bought and installed. That measure was introduced in a previous Budget, and it is very welcome.

That was the first point that I wanted to set straight for the Committee. The other is slightly more modest, but it is worth making, and it completes a story that I began on Second Reading. It concerns a project in my area, where Staffordshire county council is the waste disposal authority. A proposal was put to the authority which involved energy recovery through burning waste and producing electricity. The council declined to support it, claiming that it was under a duty from the Government to consider recycling as it was higher up the waste management hierarchy than incineration, and relying on a best value performance indicator called BV82A. The council was quite firm and, as a result, the project has been rejected.

The Minister has written to me since Second Reading to give the county council's decision his complete backing. The council stuck to its guns and relied on its best value performance indicator to turn down a project that I, personally, should have liked to succeed. That proves, in a modest way, that although Opposition Members say that the waste hierarchy must be in the Bill to prove that it is holistic and embedded and so on, the Government have been systematically embedding their hierarchy since the waste management strategy was published in 2000. In a small way, that shows that the Government are ahead of what people say that they should do.

Michael Meacher (Labour, Oldham West and Royton)

Because of the passion and commitment of those who have contributed and the virtual absence of political rancour, this has been one of the best debates that I can recall in Parliament for a considerable time. The hon. Member for Guildford (Sue Doughty) is right to say that almost no political party is completely free from some involvement in incineration, and we should recognise that. However, we are all united in believing that further serious consideration should be given to the issue, and the debate has been excellent.

One of the main concerns behind the amendments and new clauses is that waste disposal authorities will use incineration as the main method of diverting waste from landfill. The hon. Member for Lewes made that point strongly on Second Reading and again in this debate. There is a concern that recycling and more sustainable methods of waste management will be squeezed out. However, there is no strong evidence to suggest that that is likely.

Although I appreciate that hon. Members were talking about how things might change, I point out that the United Kingdom currently incinerates only 9 per cent. of municipal waste, yet it landfills nearly 80 per cent. and recycles or composts 13 per cent—those are the latest figures. Incineration is therefore the least favoured waste management option in the UK. It might surprise many people in the country and perhaps some members of the Committee to hear that most of our European partners have much higher rates of incineration. I do not suggest that we should imitate them in that, but that happens to be a fact, even in countries that have a strong green or sustainable record. It is curious that many such

countries have not only a high rate of incineration, but high rates of recycling. For example, the Netherlands incinerates 41 per cent. of its waste, but it also recycles or composts 47 per cent. Denmark, which the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee visited, incinerates 50 per cent. of its waste and recycles or composts 39 per cent.

I put it to the Committee that it does not follow that waste disposal authorities will choose incineration over and above other forms of waste management if we do not provide legislative disincentives for it, because there are already disincentives in this country. Incinerators require significant upfront capital investment. They are also very unpopular and, I would judge, increasingly so, which leads to long delays in securing planning permission and to the rejection of applications. It can take up to 10 years to introduce an incinerator. Those are serious considerations when people expect a return on large capital outlays.

Furthermore, local planning authorities are required to have regard to national policies, including the waste strategy, when drawing up development plans that provide a framework for planning decisions. I appreciate that members of the Committee may take the view that the phrase ''have regard to'' is not that strong, because someone could say that they have had regard to national policies in deciding to do the opposite of them. In law, however, the definition is stronger than that.

If one went against the national policy on waste strategy, one would have to give convincing reasons. It is important to note that ''Waste Strategy 2000'' does not invite a rapid or significant increase in incineration. It is intended to underpin the individual decisions on waste policies made by local authorities. When requests come to me, particularly with regard to the PFI, I intend to take account of the strategy in my review.

Gregory Barker (Conservative, Bexhill and Battle)

I do not think that anyone is suggesting that the Minister is actively encouraging incineration. The key point, which has been raised around the Committee, is that the Government are not doing enough to discourage incineration. Can he confirm that the 14 major incinerators currently going through the planning system—he gave that figure in response to a parliamentary question—will double the current capacity to about 16 per cent. of total waste disposal? He has mentioned the significant capital expenditure on incinerators, but firms must sign contracts for 20 to 25 years in order to repay the capital under PFI, which will preclude exciting, innovative and ambitious recycling and reuse schemes for a generation. Will he address that problem?

Michael Meacher (Labour, Oldham West and Royton)

I have a copy of the list of new applications to which the hon. Gentleman referred, and the most important point is that it refers to planned, not actual, capacity. Some, but certainly not all, the planning applications have been granted. Only three have a capacity of more than 200,000 tonnes and can therefore reasonably be regarded as being large

incinerators. There is not a threshold point at which an incinerator can be regarded as being large, and some of those incinerators are certainly small. Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that even an application for a small incinerator, for which there may be good reasons in a particular local area and which may provide combined heat and power as an adjunct, should be rejected automatically without regard to the particular circumstances? That is the difference between us, and it is difficult to justify his position.

The hon. Gentleman has said some extraordinarily generous things, which, of course, I reject, so it would be curmudgeonly of me to point out that the incoming Conservative council in Essex—I am surprised that the hon. Member for Lewes has not made this point, which he has made on the Floor of the House—made great play of its total rejection of all incineration. As soon as it got into power, however, it proposed a range of incinerators. [Interruption.] I am sorry; the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) made that point on the Floor of the House. Lord Inglewood was the leader of that council, and he changed tack. It is a problem that local authorities consider incinerators to be cheaper than some other options.

Gregory Barker (Conservative, Bexhill and Battle)

Cheaper?

Michael Meacher (Labour, Oldham West and Royton)

It is. I am not trying to conceal the fact that landfill is cheapest, incinerators are next cheapest and recycling is more expensive, although not significantly so. There are also implications for jobs, which have been mentioned in the course of the debate. There is, of course, the environmental issue of sustainability and concerns about the health and social implications of incineration, which I shall come to.

Incineration is a difficult issue, and I shall discuss a moratorium in depth.

David Drew (Labour/Co-operative, Stroud)

Does my right hon. Friend agree that part of the problem is the definition of incineration? As part of the waste inquiry by the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, we visited cement industry premises. The industry is adamant that it does not use incineration, but it could use its capacity to get rid of some waste, which would help and could not be termed ''incineration''. Similarly, the problem with combined heat and power is that its definition merges with that of incineration. On the radio last night, we heard about South East London Combined Heat and Power, which produces combined heat and power through the removal of waste. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we need to clarify the definitions?

Michael Meacher (Labour, Oldham West and Royton)

I understand my hon. Friend's point. I am not sure that this is the point at which we can have a wider debate, but if he wants me to go into particular details, I shall be happy to pursue the matter, to which we can perhaps return this afternoon.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

This intervention may be less helpful than the last. The Minister has an upside-down hierarchy in which landfill is apparently cheapest, incineration is the next cheapest and recycling is more expensive. Opposition Members fervently believe that we need to change that hierarchy to avoid ending up with incinerators.

The Minister said that about 78 per cent. of waste is disposed of in landfill. We have to reduce that figure to 35 per cent., and, if my mathematics are correct, 43 per cent. of waste will have to go somewhere other than landfill. Where will that waste go? Will it go to recycling or incineration? The Minister mentioned that Holland has 41 per cent. incineration and 47 per cent. recycling. In my contribution on Tuesday, I suggested that we will end up incinerating one third of waste, recycling one third and landfilling one third. Will we end up in such a situation? What is the Minister's prediction on the amount of waste that will be incinerated in 10 years' time?

Michael Meacher (Labour, Oldham West and Royton)

I cannot predict exactly where we will be in 10 years' time, and it would be foolish to try. Personally, I do not think that the figure will be anywhere near the hon. Gentleman's suggestion. I can put the question back to him: is he suggesting that there is no place whatsoever for any incineration, in spite of the colossal amount of waste that must be transferred from landfill? If we took no action between now and 2016, my officials have calculated that we would need to deal with 30 to 40 million tonnes of waste. Where should that 30 to 40 million tonnes go? Is the hon. Gentleman seriously suggesting that all that waste can go into recycling, reuse and recovery, or that it would not be created as a result of waste minimisation policies? I would love to believe that that will be the case, but it is not a serious idea.

I do not believe that some of the colossal amount of waste that must be shifted from landfill will not have to be dealt with by incineration. Indeed, incineration may be the most appropriate solution for materials such as clinical waste, hazardous waste and asbestos, because it is the best practicable environmental option. I expect incineration to play a small role, but it is not serious politics to suggest that its role will be zero.

Ashok Kumar (Labour, Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland)

May I draw to my right hon. Friend's attention a comment by Professor Ronald Clift, who is a distinguished professor of environmental technology at the university of Surrey? At a press conference on 17 March, he said:

''The idea that recycling is a solution to everything is not valid''.

That is my right hon. Friend's precise point. The distinguished professor supports us and not the Opposition parties.

Michael Meacher (Labour, Oldham West and Royton)

I am very grateful to hear that the professor and I share the same view. That view is serious, and I would insist on it. If it were to be denied, I would want to know the grounds on which there could be a zero transfer to incineration.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

First, we were allowed 35 per cent. landfill. Secondly, only 9 per cent. of the system is incineration. Neither we nor the Conservatives have suggested that that capacity should be closed, so that takes 44 per cent., leaving 56 per cent. to be dealt with—[Interruption.]—35 plus nine is 44, which leaves 56 per cent. to be dealt with. The Minister will know that other countries in Europe manage to recycle more than 50 per cent. of their waste. He will also know that

some local authorities in this country have schemes that recycle more than 50 per cent. of waste. If the Government get the economic instruments right and provide support for local government, it will not be impossible to do that. If he insists that there is 2 per cent. growth in waste each year, which is a bitterly pessimistic target, it may be difficult, but it could be achieved if the Government were determined. It is not impossible, and I do not accept that we must go down the incineration route.

My point, which has also been made by the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle and others, is that the indicators at the moment point to incineration. The Minister said a moment ago that, nothwithstanding delays and so on, landfill is represented as a cheaper and easier option for local authorities than the plethora of other measures that would have to be put in place, so they are going for incineration. We are saying that we need a strategy that is far more ambitious than any previously suggested, and that we can avoid the massive increase in incineration that will, unfortunately, occur without that strategy.

Michael Meacher (Labour, Oldham West and Royton)

I do not agree with a number of those points. First, let me make it clear that the 44 per cent. includes industrial and commercial waste. The figure for municipal waste, which is what the Bill covers, is 8 per cent. or 9 per cent., which gives a different picture. I accept that it is not being suggested that current incinerators should be closed, although I shall come to a significant point that the tightening of emissions standards under the EU's waste incineration directive, which we are in the process of implementing, could have that effect.

The hon. Gentleman said that we should be able to achieve 50 per cent., which is the figure in the private Member's Bill before the House. That may or may not be possible, but I would be the first to say that when we achieve our objective of 25 per cent. by 2005–06, we can go well beyond that. There is no doubt about that. Instead of plucking figures from the air and attaching them to a date, we should plan carefully. Within another five or 10 years, we can go substantially further. The question is: even if we achieve between 40 and 50 per cent. by 2010 or 2015, is that consistent with no increase at all in incineration? I beg leave to insist that one should not foreclose on that option.

The hon. Gentleman said that I had said that incineration is a cheaper and easier option. I agree that it is cheaper than some recycling reuse recovery, and I make no bones about that because we should be honest about the figures, but I did not say that it is easier. One aspect is public opinion, because the matter is becoming a politically serious issue in local authorities, and it may even be so in a general election. I welcome that because it is no bad thing. In terms of planning rules, it is discouraging and not easier. That is appropriate. In a moment I shall come to further measures that will discourage an increase in incineration.

Gregory Barker (Conservative, Bexhill and Battle)

I am listening carefully to the Minister, but I do not understand his logic for not accepting new clause 32, which is that he sees a need for small and specialist incinerators to deal with particular hazards. We are not concerned with the

small and specialist incinerators that the Minister seems to be concerned with. We are concerned with incinerators such as the one that has just been given planning permission at Maidstone, which will have a capacity of 500,000 tonnes a year. We are concerned with the one that has just been granted planning permission at Slough, which will have a capacity of 400,000 tonnes a year. We are concerned with the one that has just been granted planning permission at Sheffield, which will have a 225,000-tonne capacity. Many such incinerators have been mentioned in the Minister's parliamentary questions, or are known to be in the pipeline.

We are concerned with the big issue, and the Minister misses the point when he talks about the little, specialist incinerators. We must not proceed with further incineration until a sound fiscal regime is in place to address the economic imbalances that he himself admits exist and which provide the economic infrastructure on which huge incinerators are predicated.

Michael Meacher (Labour, Oldham West and Royton)

That is exactly what we have done. The other aspects of the strategy are well known to the hon. Gentleman, who is extremely well informed about the issue. We have laid down pretty testing statutory recycling targets—they are as testing as we thought we could realistically make them. Once we get to 2005–06, we will take them further, although the Government have no immediate plans in that respect. I agree that we should mirror practice in Europe, where targets are between 30 and 40 per cent. in many cases, and sometimes higher. Of course, we can do that, and we shall put in place measures to try to ensure that that happens.

We shall also provide funding; indeed, we have made substantial funding available. I repeat, we shall put an extra £1.75 billion into environmental, protective and cultural services over the current five-year period. In addition, there is the challenge fund of £140 million for the PFI. That does not mean mass-burn incineration. Of course, it is not excluded, but it is certainly not what is implied. The projects that I have approved do not include incineration. They have increased in value by 60 per cent. in the current spending review. Additionally, there is £50 million for community recycling. That is a very substantial package.

We have tried to use the waste and resources action programme to find markets so that the substantial increase in recycling products has a use. We are doing that because we realise that although some countries are much better than us at recycling, they still end up putting everything in landfill.

So, we have done all the right things. We have put in place the necessary measures, framework and incentives, and we are now trying to go one step further by putting in place significant and effective levers and mechanisms to ensure that waste is minimised in the first place. I do not know what more we can do. I am very receptive to ideas, and if hon. Members suggest what we can do—[Interruption.] If one says that there should be a moratorium—

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

Taxes.

Michael Meacher (Labour, Oldham West and Royton)

Yes, I realise that that is the purpose of new clauses 5 and 32.

The hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle says, ''Don't worry about small incinerators with niche roles.'' Incidentally, I was not saying that incinerators only have such roles, and I did not exclude the possibility of other, larger incinerators. I am saying that we have a problem in particular areas, and I want to know how we shall be able to deal with it properly if we have an absolute moratorium on incineration.

The mood of the debate has been warm and amicable, so I hate to say that imposing moratoriums would take us back to a command-and-control system, under which we would tell people, ''You shall do this. You shall not do that.'' We are introducing a more flexible, market-driven process, which—[Interruption.] Yes, but there are good reasons for doing so. There is certainly nothing wrong with letting market forces operate in this area; indeed, they should do so. However, we are trying to structure the market in a way that produces the results that we all want. That is the Government's policy, which I think is sensible. It would be unwise to have an exclusion clause, under which increases in incineration would not be permitted whatever the circumstances, as President Chirac might say. Perhaps that is a good precedent.

Alan Whitehead (Labour, Southampton, Test)

I wonder whether the phrase ''a good precedent'' is absolutely appropriate.

Will my right hon. Friend ask his officials to look at the correspondence and plans that I have received from local authorities, which I have set out in detail in a rather boring report? My right hon. Friend would gain succour from it, because it is clear from those letters that local authorities do not get it. They are talking about the inevitability of incineration, although as my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud says, they are also talking, in an unclear way, about various methods of small-scale incineration. The sort of definitions, to which my right hon. Friend has referred, together with better guidance and some indication of the alternatives, may provide an additional weapon in bringing about a change of approach.

Michael Meacher (Labour, Oldham West and Royton)

I should be very pleased to do that. The Committee and I recognise my hon. Friend's knowledge and expertise, as well as the amount of work that he has undertaken on the issue. He has presented a formidable case, and, without prejudice, we should look at its implications and take full account of it. I am not sure whether my hon. Friend has already sent the report to me.

Dr. Whitehead indicated dissent.

Michael Meacher (Labour, Oldham West and Royton)

Ah, I ask because it takes time for things to reach my desk. If he has not already sent me the report, I hope that he will , because if he gives me a chance to look at it, I shall be pleased to do so, and if he wishes to have a meeting and to bring some other people to that meeting, we can examine the case in detail.

May I turn to a highly relevant point, which I have not previously had a chance to make? Of course, in supporting capital investment, we are not seeking to encourage an incineration solution above others. The guidance for private finance initiative projects requires proposals that include incineration to demonstrate that all the opportunities for recycling have first been considered and that the project will not create a barrier to the longer-term development of recycling. Those are important considerations, which I insisted should be included in guidelines for the assessment of applications. Those were published in September 2000.

That is the basis on which applications are reviewed, and I am insistent that a case should be demonstrated. It is not enough just to say that; the case must be demonstrated and questions asked. None of these things can be proven, because it is not a matter of logic, but the case must be demonstrated reasonably and persuasively. That is the right way to ensure that incineration is used only where a real and reasonable case can be made for it.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

It is true that the Minister has heightened the PFI rules, and we are grateful for that but, unfortunately, he has not made the rules apply retrospectively, so PFI arrangements that were provisionally reached with the Government before the new guidance was issued have not been changed. Therefore, notwithstanding the representations that have been made to the Minister, in an attempt to ensure that the new rules would apply, they do not apply to East Sussex county council and to the proposals put forward by Brighton and Hove. Consequently, the succour that he gives us that recycling will be protected does not apply in the East Sussex case, where contracts for incineration have gone ahead without a public inquiry.

Michael Meacher (Labour, Oldham West and Royton)

It is odd to say that the rules should apply retrospectively when incinerators have been built as a result of planning permission being granted. That is the de facto situation, and it cannot be reversed. The hon. Gentleman refers to an application that has been made and is in the process of being assessed before the local waste plan is put in place. The hon. Gentleman and I have corresponded on that subject, and I have made it clear that applications will have to be consistent with the waste plan when it is published. That remains the position.

The hon. Gentleman wants me to intervene, but I am advised that I am not in a position to intervene. It is a local authority matter, and the authority has a framework and criteria by which it is required to make its decisions. Unless it makes its decisions in a manner that is patently contrary to national criteria, Ministers do not have the right to intervene. However, I repeat that there are constraints on those local planning decisions, and those decisions have to be in accordance with the local waste plan. That constraint is relevant in the case raised by the hon. Gentleman.

There are strong disincentives to increasing the use of incineration, mainly because it is lower down the hierarchy than other options. It is difficult and expensive, and it is unpopular. As well as

disincentives, I accept that it is necessary to have in place positive incentives to encourage preferable alternatives to incineration. I absolutely agree with that. We have already provided local authorities with incentives, but in a less heavy-handed and less centralist way than suggested in the new clause. I repeat that imposing demanding statutory targets and providing adequate increases in funding meets that purpose. Targets are already in place; they will continue to ensure that local authorities must develop waste management options other than incineration.

New clauses 5 to 12 suggest an incineration tax—new clause 32 suggests other fiscal measures—to act as a disincentive to incineration and to encourage reuse and recycling. I do not disagree with that. Alternative technologies will be required to meet landfill directive targets. As noted in the strategy unit report, without assistance to tackle the perceived technical and financial barriers to the development and take-up of new technologies, those targets are unlikely to be met.

A programme of activities has been developed to take forward that recommendation in the strategy unit report. It is intended that the new technologies programme will divert 2.5 million tonnes of biodegradable municipal waste away from landfill per annum by 2009–10, the first trigger point in the landfill directive, by using waste management technologies other than incineration. The Treasury has already allocated £39 million to the delivery of that programme in England over the next three years. I insist that the Government are taking account of the thrust of the arguments that have been put to the Committee. We are responding. We are putting out money where our mouth is. That is the right way to proceed.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

The Minister has talked a lot about recycling, and the Government are certainly taking it more seriously, although whether it will reach the figures that we all want is another matter. What are the Government doing about No. 1 on the waste hierarchy, which is waste minimisation? By definition, local authorities cannot have a big role in that; they deal with the waste as it appears. Will the Minister list a few of the initiatives that he has taken to minimise waste and avoid the growth in the waste stream that he referred to the other day?

Michael Meacher (Labour, Oldham West and Royton)

Yes, I can certainly do so, although that is somewhat at a tangent to the thrust of the debate—[Interruption.] Well, I think that it is. At this juncture, we are talking about whether the Government are giving incentives not only for recycling, reuse and recovery and waste minimisation, but to alternative technologies that may be more appropriate than mass-burn incineration. We are seeking to develop pyrolysis, gasification, anaerobic digestion, mechanical biological treatment—and, no doubt, other technologies of which I am unaware. We are giving support to that and, although it may not be understood, we believe that those technologies can transfer 2,500,000 tonnes away from landfill every year by 2009–10 without using incineration. That is very significant.

I admit that I cannot reel off an exhaustive list of our initiatives, but one of them is producer responsibility. That is designed to ensure that the producer or manufacturer will secure a form of disposal at the end of the lifetime of a product that ensures that it does not go to landfill, as is so often the case. We are doing that with electronic and electrical equipment and with cars and batteries. The motive comes from EU directives, but we strongly support it.

A second initiative, which may produce some slight amusement, although I hope not, is that on Monday I attend two engagements to encourage the real nappy network. [Interruption.] Yes, I thought that it was bound to provoke some amusement. Nevertheless, it is serious, as about 4 per cent. of landfill consists of nappies. Half the waste of a family with one baby will be the baby's disposable nappies. Finding a way to reuse nappies rather than dispose of them would reduce landfill. That should not be a source of amusement; it is a serious matter. Another example—

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

Will the Minister give way?

Michael Meacher (Labour, Oldham West and Royton)

I will not before I have told the hon. Gentleman, in case he was about to make the point, that I was gratified to see the press notice that said that tens of millions of tonnes of disposable nappies go to landfill every year, but that the Environment Minister Michael Meacher is determined to get to the bottom of it. [Laughter.]

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

I am grateful for the Minister's humour, after he told us to be serious on the subject. Being a father involved in changing nappies, I have found that one of the problems with them—I do not think that the Minister's Department has looked at those problems, although I wish that it would—is not the nappies themselves but the glue and chemicals that are used to keep the child's bottom dry.

The nappies used in Finland contain a different type of glue, and the Minister discussed using the washable type of nappy rather than a compostable one. The nappies that I saw can be composted in a wormery in eight days because the manufacturers use a totally different type of technology. I ask the Minister to ask his Department to look into the technology and the special glue that OKO uses in manufacturing its nappies, which are still disposable.

Michael Meacher (Labour, Oldham West and Royton)

Well, the great advantage of this debate is that one does learn. I will be pleased to do that. I do not think that we should spend too much time on the specific alternative technologies, but the hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point, and I shall be glad to pursue it if he sends me the relevant information.

Another serious issue is junk mail, about which I feel very strongly. I suspect that, like me, hon. Members receive probably up to 10 letters a week, mainly from banks offering credit at a very low rate in order to seduce the recipient into taking out yet another credit card. That goes on on a very big scale. I am burdened and irritated by the amount of paper that I have to open and dispose of, and I am conscious that

it is disposed of and that it increases the pile of rubbish. Those who send it have no or little responsibility. I have told the Direct Marketing Association that I want to make it much easier for those who do not want to receive such material to deactivate it by phone, e-mail or letter so that they receive none thereafter, making what is known in the business as suppression files. The information is not readily available to the ordinary person. I do not know how to stop the flow, and I do not suppose that other people do. Nevertheless, I am keen to do so—it would be a real form of waste minimisation—and to ensure that, where the mail continues, the originators take responsibility for the collection and funding of the recyclable material. That does not happen now.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

I agree with the Minister about junk mail. Many of my constituents have written to me about it. I was pleased to see that the envelopes in which we receive notes are being recycled. Can the Minister assure us about the status of political leaflets? People feel strongly about being leafleted, but the democratic process relies on freedom of information.

Michael Meacher (Labour, Oldham West and Royton)

That is, indeed, one of the points that we are considering. I agree; political parties should not be able to use their power in this place, and their influence on Government, simply to exclude themselves from a process that applies to others. However, I accept that there is a difference between seeking votes on reasonable grounds and trying to press financial facilities on people who have not solicited them. The case must be made; it is not automatic.

I return to the incineration tax mentioned in new clauses 5 and 12. The strategy unit considered it in detail. It concluded that the case was not made, and that even significant increases in landfill tax were unlikely to make incineration the cheapest option for the disposal of waste. We should not forget that incineration deals with 9 per cent. of municipal waste, whereas landfill takes 78 to 80 per cent. The strategy unit recommended only that the case for an incineration tax should be kept under review and that a decision should be made on the basis of a thorough examination of the health and social impacts of incineration and other forms of waste management. That study is in hand and it will inform the Government's decision.

I turn to the question of the moratorium. New clause 32 requires the introduction of a moratorium on the building of new municipal waste incinerators until each responsible local authority can provide for the separation and recycling of domestic waste and all local waste management strategies conform to standardised national waste management criteria. We have already had considerable discussion about that. A central argument in that regard is that there are already in place criteria that require any application for incineration not to crowd out recycling potential.

Secondly, I can give the assurance that we take the potential health and environmental implications of all waste management options seriously. Many of the United Kingdom's older incinerators have been shut down because they could not comply with EU directive 89/429, which came into operation in

October 1996, on the reduction of air pollution from existing municipal waste incineration plants. The new standard was that dioxins, which are what people, understandably, worry most about coming out of the stack, should not exceed 1 nanogram per cubic metre. That is one part per billion; an extremely tiny fraction. It is to be tightened tenfold in the new waste incineration directive—the new target is 0.1 nanogram per cubic metre, one part in 10 billion. That will not reassure everybody, and most of the public are unaware of the new measures. However, they have altered the situation with regard to emissions from incinerators. As a result, dioxin emissions from today's incinerators are already down more than 200-fold from five years ago. They are less than 0.5 per cent. of what they were just five years ago. The Waste Incineration (England and Wales) Regulations 2002, which partly transpose the directive, came into force just after Christmas.

The other point to which I want to refer concerns new clause 32, which states:

''The Secretary of State shall introduce a moratorium on the building of new municipal waste incinerators until . . .

(c) the Government has introduced fiscal measures which act as a disincentive to incineration and encourage reuse and recycling.''

Again, that is exactly what we have done. I am not just agreeing with it as a point of principle; it is precisely what the Government have done.

Finally, it may remain a point of division but, while I do not believe that there will be a significant increase in incineration, it is too rigid and going too far to say that there should be no new incineration in any case. Perhaps the criteria should be tightened. I was not personally involved in the justification for the three larger incinerators to which I referred, and if there were any suggestion that the national criteria were not properly taken into account, I would be seriously concerned, but that is different from saying, no, never, not in any circumstances. I take a different view.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

The Minister keeps making the point, so I hope that he understands why I intervene. Our position is not that of Jacques Chirac, which is no, never. Our new clause 5 would introduce a moratorium

''until a review is completed of the health and environmental impacts of incineration and other thermal treatments of waste'',

as well as requiring taxation changes and so on. We are suggesting not a ban, but a moratorium, which is different.

Michael Meacher (Labour, Oldham West and Royton)

I accept that, but we shall probably have the report on the health and social implications of all waste management options, including incineration, by the end of the year and we shall make a decision on that. To the Government's mind, that is a prelude to examining whether there should be an incineration tax. If significant health issues arise from incineration, the Government would have to take action not only on new applications but on existing incinerators. However, I insist that the health implications of incinerators have been so tightened that they are not now the major cause of dioxin

emissions. The major causes are much more proliferated in agricultural fires, domestic fires and any form of combustion that is not handled properly. I am not being facetious, but it is often said that Guy Fawkes night produces a lot more dioxin emissions than incinerators.

Ashok Kumar (Labour, Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland)

May I help my right hon. Friend? I am a strong champion of incineration, as a former chemical engineer, and know that technology has moved to a different level. I think that that is what my right hon. Friend is saying. Dioxin emissions are less than 1 per cent. from incinerators. The steel industry emits 16 per cent. and my right hon. Friend made a point about bonfire night, which produces far greater dioxin emissions. He has got the right level, but fear has been created in the community. We should not make judgments on dioxin emissions alone.

Michael Meacher (Labour, Oldham West and Royton)

Those figures are correct and I have seen similar figures. Other industries, such as iron and steel and other heavy manufacturing, still generate considerably more dioxins and we are anxious to reduce them. Incinerators are not now the main cause of the generation of dioxins, which they were before 1996.

New clauses 9 to 12 would also require each area of the UK to set up regulations requiring existing incinerators to monitor dioxin emissions continuously. That interests me. Unfortunately, it is not possible to measure dioxin levels in that way. The technology is not yet proven to a level at which we can be confident of its scientific value. However, the Environment Agency is working on measuring dioxin levels, and hopes that something can be introduced. In the meantime, the waste incineration directive already requires that the dioxin levels of municipal waste incinerators are measured at least twice a year, and at least every three months during the first 12 months of operation. Those figures are reported to the Environment Agency.

I apologise for the length of my remarks, but the debate is central to our proceedings. As the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed) said—for reasons that we understand, he cannot be here today—it would not be prudent totally to rule out all future incineration, however much one might seek to ensure that it was limited and used only strictly when appropriate. As he said, we should not rule it out.

I was going to raise a question about amendment No. 8, but unless anyone wishes to press me on it, I think that I have spoken for long enough.

Priority will continue to be given to recycling, reuse and recovery, as required by the rules of the planning process. The guidelines are clear; not only current recycling but its potential must not be crowded out. The long planning time is a significant deterrent, and public opinion remains strongly against it. I believe that those factors are sufficient to ensure that what the Committee wants to happen will largely be what does happen.

On that basis, I hope that the assurances that I have given, and the whole range of measures that the

Government have already put in place—I am sure that we will add to them—will meet the requirements of the Committee, and that hon. Members will agree that the new clauses are not necessary. I therefore hope that the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin) will withdraw the amendment.

Win Griffiths (Labour, Bridgend)

Order. Before we proceed, if the Committee wishes to vote, we shall divide only on the amendment; the new clauses will be taken later, should the Committee wish to force them to a Division.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

This has been an interesting, informative and helpful debate, particularly so as my amendment sought only to add the word ''or''. I made a few notes during our wide-ranging debate. I thank all hon. Members for their helpful contributions. We have a great deal of wisdom and expertise in the Room.

The first accusation is that the amendments and new clauses would gold-plate the European directive. I do not believe that that is so. All the amendments were constructive and would have helped achieve what the Government seek. However, there are different levels of expertise. The hon. Member for Stafford gave us some helpful information on the different types of incinerating machine being manufactured in his constituency that are now being used to recycle miscanthus and other types of wood pulp. My experience is that that is the right way forward.

I kept rather quiet because I am not as anti-incineration as others if energy can be recovered from the process. However, the debate focused not on the positive aspects of incineration but on the fact that we should use levels in the waste hierarchy first. Therefore, it was positive and welcome that both my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle—perhaps it was because of his youth, although, without wishing to be catty, I am in fact younger than him—and the hon. Member for Guildford mentioned the ambition that we perhaps all share to make the future greener and less polluted.

I agree that the Budget was a missed opportunity to introduce the financial and fiscal measures that will encourage the recycling and reuse of waste, as well as its reduction in the first place. That was a great shame, but the Minister no doubt will go from here and lobby the Chancellor to target such things with his next opportunity.

My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire made a good point when he urged the Government to consider new clause 32. He said:

''I have given considerable thought to it over a long period. It essentially says that a local authority, either by itself or corporately with other stakeholders, can use incineration but only after it has jumped through a series of hoops . . . wherever it is economically viable to do so, it must recycle.''—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 8 April 2003; c. 170.]

That has been the gist of the debate. No one really has spoken out against incineration per se—they have tried to pressure the Minister to move up the hierarchy so that we recycle and reuse first. New clause 29, which I have tabled and which comes in the next group of amendments, seeks to do exactly that. The intention is not to prevent incineration, but to ensure that it is the choice before landfill rather than the first choice.

Michael Meacher (Labour, Oldham West and Royton)

I agree.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

The Minister agrees; I am particularly pleased and I even wrote it down when he said that he did not disagree with what was written in the clause. The debate has been constructive and helpful; I just wish that it was more widespread, given that we have touched on the Budget and other matters. I was particularly pleased to hear about the cut in dioxins, although I take the point that dioxins are produced in different ways and that not all can be scrubbed—I think that that is the right term—through the chimney process, as they can through incineration.

I have no problem with withdrawing my amendment. The word ''or'' would have emphasised the hierarchy, but I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Michael Meacher (Labour, Oldham West and Royton)

I beg to move amendment No. 61, in

clause 17, page 11, line 29, leave out subsection (4).

Win Griffiths (Labour, Bridgend)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government amendment No. 18.

Amendment No. 70, in

clause 26, page 17, line 25, at end add—

'( ) Where a waste collection authority fails to fulfil its obligations, as directed by a waste disposal authority under section 57 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, and as a result of the waste disposal authority is liable to a penalty under section 9, then the waste collection authority shall become liable to a penalty as defined in this section.'.

Government amendment No. 20.

Government amendment No. 21.

Amendment No. 77, in

clause 31, page 20, line 32, at end insert—

'( ) In section 52 (payments for recycling and disposal etc. of waste) after subsection (9) (a waste disposal authority shall be entitled to receive from a waste collection authority such sums as are needed to reimburse the waste disposal authority) there is inserted—

''(9A) A waste collection authority shall have the right to appeal to the allocating authority against the sum requested in reimbursement from the waste disposal authority under subsection (9).

(9B) If any exercise of the power contained in subsection (9) by a waste disposal authority results in a financial loss to a waste collection authority through the requirement to alter a preexisting contract, that loss shall be payable in full by the waste disposal authority.''.'.

New clause 29

Sorting of municipal waste

'From 1st January 2010, waste disposal authorities shall not dispose of municipal waste by sending it to landfill, or by sending it to an incinerator, or by sending it to an energy recovery plant if that municipal waste has not been sorted in order to remove recyclable waste.'.

Michael Meacher (Labour, Oldham West and Royton)

I apologise to you, Mr. Griffiths, and to the Committee if my remarks are lengthy. Having just spoken at considerable length, I shall try to minimise them as much as I can, but this is another important group of amendments.

Win Griffiths (Labour, Bridgend)

Speech minimisation as well as waste minimisation.

Michael Meacher (Labour, Oldham West and Royton)

Speech minimisation is something that Chairs and Speakers in the House like to encourage, with the threat of incineration if it does not work.

As well as speaking to the Government's amendments, I shall give our views on amendment No. 70 and new clause 29, which have been tabled by the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) and the hon. Member for Leominster respectively.

The changes are not straightforward and I shall try to explain them clearly. Amendment No. 61 would remove subsection (4), which was inserted in the other place. Our reason is that the provision does not make it clear who will produce the strategy or whether it will be a single or joint-authority strategy. However, we have given considerable thought to joint municipal waste strategies in considering our response to the strategy unit report and in the light of the provision inserted in the Bill in another place and the comments made by all parties on Second Reading and last week in Committee.

There is a strong feeling that waste management in two-tier areas can be a problem and that encouraging authorities in such areas to plan together strategically is part of the solution. It can help them to set the framework for a partnership approach to achieving the landfill directive obligations and statutory waste targets.

In reaching a decision, we were mindful of the fact that the local authority policy agenda had moved on since ''Waste Strategy 2000'' and that what we do should be framed within the freedoms and flexibilities agenda—the so-called modernisation agenda that the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister particularly has been promoting. In particular, we are mindful of the need to reduce burdens on authorities wherever possible and to avoid over-prescription if we place obligations on them. Taking all of that into account, we concluded that taking a blanket approach and requiring strategies from all authorities, in all circumstances, was not compatible with local authority freedom and flexibility. Therefore, we are taking a more targeted approach by requiring compulsory strategies only in two-tier authorities and by exempting excellent authorities in the two-tier structure.

I am glad to say that some of the authorities in those areas are already working well together. Therefore, we intend to exempt those authorities that can show that they are on target to meet their statutory requirements. All other authorities will be required to participate in drawing up a joint strategy for the area of the waste disposal authority. We shall table amendments on Report for that.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

I should like the Minister to clarify a matter. In discussing the last series of amendments, he mentioned the Government's statutory requirement for local authorities to reuse and recycle before they incinerated and said that that would have to fit in with their plan. I cannot quote him exactly, but I believe that that was the gist of it. Will this provision affect the

plan? I may have misunderstood the Minister's comments.

Michael Meacher (Labour, Oldham West and Royton)

Authorities certainly will be held to account on meeting the 2003–04 doubling target and the 2005–06 trebling target. In order to determine whether they were on target, I wrote letters to 140 local authorities last August and have now written to more than 100 who are still worryingly off track or who have not yet convinced me that they are sufficiently on track that I should not be concerned about them. I have written and asked them to provide evidence that they will be able to meet the target and will continue to monitor that.

The clause provides a formal legislative requirement to participate in drawing up a joint strategy if there is evidence that an authority is not on track. We have targeted a key area, rather than take a blanket approach. That is the only difference.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

I understand the Minister's logic, in that he wishes to target a key area. That is a sensible approach. Can he clarify when the requirement will kick in? Clearly, he wants failing authorities—to use a shorthand version—to draw up a plan to get back on track, and he wants to exempt successful authorities. Will the requirement apply only if a target year has been missed, or will it kick in if they have failed to complete the expected progress in a non-target year?

Michael Meacher (Labour, Oldham West and Royton)

I was referring to the meeting of statutory, or mandatory, performance standards—the best value performance indicators 82(a) and (b), which are about local authority recycling performance. Target and non-target years, which relate to meeting the landfill directive targets, are a somewhat different matter. In a sense, the two issues are related in that one must find alternatives if one does not send material to landfill. Recycling is the obvious alternative, which is why I am so anxious to push it up the hierarchy as fast as I can. However, the two processes are separate; they not identical.

To ensure that local authority recycling targets are met, the Government, through me, are telling authorities that we are concerned and we want to see action in the form of a plan that shows how they will meet the target. The provision before us, however, if it is agreed by Parliament, and if both Houses agree to the amendment that I shall table on Report, will become part of the Bill. It will be mandatory only when the Bill receives Royal Assent, which I imagine will be this year.

I turn now to the rest of the group of amendments. Amendment No. 18 removes clause 17(5), which was inserted in the other place. It is unnecessary to make directions in relation to a strategy, because clause 31 already provides for a direction-making power. Amendments Nos. 20 and 21, which are in my name, will go further towards ensuring that that power works as intended.

Clause 31 amends sections 48 and 51 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 to enable a disposal authority to direct a collection authority to deliver waste separated. The power may be exercised

only where a disposal authority considers that necessary to meet its obligations under any enactment. A collection authority has a duty to comply with such directions.

The additional Government amendments regulate further the operation of the power to give directions. Our amendments are quite complicated, but they have a simple goal: to encourage county and district councils, in their respective guises as waste disposal authorities and waste collection authorities, to work together in a way that assists the disposal authority in meeting its obligations under the landfill allowance scheme and its statutory recycling targets.

Amendment No. 20 adds new subsections (4B) to (4D) to section 51 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. They require a waste disposal authority to consult the waste collection authorities in its area before giving directions, to have regard to guidance given by the Secretary of State, and to notify collection authorities of its reasons for requiring them to deliver waste separated. The guidance will encourage disposal authorities to reach an agreement with collection authorities without issuing formal directions, which is clearly preferable.

Amendment No. 21 makes provision regarding the costs of delivering waste separated. It inserts proposed new clause 52A into the 1990 Act and requires waste disposal authorities to pay waste collection authorities such amounts as are needed to ensure that collection authorities are not financially worse off as a result of complying with a direction to deliver waste separated. The proposed new clause permits the Secretary of State to make regulations about how the amounts to be paid are to be determined. Any dispute would be referred to arbitration. Provision is made for the collection authority to supply the disposal authority with the information that it needs to determine the amount to be paid.

In view of those direction-making powers, the provision in clause 17(5), which was inserted in another place, is unnecessary. Amendment No. 18 would remove it. A requirement to have joint strategies where necessary, coupled with a power of direction for waste disposal authorities to require waste to be delivered separated, would go a long way towards providing a proper balance between the two tiers of waste authority and encouraging them to work together. Amendment No. 70 transfers liability for a financial penalty in certain circumstances from a waste disposal authority to a waste collection authority. [Interruption.] We are all pleased to see the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings returning. He missed a fascinating debate, but he will be able to read it in Hansard.

I am confused by the reference in the amendment to section 5 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. I assume that it is intended to be a reference to section 48, as amended by the Bill, which would impose a duty on a waste collection authority to comply with directions from a waste disposal authority under section 51. The amendment would then provide that if a collection authority failed to fulfil its obligations in respect of a direction from a disposal authority and, as a result, the disposal authority

became liable to a penalty, that liability would fall on the collection authority. As I explained last week, we do not think that one authority having the power to transfer its liability to another is conducive to harmonious working relations. Nor do we want there to be a route through which a transgressing disposal authority can seek to deny culpability; our overall purpose is to encourage joint working.

Amendment No. 77 appears to be aimed at regulating the relationship between waste collection authorities and waste disposal authorities in the context of collection and disposal of commercial and industrial waste. I am a little puzzled as to the purpose of the amendment. It would add to section 52(9) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990—which provides for a disposal authority to be reimbursed the reasonable costs of disposing of industrial and commercial waste collected by a collection authority—a provision for appeal. I assume that it should refer to the Secretary of State, as the term ''allocating authority'' does not exist outside the Bill. Such an appeal is unnecessary as there is already a provision for disputes to be determined by arbitration in section 52(11) of the 1990 Act. I am not sure what is intended by the second part of the amendment. If the hon. Member for Lewes is aware of a specific problem in the operation of section 52(9), I invite him to tell us.

Finally, new clause 29 would prevent waste that had not been sorted to remove recyclable materials from being sent to any disposal operation, whether landfill, incineration or energy recovery. Although that is desirable, the amendment is too rigid, as it takes no account of facilities that are or may be in place, nor of possible emergency situations such as—however unlikely—a fire destroying a recycling facility. Recycling is being encouraged through other means, as we have heard. Waste authorities have to sort waste and recycle in order to meet their recycling and composting performance standards. Further, in order to meet the requirements of the Bill, disposal and collection authorities will need to work together in order to maximise recycling. As I explained, waste disposal authorities will have the power to direct waste collection authorities to deliver waste separated to facilitate recycling. For those reasons, I cannot accept amendments Nos. 70 and 77 and new clause 29.

The Government amendments to the power to make directions about the separation of waste provided for in clause 31 and the amendments that we shall propose on strategies on Report will achieve an appropriate balance between authorities. They will provide flexibility and encourage co-operation between the two tiers of authority, and I hope that the Committee will support them.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

I can be quite brief. I understand why the Minister approaches this group of amendments as he does, and replacing the House of Lords amendments with Government amendments Nos. 20 and 21 is sensible. I shall not dwell further on that, although we shall obviously consider the additions that the Minister intends to make on Report, to ensure that they perform the functions that he has set out and that they are adequately

drafted. However, we have no disagreement about Government amendments Nos. 20 and 21.

Amendment No. 77 may be faulty, but what we were seeking was not dissimilar to what the Government sought in their amendment No. 21. Our intention was to ensure that waste collection authorities could not be landed with huge bills because of the irresponsible and thoughtless activities by waste disposal authorities. To be fair, the Government have covered that adequately in their amendment No. 21.

The Minister believes—I share his view—that it is desirable that waste disposal authorities and waste collection authorities should reach agreement without the necessity for directions to be issued by the waste disposal authority, thereby invoking a legal process. However, such directions may be issued more often than we would wish for the simple reason that waste collection authorities will want to ensure that they have adequate compensation. I judge that the legal process that the Minister sets out in the amendment is more likely to give a fair return to the waste collection authority than a gentleman's agreement.

If I were a member of a waste collection authority, and the county council requested us to change our behaviour in order to meet the council's requirements, I would want a proper legal agreement in order to protect our position; otherwise, costs could subsequently occur that had not hitherto been anticipated, and the waste collection authority would have no way of recouping them. The waste collection authority could protect its position by requiring a direction to be issued by the waste disposal authority, but that would not happen if there were only a gentleman's agreement. The Minister may have a view on that; it is a small point, but directions will be more common than he anticipates.

Lastly, I ask the Minister to consider proposed new subsection (9B) in amendment No. 77. In the situation that I have just described, I was seeking to ensure recognition of the possibility of a waste collection authority being out of pocket, not because of future actions that the waste disposal authority might require of it but because it might have entered into legally binding contracts with third parties. For instance, a direction from a waste disposal authority may require a contract to be broken into order that its directions are complied with. Under those circumstances, the waste collection authority could not be held responsible for the breaking of the contract, but a penalty may have to be paid. The Minister will understand the difference between a waste disposal authority requiring some future action that has a cost, and requiring a retrospective action that might have a cost, such as the signing of a contract.

I want to be sure that that point is covered by Government amendment No. 21. If waste collection authorities have to break contracts, will they be able to claim compensation from the waste disposal authority under the amendment? If they cannot claim compensation, the waste collection authority will be

out of pocket through no fault of its own. That would not be fair or desirable.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

I, too, shall keep my comments short. One of the problems with the Government amendments is deciding whether the noble Lords' wording is better or worse than that of the Government. I address my comments to new clause 29 because the strategy unit proposed something similar to it in ''Waste Not, Want Not.'' It suggested that a ban on disposing recyclable materials to landfill would be very helpful to the Bill. I do not want to recycle the arguments used when the Committee discussed incineration earlier, but it would be odd to pass up the opportunity to prevent municipal waste that has not been sorted from being sent to landfill. That, after all, is the Bill's purpose.

The new clause is a neat way of supporting the Government's desire for a ban. It gives local authorities plenty of time to ban the dumping of recyclable products in landfill or the sending of them to be recovered by incineration or in another type of energy recovery plant. It is a rather good clause and one with which Friends of the Earth was very helpful; it also fits in with the waste strategy unit's recommendations. I found slightly bizarre the Minister's comments that he could not accept the new clause because a fire might damage the council's plant. I hope that Minister will sort out my difficulties with his opposition to this small, neat, helpful and rather compliant new clause.

Michael Meacher (Labour, Oldham West and Royton)

I am grateful for the general support for the Government amendments. The hon. Member for Lewes argued that direction from the disposal authority to the collection authority may turn out to be more frequent than any of us want. He may be right, but that is a matter for conjecture. I cannot take the matter further, but it is our intention and strong wish that those relationships should be fostered voluntarily and through co-operation, with the least possible resort to the law and contractual requirements. Relationships inevitably sour in such circumstances. However, the hon. Gentleman may be right—that direction from one authority to another may be more frequent than we would like.

If I understood the hon. Gentleman, he seemed to be asking whether a collection authority could be out of pocket if a disposal authority issued an instruction to it in a manner that required an existing contract to be changed. I do not expect that to happen. It is not impossible, but it is extremely unlikely. However, if it did happen, compensation would have to be paid to the contractual partner who had lost out. It is not our wish or intention that such an extreme measure should be taken. If it were, the financial implications would have to be considered beforehand. I repeat that if the disposal authority caused the collection authority to be liable for that compensatory repayment, it would have to cover the cost of any actions that needed to be taken.

The hon. Member for Lewes asked whether directions would always be given. I repeat that it is certainly hoped that authorities could reach agreement without the need for directions. For that reason, Government amendment No. 21 would permit a

disposal authority to make a payment to a collection authority even when directions were not given.

I do not demur from the general thrust of new clause 29, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Leominster; I absolutely accept its main principle. Once again, it is a question of whether one can talk in absolutes. One can imagine emergency situations in which a legal requirement might prevent what clearly needed to be done, and Parliament should not put local bodies in that situation.

As I said, there is nothing wrong with the general thrust of the new clause, or its objectives and aspirations; it is just that, in our view, it is a bit too rigid. It takes no account of the facilities that are in place—or that might be put in place in future—or of emergency situations. I gave the example of a fire destroying a recycling facility. I do not wish to be niggardly or to quibble, and I think that such an event is extremely unlikely, but we in this House need to be careful that we do not use legislative power to prevent an appropriate local reaction when unusual circumstances occur, as we know they do from time to time. That is all that I am saying; it is not a general disagreement.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

It occurred to me while the Minister was speaking that the new clause is fairly rigid and, if such a crisis took place, it would prevent authorities from burying recyclable products. In a crisis of any sort, it would be possible for a local authority to put recyclable items in the ground, but the new clause would not allow it to leave them there indefinitely; it would have to come back later and recycle what it had put into landfill. I would not have a problem with that.

Suppose the waste was a large amount of glass, and that it was simply dumped again. That goes against the principle of everything that we have been battling for over the past few sittings. It would not necessarily be wrong for the authority to put a lot of glass in a hole in the ground, dig it up again later and recycle it. That is the difference between parking rubbish, and landfilling and then forgetting about it.

Michael Meacher (Labour, Oldham West and Royton)

I give the hon. Gentleman credit for ingenuity in trying to save his new clause. It would be slightly bizarre if the local authority should feel obliged—against its general wishes—to put material into landfill in an emergency, and then be required by legislation to dig it up and recycle it. That would be stretching the appropriateness of legislation. It might be that that is exactly what the local authority would do anyway. However, I am not sure that it would necessarily put the waste into the ground; the obvious thing to do would be to store the waste until a new recycling facility was available.

We need to use compulsion in this case—although with considerable care—and should not force authorities into a situation that later turns out to be odd, inappropriate or even bizarre. That is why I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me for saying that I still feel the need to resist his new clause.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

Now that I have had time to gather my thoughts, given the Minister's general acceptance of the principle of the new clause tabled by my hon.

Friend the Member for Leominster, and notwithstanding the squirrel aspect of the argument—the fact that local authorities would be likely to store the waste and then come back to it—I wonder whether the Minister would consider introducing an appropriate amendment on Report. That would be useful because the new clause strengthens the Bill in an important way, although the Minister may be right to say that it is too definitive. I invite him at least to consider tabling a better tailored version of the new clause on Report.

Michael Meacher (Labour, Oldham West and Royton)

The structure of the functions set out in the Bill is perfectly adequate, and an amendment could have perverse consequences. The Government do not have to provide an alternative amendment if the new clause is not accepted, and the provision already adequately covers the situation that the hon. Member for Leominster has in mind.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

Can the Minister not envisage a situation in which a council, having fulfilled its targets, started to landfill recyclable products? The new clause would prevent local authorities from doing that. Provided that they fulfil all the targets set out in the Bill, they will not be required to exceed their good behaviour. That will prevent them from achieving even greater success in reducing landfill.

Michael Meacher (Labour, Oldham West and Royton)

One needs to choose one's metaphors carefully when talking about landfill, but we are making a mountain out of a molehill. We all agree that we want to ensure the fastest and most extensive increase in recycling, reuse and recovery that we can. We are talking about the power of the disposal authority to give an instruction to the collection authority to ensure that waste is separated, the associated arrangements for ensuring that that happens and the power of direction to deal with the financial consequences.

The new clause specifies that material should be sent not to landfill but to be recycled. That is a quasi-moratorium on landfill, similar to the moratorium on incineration that we were discussing earlier. Telling people that, under no circumstances, are they allowed to landfill is not the most appropriate way of dealing with the problem. I sympathise with the view that we should not straitjacket local authorities; they are responsible to their electorates and should be given a measure of discretion.

We seek to limit the parameters within which local authorities can exercise that discretion, but to instruct them that, in no circumstances whatsoever, can they landfill waste that could properly be recycled smacks of a command-and-control system. Perhaps we Members are changing places because I am not sure that I would have said that 20 years ago. The approach in the new clause is unnecessarily authoritarian. The hon. Gentleman will achieve the same result within the more flexible system that we propose, because a package of measures and incentives are embedded in the Bill.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I had not intended to speak on the matter, but an interesting debate has emerged. I do not want to make either a mountain or a molehill out of

anything, but the balance between what we demand and what we expect is important.

The Minister is right that local authorities will interpret and implement what we expect—the guidance that we offer and the parameters that the legislation establishes—in ways that are sensitive to local need. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster made a sound and solid point. I generously gave the Minister the opportunity—I do not know what you thought, Mr. Griffiths, but I thought that I was extremely generous—to say that he might make some amendments or bring back something slightly more tepid, perhaps by removing the definitive, which is what I think most concerned him. I did so because of the point that my hon. Friend made. That point requires a real answer and was about those local authorities that meet their requirements but then choose not to maintain practice in the spirit of the legislation. If we are setting parameters, issuing guidance or trying to change the culture, we should do so completely.

It is no good saying to local authorities, ''Yes, you can pursue good practice until you get to this point; after that it's up to you, mate. What you do after that is entirely a matter of choice. If you then want to go back to all the bad things you were doing before, that's fine by us.'' It would be very unfortunate indeed if the Government were sending that signal, although I do not suggest that they necessarily are. If, however, judgments are made solely by target rather than by something more aspirational, such as a change in culture, local authorities that have not bought into the culture but are obliged to accept the target will do as my hon. Friend says and go back to their old ways.

I do not think that the new clause is destructive; indeed, it is highly constructive. The question is whether we can improve the Bill and send a clear signal about acting outside the targets by effecting a cultural change that reaffirms good practice regardless of obligation. Obligation is important, but changing the culture is even more important and must be ongoing, above and beyond targets. I make this brief contribution to clarify that point, although I do not think that the Minister is yet convinced of that.

Gregory Barker (Conservative, Bexhill and Battle)

Will my hon. Friend give way?

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I shall give way briefly because I do not want to prolong things.

Gregory Barker (Conservative, Bexhill and Battle)

My hon. Friend makes an extremely powerful argument and puts his finger right on the point, which is that we want to change the culture, not just achieve near-term, pedestrian and, possibly, insufficiently ambitious targets. What underlies the Government's reluctance to embrace the new clause is the fact that they know full well that if they insist that the procedures are met, the spotlight will immediately be thrown back on the fact that they are under-resourcing the capacity of authorities to go beyond the short-term targets. The Treasury simply will not wear that.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I am not sure that I would be quite as cynical as that. I think that the Minister wants a

change in culture, and I do not want to intrude on any dispute or discussion that he and the Treasury may be having—we heard about some of them earlier in our proceedings, and they are part of the nature of Government. My hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle is still dining out on the fact that the Minister described him as rugged in an earlier sitting, and he likes the slap of firm Government. However, the Minister is concerned that the proposals are perhaps, to use his words, too authoritarian—a little too dictatorial. We should get the right balance between setting objectives and allowing local authorities discretion, of which he rightly says they should have a measure, given that they are democratic bodies. I am a staunch defender of local democracy, but that balance must not be allowed to damage the cultural change to which my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle committed in his intervention. I want to ensure that that cultural change occurs, and I feel that my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle and my hon. Friend—

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

Leominster.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

Yes, my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster. To explain my lapse, I have been speaking about fishing all morning and so, in a manner of speaking, I am riding two horses today. The point made was a worthy one, and the Minister may wish to consider it at leisure. That is the spirit in which the amendment has been moved, and in which I have spoken to it. The amendment is not destructive—we are trying to be helpful.

Michael Meacher (Labour, Oldham West and Royton)

The hon. Gentleman is trying to be helpful, but I do not think that he believes in his own phrase—the culture of change—with which I agree. Local authorities—even those that have good records up to now—are being given testing targets, taking them to more than 35 per cent., and some of them do not like that. If there is a change of culture, it would be bizarre to suggest, as the hon. Gentleman appears to be doing, that once they have met those targets, they would then slip back into their old ways. In the context of the amendment, that would mean not sorting out recyclates before material is sent to landfill. That seems to me an extraordinary scenario, and I do not believe that that should happen.

Once a local authority has put in place the mechanisms, the plant and the facilities to meet those stretching targets, it will continue to do so. I do not believe that the moment it is off the leash, it will slip back into its bad old ways.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

The Minister is stretching our credulity a little far. He knows as well as I do that there are local authorities that will grasp the challenge with relish. Many are already exemplars of good practice, and will certainly not only meet their targets but embrace the change of culture and implement it with enthusiasm.

Other local authorities, however, will be more tardy. They will do what they have to do, but the change of culture that we all believe in will have to be stimulated a little more by Government action. Those authorities, if it is more convenient, and particularly if it is cheaper, will, once they have done what they are required to do, slip back into what is easy to do.

It is the mix of local authorities that is of concern. We believe that many authorities will do this properly, but that some might not. In the latter case, the Bill does not provide much opportunity for the Government to do anything about it, beyond setting targets. That could lead to unfortunate headlines in the local or national papers, both for the local authority concerned and for the Government.

Michael Meacher (Labour, Oldham West and Royton)

There are provisions under ''Waste Strategy 2000'' that will influence a local authority. One of those provisions is the payment of the landfill tax, which will increase by £3 from next year, and could increase by significantly more in future years, if the Chancellor so chooses.

The Bill also contains a precise requirement to ensure that the amount going to landfill is steadily reduced, which is a powerful physical driver. It must be reduced by 5 per cent. or 10 per cent. and to meet those targets it will not be easy for a local authority to say, ''Right, we have met our recycling targets, so now

we are going to shove it back in landfill.'' They will not be able to do that.

I therefore do not think that we need to use a command and control system of saying ''thou shalt not'' under any circumstances. I do not wish to be heavy-handed about this: I am sympathetic to the clause. The issue relates to the degree of enforcement required. In the general area of waste I am keen on enforcement, but in this case that would be going too far.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 18, in

clause 17, page 11, line 32, leave out subsection (5).—[Mr. Ainger.]

It being twenty-five minutes past Eleven o'clock, The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned till this day at half-past Two o'clock.

Standing Committee B

Waste and Emissions Trading Bill [Lords]

Michael Meacher (Labour, Oldham West and Royton)

I beg to move,

That the Order of the Standing Committee [3rd April 2003] be amended as follows—

(1) in paragraph (1) (Committee's sittings to be on 3rd, 8th and 10th April at 8.55a.m. and 2.30 pm), for ''and Thursday 10th April'' there shall be substituted '', Thursday 10th April and Tuesday 29th April'';

(2) in paragraph (3) (proceedings in the Committee to be brought to a conclusion by 5.00 pm on 10th April), for ''Thursday 10th April'' there shall be substituted ''Tuesday 29th April''.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

The Programming Sub-Committee had an agreeable meeting. Debate is progressing in a positive way. It seemed appropriate to have additional sittings, so that we can give the Bill proper and full scrutiny.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

Ditto.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 17 - Strategy for England

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

I remind the Committee that with this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Clause 18 stand part.

Clause 19 stand part.

Clause 20 stand part.

New clause 1 - Strategies for dealing with flytipping: England

New clause 2 - Strategies for dealing with flytipping: Scotland

New clause 3 - Strategies for dealing with flytipping: Wales

New clause 4 - Strategies for dealing with flytipping:

New clause 13 - Strategies for recycling and waste reduction: England

New clause 14 - Strategies for recycling and waste reduction: Scotland

New clause 15 - Strategies for recycling and waste reduction: Wales

New clause 16 - Strategies for recycling and waste reduction: Northern Ireland

New clause 17 - Strategies for zero waste: England

New clause 18 - Strategies for zero waste: Scotland

New clause 19 - Strategies for zero waste: Wales

New clause 20 - Strategies for zero waste: Northern Ireland

New clause 30 - Zero waste strategy

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

Welcome back to our proceedings, Mr. Amess. We have had a long debate on many of the issues, so I shall say little about clause 17 stand part except to reiterate my view that the Government's so-called strategy is a strategy for complying with the EU landfill directive rather than delivering a waste strategy—or even a waste hierarchy. Although the Minister wishes it to be a narrow Bill, I make the point again that taking one part of the waste hierarchy in isolation will have an effect on other parts of it, and not necessarily as the Minister and other hon. Members, especially on the Opposition Benches, would wish.

I turn to new clauses 1 to 4, on fly tipping. We seek to require the Secretary of State to have a strategy for reducing the amount of waste that is fly-tipped, extending the powers of local authorities and the Environment Agency to deal with fly tipping, and to consult relevant bodies, including the devolved regions, before finalising that strategy.

I hope that the Committee accepts that fly tipping is a scourge upon our land, particularly so in the countryside. The problem seems to be getting worse, but partly for the right reasons—the Government have rightly increased the landfill tax, and are making it more expensive to deal with waste. The unwelcome consequence of that, however, is that more people are choosing to behave illegally; they are fly-tipping their waste rather than dealing with it through the proper, legalised channels.

I draw the Committee's attention to a parliamentary answer that I received from the Minister on 4 March. I asked him to quantify the amount of material that had been fly-tipped for the

most recent year for which he had figures. The figures that he supplied were rather shocking. In 2001, 2,900 tonnes of white goods were fly-tipped in the countryside, as were 5,600 tonnes of furniture, 94,000 tonnes of green waste, 8,500 tonnes of general household waste, 380,000 tonnes of construction and demolition waste, 118,000 tonnes of cars and 8,500 tonnes of tyres. That is more than 0.6 million tonnes of material in one year. I should be interested to know how the Government managed to measure all that, but assuming that the figures are accurate, that is an horrendous amount. Those of us with urban areas in our constituencies—probably most of the Committee—will know that fly tipping goes on there too. It is a major problem.

The Minister might say that it is illegal to fly-tip. However, as with many such problems, regardless of whether the sanction is satisfactory, the chances of the perpetrators' being caught and prosecuted are certainly not satisfactory. People fly-tip in the expectation that they will get away with it. To be fair to the Ministry and to the Environment Agency, it is difficult to be in all places at all times and to pick up when people are fly-tipping in hidden locations in the country. Nevertheless, again according to parliamentary answers from the Minister on 20 March, 0.6 million tonnes of waste was fly-tipped in the countryside in 2001. However, we learn from the Environment Agency that there were only 225 prosecutions relating to all that waste. One hundred and eighty-seven individuals were fined a total of £158,857—less than £1,000 each—and 38 businesses were fined £144,000, or some £4,000 each. The chances of being caught and successfully prosecuted by the Environment Agency for depositing fly-tipped material in the countryside are minimal and the fines if one is caught are ludicrous—particularly for a business. The odds are that a business that is being fined £4,000 for fly tipping would have paid that or more than that to deal properly with the waste in the first place.

I hope that the Minister will take the issue seriously. He needs to have a strategy, as new clauses 1, 2, 3 and 4 suggest, in order to get a grip on the issue. That means that, first, he needs to identify where waste is being fly-tipped—what the trends are—and to look at more powers for either local authorities or the Environment Agency for prosecution purposes. He needs to start thinking innovatively as, in some regions, the Environment Agency is—for example, by putting closed circuit television in locations where fly tipping is a recurrent problem. If he does that, we might be able to send out the message not simply that fly tipping is antisocial but that those who fly-tip have a good chance of being caught, prosecuted and fined in a way that they will find not particularly attractive to their purses and pockets. That is not the situation at the moment.

I can tell the Minister of one location in my constituency, just outside Lewes, where there is a tremendous problem with tyre dumping. The general view is that it is undertaken not by individuals but by businesses, because the volume suddenly increases massively overnight. There is a disused chalk pit,

which is now reckoned to be the site of ''Mad Max III'', because at the last count it contained 27 burned-out cars. Dumping is a major problem throughout the country and I see no evidence that the Government have managed to get a grip on it, although I do not underestimate how difficult it will be to do so. However, MPs continually receive complaints about the matter in their postbags—I certainly do in East Sussex. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will respond positively to new clauses 1 to 4.

New clauses 13 to 16 deal with recycling strategies. I do not propose to spend long on them, except to draw attention to their merit. I have already spoken about them under an earlier grouping, where they would have been more appositely placed, so they have been covered. However, I draw the Minister's attention to clauses 17 to 20, the four other Liberal Democrat new clauses in the group, which suggest to the Minister that it would be advantageous to adopt a zero waste strategy. The Minister may say that a zero waste strategy is pie in the sky, or he may say that the Government are moving towards it through a combination of measures that are already in the Bill. I could write the Minister's reply for him, but I suspect that his civil servants can do that without my help.

However, if the Government committed themselves to a zero waste strategy, and the time scale is open, they would send out a clear message that it is not enough simply to minimise landfill or to increase recycling, beneficial though that is, but that we need a change in our culture, to use the Minister's phrase. We must ask ourselves first whether what we dump in landfill is waste: it could be a resource. One person's waste is another's resources.

I draw the Minister's attention to an innovative scheme in Newhaven in my constituency. The businesses in a business park there came together and identified the waste streams from individual businesses. They found that some businesses were paying for waste to be taken away and disposed of at landfill and that other businesses in the same park were buying materials that had been recycled from that waste. By marrying the two processes, the businesses eliminated the costs of disposal and successfully minimised waste. That is an example of waste minimisation and business competitiveness, and it is the sort of initiative that I would like the Government to promote.

I would like the Government to extend doorstep collection to every home in Britain without delay. It astonishes me that the Government are committed to increasing waste recycling yet I have heard no explicit statement recognising that there must be doorstep or kerbside collection for every house in the country. In parenthesis I say that I recognise that there would be a problem with blocks of flats. Nevertheless, the Minister should be making such an overt statement time and time again in response to the issues raised in the private Member's Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock). I know that the Minister is committed to it, but, with respect, we do not hear regularly from Ministers or from the Prime Minister that that is what the

Government want. Perhaps the Minister could correct that impression.

We need to look at the treatment of mixed waste and to consider limiting disposal contracts to a maximum of 10 years; that point was raised this morning when we discussed incineration. We need to look at producer responsibility; we also need to consider establishing a zero waste agency designed to pull together the threads and to act as a semi-official pressure group. The Minister may say that he is already achieving some of those goals, and I am the first to concede that things are moving in the right direction, but he should not underestimate the political value that comes from encapsulating the policy contained in the zero waste soundbite. A policy of zero waste would send out a message to the public that the Government are committed to tackling the problem of waste. It would drive forward the agenda in Government and in the Departments of some of the Minister's recalcitrant colleagues whose thinking on waste management is less advanced than his. It would also send a message to local government and to business. There is a great deal to be said for adopting such a strategy.

I finish by saying that I have considerable sympathy with the Conservatives' new clause 30 and that I await with interest the Minister's response.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I am very grateful to be called. I notice that our numbers are a little depleted—

Michael Meacher (Labour, Oldham West and Royton)

A man and a dog.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

No, I would never want to be described as a dog, and I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin) is a real man. Perhaps he is a trifle less rugged than my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker), but a man none the less. I have no doubt that the hard core that remains will do its best and that the others will be recovered, reused and recycled.

These are important matters, and the grouping of the amendments allows for a wide-ranging debate. We have extensively discussed some of the issues already, so I promise not to give a Periclean oration on this particular group. None the less, we must deal with some important matters, and the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) spoke cogently about some of them.

First, I want to follow through the discussion that we had before lunch about a change of culture on the part of the authorities responsible for waste disposal. By implication, we need an important change of culture on the part of those responsible for waste collection, too. We must therefore change the culture as regards not only landfill and incineration—we talked about those earlier, so I shall not go over that ground—but collection. It is important to re-emphasise that the mode of collection will have a significant impact on the public's habits. If one makes it convenient and straightforward, and explains why one has adopted it, one will facilitate a practical change in public culture. One will also build confidence in the idea that what is being done is in

the wider interest—that is, part of a bigger picture. At the moment, people feel that much of their effort is wasted when they attempt to recycle. That view is not entirely correct, but recycled material is not dealt with as well as it might be. It is certainly difficult to get the right product to the right place when it comes to separating materials, and the waste collection authorities must play a key part in that respect. There must be a change of culture on their part.

There is a third change of culture—a change of public culture. In uncharacteristically harsh comments earlier, the Minister talked about the public's habits in respect of litter and waste. I do not know whether he remembers that—perhaps he does not remember his harsh moments.

Michael Meacher (Labour, Oldham West and Royton)

I do.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

Oh, he does now.

Michael Meacher (Labour, Oldham West and Royton)

Not harsh enough.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

He was not harsh enough, he tells us—he is swinging into draconian mode as we get further into our proceedings. However, he is right to say that it is not good enough to put in place a legislative framework that makes demands on disposal and collection authorities, if it is not matched by a change in public attitudes. The hon. Member for Lewes referred to fly tipping, and the dumping of disused cars is also increasing. Indeed, it is a constant problem in my area. Cars are often dumped in dykes by the marvellous roads and byways of South Holland and The Deepings. These can be in relatively isolated, sparsely populated areas. Many of those cars emanated from other places—often, urban areas. They are left where they are for some time, because it is so difficult for the authorities to deal with them. It is a problem of scale, and there is a massive burden on those responsible for towing those cars away and scrapping them. It is not acceptable for us to allow that problem to continue to grow, but it will unless we send a clear signal through the Bill and put in place measures to deter such things.

Then, quite simply, there is the problem of litter. We should not underestimate it. A small pile of litter, although unsightly, does not cause people great worry. Personally, I find such things quite offensive, but I take rather a Meacher-like draconian view. Overall, however, this is a massive problem. Things have changed during my lifetime. As a child, I remember—although such memories are always tinged with nostalgia—the streets in our towns, villages and cities were much cleaner. The culture was different. My parents would no more have thrown away a tin can or a bottle in the street than jumped off a cliff, because it would have been outside their system of values. That is not the case now. Some people nowadays think nothing of casting down a used tin can or a bottle or other litter that does not degrade easily. Because of the increased use of plastics and other materials that do not degrade, litter in urban and rural areas lies around for a considerable time, spoiling the landscape, causing nuisance and, in the case of glass and sharp objects, real danger.

We need a public change of culture that offers zero tolerance. I should like to see zero tolerance for the dumping of cars in ditches and dykes and along roadways, for fly tipping, which has become all too common in lay-bys and isolated areas, and for people who carelessly discard a bag of rubbish through their car window after purchasing a takeaway meal. Driving along, one suddenly sees a car window open and a pile of rubbish thrown out on to the road. I do not know whether other hon. Members have witnessed that, but it is becoming a common occurrence. A generation ago, people would not have dreamed of doing that, so we need a change of culture, extending to the responsible authorities and the people who are causing the problem. We need to send a clear signal to the public.

The issue centres on expectation, encouragement and information, and on giving people practical facilities that are easily accessed, so that they can deal with the matter responsibly. That involves waste separation and collection, and the points that have already been made by the hon. Member for Lewes and others, which I shall not labour. It is part of a bigger picture, which includes understanding that, for each individual right, there must be a collective obligation. For each personal indulgence, there must be a social duty. It is about changing habits and style. Those matters are important and, wherever possible, they should be reflected not only in the Bill but in the Government's whole approach to waste management.

I want to deal specifically with the new clauses, which bring into sharp focus two important matters that have already been raised. I shall not discuss the large number of new clauses tabled by the hon. Member for Lewes because he has already spoken about them and it would not be appropriate for me to try to trump him with more eloquent advocacy. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman smiles, and I know that he takes my remarks in the kindly spirit in which they are meant. However, I shall deal with new clause 30, which focuses on strategy.

I pay tribute to my hon. Friends and to the Liberal Democrats, who have repeatedly asked the Minister for a signal that the Bill fits the strategy, because the Minister clearly has one. It is vital that a strategy and provision for regular audits is laid before Parliament, as new clause 30 proposes. That would allow scrutiny and publicity. We said in our last sitting that the publicity associated with such requirements will be an important check on those whose responsibility it is to enforce them. I do not mean local authorities only, but the Government, too. It is important that Parliament—and through Parliament the wider public—can check the Government's performance in meeting the targets and, more broadly, in delivering the strategy that they have devised. That explains subsection (1)(a) of new clause 30. Paragraph (b) deals with measurement of the strategy in terms of both weight and volume, which is the other matter that I want to discuss again.

My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed) had a prior engagement today, and it is sad that he is not here. He made an important contribution about volume as well as weight, arguing

persuasively that unless we included volume, we would obscure the picture, because much waste is bulky but light. He was talking about the packaging, plastic and polystyrene waste with which we are all familiar. That waste does not weigh a great deal, but it is extremely difficult to get rid of and typically does not recycle terribly well, although some plastics do recycle rather well, so one should not use too broad a brush. Unless we include volume in our considerations, we shall miss an important element in the growth of waste. In some senses the growth in such waste is disproportionate because it often consists of packaging waste, which is an escalating problem. Everything that one buys from anywhere now seems to come in an enormous amount of packaging. There was a time when things came in newspaper tied up with string, which was happily recycled. That is no longer the case. Waste measured by volume as well as by weight is important and, once again, new clause 30 deals with that.

In essence, that is the strength of my case. There should be parliamentary and wider scrutiny. Parliament must play a key role in challenging and auditing the Government's strategy, and that strategy must record measurement by both volume and weight. I suspect that the new clause would facilitate the three-way change of culture that I described earlier.

Anthony Wright (Labour, Great Yarmouth)

There are downsides to the argument about waste as measured by weight and volume. A paper pulp manufacturer in my constituency manufactures egg cartons, which are considerably heavier than the new plastic cartons. One could probably get 10 plastic egg cartons to one paper pulp egg carton. The proposals would give an unfair advantage to the plastic industry, even though paper is biodegradable and breaks down. The hon. Gentleman's argument would therefore prevent the company in my constituency from being competitive in the market and would probably work against other paper pulp manufacturers.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I was about to say that I thought that that was an extremely good point, but my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster tells me from a sedentary position that he thinks that it is not and is, I suspect, about to intervene on me to say why.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

The point that the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Wright) made was entirely reasonable, and I think that my hon. Friend is about to talk about volume, which is the key point. One problem that we have encountered throughout our proceedings is whether we measure waste by weight or by weight and volume. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire has constantly referred to that, and I draw the Committee's attention to his comments about the ratio of volume to weight of 2:1. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) will soon mention that.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I was clearly doing so with insufficient clarity, but that was the point that I was trying to make. However, the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth may have something, in that the calculation will not be simple. There will be occasions when the larger package may be more desirable than the smaller, or the heavier package

more desirable than the lighter. That, I think, was the argument put by the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth.

We need to measure the likely reuse or recycling of material, or whether it is possible to recover it. That is not as simple as it may appear, but given that we cannot analyse every piece of waste in fine detail at every point of collection and disposal, the volume to weight ratio would at least give us a handle on the increased amount of waste that is large and bulky but not heavy.

I am interested in what the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth said. I shall certainly give it proper consideration, and I am sure that the Minister will do likewise. Neither the hon. Gentleman nor I would qualify on either volume or weight, and the ratio would do neither of us much good. None the less, we should probably have it. I shall conclude by saying that the three-way change of culture that I identified is pertinent and necessary; and that would be assisted by what is yet another constructive amendment.

David Drew (Labour/Co-operative, Stroud)

I am delighted, Mr. Amess, to serve again under your chairmanship. I shall not keep the Committee long.

The problem is how to define zero waste. It is a fine notion, in a similar vein to sustainability; both terms are bandied about by those who call themselves green or environmentalist, but they are difficult to include in legislation. I have no problem with the idea of waste minimisation. If we took it to its ultimate conclusion, we would create no waste—we would not have created the item that created the waste—but I am not sure about the concept of zero waste. In a sense, we can achieve zero waste only if we remove many types of production, because they inevitably have by-products, and some of them could be put to alternative and better uses.

We must also consider whether there is a way of creating an exchange mechanism whereby people who create waste can buy a form of allowance from those who are more environmentally friendly. I am not sure how that would fit in with the Bill. We need to give the matter a great deal more thought before using the term ''zero waste'', or we shall be creating a wish list, and that may undermine and degrade the very important work that we are trying to achieve. The Committee may like to ponder on that. Perhaps the Minister will give us his definition of zero waste.

Michael Meacher (Labour, Oldham West and Royton)

My hon. Friend raised an important point about definitions. Aspirational targets such as zero waste are rather vague. However, I must not let the moment pass without referring to the speech made by the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings, which was remarkable, not because he gave us the best of reasons to include volume and weight, but because of his panegyric about litter. I thought that I had finally found a soul-mate when he referred to zero tolerance, although he was a little wimpish about the penalties. I thought that he might have recommended the reintroduction of the stocks, but he did not go quite that far. However, his general attitude, which the country needs, about the

intolerance of laziness and sloppiness is something that is widely shared.

We are dealing with the new clauses together, because they are all concerned with the production of strategies for waste management. They bring together several issues and I shall try to deal with each of them. They express, once again, the understandable wish of hon. Members to extend the scope of the Bill and to tackle all sustainable waste management issues in one go—I see nods of assent. It might help those hon. Members with large ambitions if explain in more detail how the Bill fits with the wider strategy to bring about sustainable waste management in the United Kingdom.

Our vision for sustainable waste management was, I repeat once more, set out in ''Waste Strategy 2000''—perhaps I should circulate it before the next sitting so that my constant pleas do not fall on stony ground—and by the other UK Administrations in their waste strategies. ''Waste Strategy 2000'' gives us the overall framework. It looks at the whole waste hierarchy from waste minimisation to landfill, and it covers all waste streams. The strategy sets out our ambition to break the link between economic growth and increased waste. It also makes it clear that, where waste is produced, we must put it to good use. Although I have said this before and do not wish to keep repeating it, I am vigorous in asserting that it is the right policy. ''Waste Strategy 2000'' is a living document, not one to be archived; it is the framework on which we continue to build in light of further developments, inadequacies of policy or gaps in the strategy. We are delivering, and the Bill is part of that delivery.

New clauses 17 to 20 would require each country of the UK to produce a strategy for zero waste. My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) asked what that means. Zero waste is usually understood to mean that no waste is sent to landfill. In its more radical form it could be zero waste production in a totally closed resource cycle—materials biodegrade, they provide the input for the production of alternative products or they are, in some other way, filtered out of the manufacturing process. However, I suspect that hon. Members mean the former.

The latter is a fine concept, and something that we should aim for, but it is an ambitious goal. I fear that we are running away with ambitious goals when our current position is lamentably inadequate. Only when we turn the corner and fundamentally change existing practices can we begin seriously to aim for such goals. However, even this is a hugely ambitious concept, which goes well beyond the scope of the Bill and of the landfill directive.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

For the sake of clarity, I am referring to the latter definition rather than the former. That is not in the expectation that we can achieve it in 10 years, or even in 20, 30 or 40 years. However, I believe that we should aim high; if we aim for 100 per cent. of a goal, we may achieve 50 per cent., and if we aim for 50 per cent., we may manage 25 per cent. We must be clear about where we want to go. Where is the route map—to use an overused

phrase—and how can we best get there? That is not to say that we expect to get there overnight. However, let us aim high and sell the idea to the population.

Michael Meacher (Labour, Oldham West and Royton)

I am not sure that I wholly agree. I believe in stretching or ambitious targets. However, when one is engaged in a process that is moving all too powerfully in the wrong direction, to set an extraordinarily radical goal in the opposite direction does not inspire greater effort; it just brings the whole exercise into disrepute. That is what worries me.

I hope that members of the Committee will not continue to regard me as an isolated figure, because I speak for the Government on waste; I insist on that. However, like all Ministers, I want to be practical, and I cannot nail my colours to the mast of zero waste in the current circumstances. I am quite prepared to discuss the matter, but it goes far beyond the Bill and, indeed, the landfill directive.

Zero waste to landfill is the more modest definition. It is about not only the management of waste but the lifecycle of products, and we are beginning to take that on board in terms of producer responsibility. The issue is how we, as a society, use our resources. In that respect, I might add that the UK signed up to the world summit on sustainable development. There were five main objectives, the fifth of which was that all participating countries should draw up a plan for sustainable consumption and production. Again, that is an extraordinarily ambitious requirement, but virtually all countries have accepted it. If we think about what we mean by sustainable consumption and production, meeting that requirement would actually go quite a long way towards achieving zero waste. The Government are seeing stakeholders and trying to move in that direction. Significantly, other countries, not only in the EU but much more widely, have signed up to the same objective.

Those are important questions, which are linked to the idea of a consumer-led society. In the Bill, however, we should focus on what we can achieve. If I may put a brake on the ambitions of some members of the Committee, we should not try to run before we have shown ourselves and others that we can walk.

Reducing our reliance on landfill is, after all, the first step, and the Bill will help to achieve that. We must also accept that some landfill will still be needed. In the next decade, we are unlikely to get remotely near a situation in which we have nil waste going to landfill, but we can begin to turn around the amounts. If we do really well, we may be able to decouple economic growth from the creation of waste that goes to landfill. However, the best practical environmental option for some waste, such as asbestos, is probably to bury it.

New clause 30 would require the Secretary of State to put before Parliament a strategy for delivering a year-on-year decrease in the volume of waste—that is part of the decoupling process that I just mentioned—and to report progress to Parliament. It would also require him to specify a formula accurately to measure the significance of waste by volume against waste by weight. The reductions proposed in the strategy would be based on that formula.

We had an interesting and lengthy debate on the issue last Thursday, and I said that I would write to the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire about it; indeed, I should probably circulate the letter around the Committee. As I emphasised last week, I am extremely sympathetic as regards the underlying problem that he outlined. To be completely honest, we are not recycling enough low-weight, high-volume items such as plastics. That is probably the weakest point in the whole recycling framework, but I am not convinced that specifying targets using volume as a measure is the right way to solve the problem. Most waste can be, and is, compacted, which makes volume a much less robust measure than weight.

That is obvious if one considers the space occupied by a bag of household waste. First, that waste is contained in a wheelie bin, if the authority provides them, as mine does. I am dubious about wheelie bins because they are so large that they encourage people to throw virtually everything bar the kitchen sink into them. The waste is compacted in a dustcart and then it is compacted in a landfill site, where it is subjected to increasingly high pressure as more waste is piled on top. The question arises as to when we should measure volume, and that is not an idle question. Should it be measures when the waste goes into the bin or when it has been at the landfill site for six months? The measure is relative. Compaction of waste once it is in the site is so effective that the volume of such things as plastics is no longer a major issue.

There are other problems associated with the measurement of volume. The weight of waste can be easily and accurately obtained from weighbridge readings. Volume can be registered only with reference to the nominal rated size of the container, and part loads in skips or tankers can only be estimated. Using volume as a measure simply is not accurate enough to be of value and for heterogeneous solid waste—which is normal—there are no statistically acceptable factors that link weight and volume. I add the highly relevant point that the last Environment Agency survey on waste arisings had to use estimates of volume where weighbridges were not available. Conversion of those volume data to weight introduced such significant errors that further work had to be done to refine the data. I do not pour cold water on the idea, but there are serious methodological problems.

Gregory Barker (Conservative, Bexhill and Battle)

I am listening carefully to the Minister and he is right to point out that there are methodological problems in making an assessment. However, people are just as concerned with the volume of waste at the point of generation as with the volume taken up when it gets to landfill, if not more so. If one wants an holistic solution, one must consider people's concerns about the large amount of space that card, polystyrene or light plastic bottles take up when they are put into the backs of lorries and trundled long distances to landfill. A lot of people are troubled by the space that such waste takes up en route to landfill.

Michael Meacher (Labour, Oldham West and Royton)

I understand that problem, but some compaction often takes place then. I am also interested

in pursing an alternative way of dealing with plastic bottles, glass bottles or containers, which is to consider seriously the practicality of reintroducing deposit and return schemes. Such schemes reduce litter and give people a personal incentive—not through force, or companies or local authorities—to take things back to either the manufacturer or a container, for which they get some small reward. I do not know why such schemes fell out of use in this country, but I am keen to pursue that idea.

Mr. Wiggin rose—

Mr. Hayes rose—

Michael Meacher (Labour, Oldham West and Royton)

I give way to the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

That is most generous of the Minister and entirely appropriate, given our relative seniority—not that I am hierarchical. The Minister has made a good point that deserves the support of all parties, and I am sure that the hon. Member for Lewes shares that view. As the Minister said, it is extraordinary that such schemes have gone out of fashion. We all know from our childhood days that lemonade bottles and other bottles were kept, stored and taken back to get the penny or ha'penny one got for them. That was perhaps the most widely known form of recycling—everyone knew about it and did it. Given the Minister's sensible remarks, which I fully endorse, would he commit himself today to discussing with manufacturers, and perhaps the supermarkets, which do so much harm in other ways, how to make a positive contribution on the issue?

Michael Meacher (Labour, Oldham West and Royton)

Well, I am very glad to say that I am proposing to do that. However, if the hon. Member for Leominster is going to press me, I also tell him that there are problems and that things are not as simple as they look. One problem is that, precisely in order to reduce packaging waste, manufacturers have reduced the thickness of bottles or containers, whether made of glass, cardboard or other packaging material. If the glass is going to be reused by being refilled, it must be thoroughly scrubbed with a chemical to remove any impurities. That will probably be caustic soda. The problem that has been drawn to my attention is that reducing the thickness of the bottle reduces also its capacity to withstand scrubbing with caustic soda. I do not think that that rules anything out—I am sure that it does not—but I am exploring the difficulties.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

The Minister will no doubt also wish to explore the distance travelled and the waste and air pollution caused by carting around empty bottles so that they can be refilled. I am not against his ideas on the recycling of bottles; that is just one step.

I draw the Minister's attention to the challenge of volume. An immediate and easy solution is not essential, but it would not be impossible to measure the volume twice, first uncompacted and then after the waste has been compressed. We could have two measurements, or even three. The Minister can take this as far as he needs to. If we measured on weight alone, we would send out very different signals. I remember the Minister's comment about the wheelie bin; the volume of the bin was the problem because it was too large.

Plastic bottles can be a problem. A drinks company in my constituency produces huge numbers of bottles, which it fills with water and soft drinks. It is not necessarily wrong to produce plastic bottles; but if we are going to address the waste problem, we must be more innovative about how we measure the volume. We need to prevent them from ending up in landfill.

Michael Meacher (Labour, Oldham West and Royton)

We are at one in saying that we need to encourage the separation and recycling of high-volume, low-density materials such as plastic. The question is whether setting targets by volume as well as by weight is effective. I would question it. If it was a mechanism rather than another way of measuring, that would be another matter. The question is how to deal with the problem. Why should measuring by volume be of such great assistance when the problem remains to be solved? Compaction or other totally different ways of solving the problem are the right way forward. There is an increasing demand for alternative materials that do not have that problem.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

We may be repeating a previous discussion, but the problem of measuring only by weight is that it is a disincentive to using glass. It would encourage the market to use plastic, which is lighter, but that may not be the best environmental solution.

Michael Meacher (Labour, Oldham West and Royton)

It depends. The problem of plastics is their non-biodegradability. That is precisely why they were invented. For certain functions, it is their non-biodegradability and non-wear and tear, even over long periods, that makes them so valuable. We are now finding that it is a problem when it comes to waste management. It would not be sensible to commit myself by saying that we should in all cases favour glass over plastic, because glass itself is a problem. We need to analyse the environmental impacts at each stage of a product's life cycle—manufacture, use and disposal. Indeed, the Department is trying to do so, not only with plastics but with other materials.

The waste resources action programme was set up in 2001 to try to find alternative uses. It is working to develop markets for several materials, including plastics. The strategy unit report recommended that the role of WRAP be continued and expanded. We are concerting that in our response to the report, and we hope to publish our response very soon.

New clauses 13 to 16 deal with strategies for recycling and waste reduction; they would require each country of the UK to have a strategy for setting recycling targets for household, business and construction and demolition waste. The strategy would also have to cover the development of a mandatory doorstep recycling scheme and the development of the market for recycled materials. I fully agree with hon. Members that the issues dealt with in the clauses are very important, and we are dealing with them. The waste strategy set a target to reduce by 2005 the amount of commercial and industrial waste sent to landfill to 85 per cent. of that landfilled in 1998.

I am aware that industrial and commercial waste is so much larger a fraction of the total waste that goes to landfill; it is about four to five times that of household or municipal waste. Therefore reducing that amount is four to five times more important. However, there is an argument that the recycling of industrial and commercial waste is at a much higher level; I think that it is 45 per cent. That compares with a recycling level of household waste of 13 per cent. The year 2005 is approaching rapidly, and we should consider what further measures are needed beyond that.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I ask a genuinely inquisitive question to which I do not know the answer. [Interruption.] Yes, unlike most parliamentary questions. Is household waste generally more biodegradable than commercial waste? That is relevant to the growth of each of those sectors and to their effect on the problem. Perhaps the Minister will return to the Committee with an answer.

Michael Meacher (Labour, Oldham West and Royton)

I certainly could not give an authoritative answer now. However, my instinct is that household and municipal waste is more biodegradable because it includes more organic material than industrial and commercial waste does. However, I am sure that my officials will be pleased to look into the matter, and I shall return to the Committee with an answer.

Our aims on the landfill of commercial and industrial waste are supported by the increases in the landfill tax announced in the pre-Budget report in November 2002. Provisional data from the Environment Agency, which I do not believe have been made public before now, based on returns from licensed landfill sites suggest that the amount of industrial and commercial waste that goes to landfill may have decreased by about 8 per cent. between 1998–99 and 2000–01. That is an interesting statistic; it is the one area in which there has been a reduction. That is before the increases in landfill tax have started to bite, although there has been a modest escalator of £1 a year between 1999 and 2004. That is interesting because it suggests that industry and commercial offices are beginning to take the management and reduction of waste more seriously. If so, I certainly welcome it.

The waste strategy also introduced the principle of statutory recycling targets, and I have spoken enough about those already. We will consider what further targets may be necessary and how we can support them. We agree that substantial increases in kerbside collection will be needed to support increased recycling. Indeed, we cannot double and treble recycling without a major increase in such collection. The private Member's Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford seeks to make that universal, but my view is that we shall come very close to that simply as a result of the pressure exerted by the targets. I believe that we would need an increase in the level of kerbside collection in the order of 45 to 50 per cent. in parts of local authority areas.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

It is not as high as that.

Michael Meacher (Labour, Oldham West and Royton)

Well, I shall ask my officials for the precise figure. I am not saying that that is the case in all parts of local authority areas, but my recollection is

that 45 to 47 per cent. use kerbside collection, at least in part. The national waste minimisation recycling fund—driven by Government funding to support the council tax—is already helping to increase kerbside collection.

Gregory Barker (Conservative, Bexhill and Battle)

Surely we should be most concerned about the laggards—the last quartile of authorities—and those who are having problems, invariably because of the start-up costs involved and the lack of resources that results from the allocation of Government funds. Those authorities will need to be encouraged and coerced into action. For that reason, we need a national framework for kerbside collection.

Michael Meacher (Labour, Oldham West and Royton)

I am fascinated, and slightly surprised, to see how the hon. Gentleman is getting into coercion. He told me during the lunch break that he was surprised to find me out-lassez-fairing him. He is certainly moving rapidly in the other direction.

I am glad to say that I was right: the figure for partial or whole kerbside collection by local authorities is about 45 per cent. I entirely accept that, as in every process, those who are most resistant will require pressure, but the current pressures in the system will take us a long way in the right direction. As I have already said, we agree that there is a need to secure markets for recyclate. That is why we set up WRAP.

The hon. Member for Lewes spoke about fly tipping, an important and troubling issue. I concur with the figures that he produced, as I think they were drawn from my parliamentary answer. They are worrying: a total of 600,000 tonnes was fly-tipped at various sites throughout the country, which is hideously high. The hon. Gentleman said—his interpretation is not quite correct, although he said it considerately—that the Government were pursuing the right policy by increasing the landfill tax, but that it had made the situation worse.

There is no reason why an increase in the landfill tax should make landfilling worse, because one need not go into the countryside to get rid of waste. One can do it, legally and legitimately, by leaving it at the local authority civic amenity site, which is free for small businesses and households. Even bulky items can be deposited at such sites. An increase the in landfill tax should not, therefore, affect the availability of that form of disposal.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

That is true for individual householders, who often avail themselves of that facility. The problem lies with businesses. I do not know what national practice is but, in my constituency, the county council does not allow businesses to deposit huge amounts at household sites. The problems result from the evasion of landfill tax by businesses seeking not to incur those higher charges. Certainly, abandoned cars are not allowed on council waste sites.

Michael Meacher (Labour, Oldham West and Royton)

The hon. Gentleman is right to say that local authorities are within their rights to impose some charge on small businesses, because civic amenity sites are primarily for individual

householders. Authorities should consider whether that it is a wise policy, because it could deflect a certain amount of waste, which would otherwise have been taken by small businesses to civic amenity sites, into the countryside, where it is simply fly-tipped. There is no difference between us with regard to the problem. It is awful, and although I am not sure whether it is getting worse, I am prepared to concede that it may be. Many anecdotal stories suggest that it is, but there is little systematic data. The problem is how to catch the offenders; that is what we want to do.

I also entirely agree that when we do catch people, we should impose deterrent penalties. My wife says that I am becoming increasingly punitive, but I believe that this is a matter of making people aware of the consequences of what they are doing. Why should the rest of us pick up the tab for them? I do not wish to be draconian, but the current penalties are derisory. Many companies and individuals are prepared to take the risk because the chances are that they will not be caught and that, even if they are, any penalty will be a very small fraction of their turnover. That is a ridiculous situation. I do not wish to tell judges what to do—no Minister dare enter into the arena with the Lord Chancellor. However, it is important that magistrates, who receive 96 per cent. of all cases, realise the significance of environmental offences. I have a constant battle to persuade the Magistrates' Association to get its members to take the matter seriously.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I think that we have found common cause on the matter, and I suspect that we also agree that those who are elected and accountable, rather than unelected judges, should take a lead in such matters. However, I shall not go down that philosophical avenue.

It is right that we catch and penalise people who act in a flagrantly irresponsible way and cause enormous nuisance. It is also right that we should change the popular culture: the expectation of what is acceptable in terms of waste. How we do that is a challenge—it could be by information, education or other routes. It includes penalising people when they do wrong, but it also involves trying to encourage them not to do wrong in the first place. I hope that the Minister will address that.

Michael Meacher (Labour, Oldham West and Royton)

Of course that is right. There is a strong consensus in the Committee that we need such a change of culture. As the hon. Gentleman rightly said, our parents and grandparents would not have dreamed of behaving in that way, and if they found their children doing so we would have had quite a hiding. I do not recommend bringing that back, but our local and national leadership, in all its forms, must change its attitude.

In my constituency, come the local elections, a big concern is the British National party. However, that aside, the single issue that people are most concerned about is litter. They do not like living in a neighbourhood that is grotty and degraded and makes them feel bad about themselves. They need some leadership in tidying it up, and then they will begin to behave differently; it will create a virtuous spiral.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I do not want to take the Minister any further round his virtuous spiral. I can say with some authority, because I am, for the moment, the Conservative spokesman—on loan—on such matters, that the Opposition would be very supportive of the Minister in that respect as, I am sure, would be the Government. It is a cross-party issue because we have the same constituency pressures and the same correspondence. If appropriate measures are proposed, the Minister will have support from all parts of the House. I hope that he will have the courage to proceed. He will certainly have my backing.

Michael Meacher (Labour, Oldham West and Royton)

The Government do have the courage to introduce legislation. It is called the Anti-social Behaviour Bill, and I shall come to it. However, it is not as though provisions are not already in place. It is often the exercise of provisions that is lacking. We already have legislation to deal with fly tipping. The key provisions are to be found in part II of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, and in the Refuse Disposal Amenity Act 1978. Other relevant primary legislation includes the Control of Pollution (Amendment) Act 1989, the Public Health Act 1961 and the Highways Act 1980.

Some of those provisions may need to be amended, but one has only to read out a list of legislation to discover that the real problem is that it is not being used to anywhere near its full extent. It is not being policed; no one is detecting or apprehending those who are behaving badly; and when they are caught the penalties are not sufficient. The problem is not a lack of law; it is a lack of readiness and determination to do something about it. This is a cross-party issue. I cannot believe that any serious political party is not wholly behind us. The Anti-social Behaviour Bill—

Norman Baker rose—

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

I am not about to say that I am not fully behind the Bill, so the Minister can cross that off his list of ammunition.

It is not only those who drop litter who are responsible. I refer, for example, to fast-food restaurants that hand out meals in plastic trays, which can later be found lying in the roads in a half-mile radius around the restaurant. When travelling around the country, one can see where McDonald's is by marking the location of the boxes; in the middle of the circle, there will be a McDonald's restaurant. It is the same for the kebab shops in Lewes. What will the Government do about that? They should either encourage those companies to take responsibility for their litter—a producer responsibility—or ensure that those companies patrol the streets themselves rather than putting the bill onto the taxpayer.

Michael Meacher (Labour, Oldham West and Royton)

I called in the leading management from the fast-food manufacturers to discuss that problem. Most of them assured me that they already had a voluntary code of conduct and that the area up to 100 m from their shops was regularly cleaned up by staff. [Interruption.] That is what I was told. It is not for me to say that it is not true, but it certainly does not work as seamlessly as they suggest.

The answer, however, is exactly what the hon. Gentleman suggested: we need independent people on the ground, not only near fast-food shops, although they are the worst, but near fish and chip shops and others that generate a lot of waste. Those people should be independently monitored, and the responsibility has to be clearly identified and action taken. It is not impossible for local authorities to do that now. They have the power, and we have to activate them to act in that way. However, even local authorities will be deterred if the people whom they take to court are given only derisory fines.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I am reluctant to drag this up, but it is important. My constituents cannot understand why those organisations should pack their products in containers that are not disposable and biodegradable. Why cannot packaging be made of card or paper, which would degrade quickly even when discarded? Particular kinds of card or paper would degrade even more quickly, unlike plastic or polystyrene.

With your indulgence, Mr. Amess, I wish to say that the problem does not occur only within 100 m of shops. Drive-through restaurants are a worse problem. People collect the food in their cars and discard the packaging half a mile away, or even, as I know from my rural constituency, in lanes two or three miles away. We all know where it has come from because it has the company's badge and name printed all over it.

Michael Meacher (Labour, Oldham West and Royton)

I accept that, and I share the hon. Gentleman's outrage. I am extremely keen for action to be taken. My view remains, however, that that will not happen without litter wardens or environmental wardens—call them what you like—on the ground. They can detect people dropping packaging, and they can follow up incidents, checking the source and taking appropriate action.

Of course, there is a cost problem associated with that, but the Government's policy is that the money from the penalties imposed on those who commit litter and, I think, dog-fouling offences can be recycled. For the life of me, I cannot see why more local authorities do not take up the opportunity that that policy would provide. We are piloting nine local projects to put people in such roles, and we are seeing what the consequences are. They remind me of parking wardens in Westminster; they are a source of considerable extra money and they deal extremely effectively with a serious social nuisance. The powers to take such steps are there, and we must ensure that they are used.

The Anti-social Behaviour Bill takes forward several important proposals to deal with fly tipping—believe it or not, that is where we started half an hour ago. They include extending to waste collection authorities—not the Environment Agency—the power to investigate incidents of unlawfully deposited waste. They also include the power to stop, search and seize vehicles that authorities suspect of being used unlawfully to deposit waste—a power currently available only to the Environment Agency. That is a modest but not insignificant extension of the powers of local authorities, which I welcome. We are considering what further measures

may be needed, and we intend to announce details later this year.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

Does the Bill allow for an increase in fines for fly tipping, particularly for businesses? When the Minister talks to the Magistrates' Association, will he draw to its attention, if he has not done so already, the relative costs of a fine—where people are caught and successfully prosecuted—and of depositing waste legally? Some of the fines that are handed out are less than the landfill tax.

Michael Meacher (Labour, Oldham West and Royton)

The problem is not that the law reduces the potential for significant or big fines, but that the magistrates will not use them. The magistrates court can impose a fine of up to £20,000, although even I do not suggest that it should be more than that, except for very serious offences. I have asked how many £20,000 fines have been imposed in the past few years for littering or spreading waste on the highway, but I think that the figure is virtually nil. Magistrates are simply not using the powers that are available. If they think that the fine should be more than £20,000 for a very serious offence, they can find the offender guilty and pass him to the county court, which is allowed to impose up to two years' imprisonment, an unlimited fine or both. The powers are there; the issue is the judiciary's commitment to use them.

I have examined various ways of dealing with the issue. I have been in regular touch with the Home Office about the work of the Sentencing Advisory Panel, which is studying guidelines on the appropriate penalty. I have had a meeting with the Magistrates' Association. We have issued new guidelines. I have written articles in the magistrates' journal. I am at a loss to know what more to do to push people.

The hon. Member for Lewes may be saying—he is reading my mind again—that we should have a minimum penalty in legislation. If I said so, I should immediately be told that the lawyers insist that that is not appropriate, because it does not take account of mitigating circumstances. One must therefore leave judges with some flexibility.

One can have a maximum penalty, but neither I nor the hon. Gentleman want that—I want higher penalties that act as a serious deterrent. I think that he will have to leave me to pursue the matter in the Government. I can give him an absolute assurance that I will not give up on it.

Anthony Wright (Labour, Great Yarmouth)

May I just tell my hon. Friend that there might well already be opportunities for the local authorities to reduce the amount of fly tipping? For example, two years ago my local authority limited the free collection of bulky items to two from each household, which has led to a fivefold or sixfold increase in the incidence of fly tipping. That has created a massive problem in my constituency. There are already issues for local authorities to address outside the law and opportunities to take the initiative, rather than have requirements forced on them.

Michael Meacher (Labour, Oldham West and Royton)

I very much agree with that. It is sensible to allow people some measure of flexibility so that they can get rid of bulky items, by refusing to collect them, for example. Alternatively, one could impose a charge of £10 for the removal of bulky items,

which is what the Liberal Democrats did one year ago in Oldham, where, for the time being, they have a majority of one. That was unwise, because despite the increase in income, which is difficult to measure, I suspect that there has been a disproportionate loss in terms of people leaving around large bulky items or fly tipping. One should work with the grain of people who wish to comply with the law, and not put too many obstacles in their path.

To conclude—hon. Members will be delighted—I agree on the importance of a strategy to deliver a more sustainable waste management system, which is why we have already developed a framework that is now in place and which we are trying to deliver. As hon. Members have heard me say—it is a boring record—the Bill is just one part of that delivery.

On the basis of that explanation and the interesting and valuable debate that we have had and on which I shall follow up, I hope that the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings will not press new clause 30.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

In respect of new clause 30, my answer is that I will press it, although I accept much of what the Minister said, and do not intend to speak for very long because we have had a long, wide-ranging, interesting and helpful debate.

The Minister's principal criticism of the amendments and new clauses was that they were too ambitious. However, if he reacquaints himself with new clause 30, he will have to agree that that is not so. That might be true of other new clauses and amendments—I will of course allow the hon. Member for Lewes to speak to his own new clauses. However, new clause 30 is not terribly ambitious, and is neither an insurmountable hill to climb nor an unreasonable target. To detach the Minister from his prepared text for a second, I remind him that new clause 30 says:

''The Secretary of State shall . . . within twelve months put before Parliament a strategy to deliver a year on year decrease in the volume of waste sent to landfill that shall be commensurate with statutory reductions in the weight and volume of waste sent to landfill as required by Clause One''.

That is, frankly, pretty sympathetic to the objectives of the Bill. Crumbs—requiring a ''year on year decrease'' is not asking the earth. Rather, it is asking for steady progress towards the targets that have been set for us and which are the driving factor behind the Bill. I see no great difficulty with that proposal—it is certainly not over-ambitious. Reporting progress to Parliament is simply a matter of proper scrutiny and an opportunity to debate the issues in the House and more widely.

The Minister talked about weight and volume and I take his point that there are difficulties and technical questions that one would need to examine closely. However, it would not be impossible to come to a sensible arrangement about volume, in which I should think a combination of technology and mathematics could be employed. I bear in mind the Minister's points on that subject, but I do not think that they are incompatible with the new clause because it is broad. It does not specify a ratio, as we did in earlier debate, but allows great flexibility; indeed, new clause 30 gives the

Secretary of State the opportunity to specify the formula that will accurately measure the significance of waste by volume against weight.

Although the vote will not take place right now, when the time comes we will press new clause 30 because it does not detract from the Bill one iota; in fact it adds to it. It would allow us to debate the matters more fully on Report. I am not sure that the Minister's principal criticisms of the other new clauses and amendments count as persuasively for new clause 30.

Michael Meacher (Labour, Oldham West and Royton)

Very briefly, if the hon. Gentleman wishes to press the clause to a Division, he will do so. However, I ask him two questions. First, does he have an answer to the methodological problems of measurement by volume? Secondly, the clause calls on the Secretary of State to specify a formula

''which accurately measures the significance of waste by volume against waste by weight.''

Why should that make any difference to the success of the strategy?

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

Those are very incisive questions, and I shall attempt to answer them. The first answer was given in my explanation: the clause specifies that the Secretary of State shall make the judgment about methodological issues. I accepted the Secretary of State's concerns about the methods, and he made some telling points. However, I find it difficult to believe that it is impossible; there must be a way through it, and it is important that we find it. If we abandon any consideration of volume by simply concentrating on weight—the Minister acknowledged the significance of the issue when it was first raised on Thursday—it will not receive the consideration that it is due.

The answer to the second question is that it may be a growing problem. We do not know the relationship between weight and volume and how, or if, it affects the increase in waste. Unless we have some measurement, we will not be able to reach a conclusion about whether the challenges that we face on increased waste are principally problems of volume or of weight or both. If both, how do they relate to each other? The measurement is an attempt to assess the trend and the nature of the problem so that we can build it into the strategy. I acknowledge that the methodology would have to be examined closely and decided upon after proper consultation, scrutiny and analysis. Therefore, although I accept that there are difficulties, it would be useful to press the new clause to a Division so that we can debate those matters further at later stages of the Bill.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

This has been a very good, if long, debate, so I shall try not to detain the Committee. However, I suspect that we shall make rather faster progress once clause 17 has been dealt with. I argue the merits of the clauses in my name and in that of my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Sue Doughty). I shall not compare them with new clause 30, as that could be unduly divisive and inappropriate. The clauses on fly tipping cannot be called ambitious. Indeed, they are very unambitious; they are very

modest clauses, and I am surprised that the Minister has not grabbed them with both hands. They merely ask for a strategy.

Despite those frivolous comments, I thank the Minister for his comments on fly tipping. He has convinced me that he takes the matter seriously and that there could be restrictions for dealing with it elsewhere rather than in his Department. Therefore I shall not press our amendments to a Division, but I hope that in return the Minister might drop a line to all members of the Committee to let us know the progress on the points that I made and on those made by the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings about the materials used in fast food. Perhaps he will let us know what contact he has had with the Magistrates' Association and others, as there are matters outside his remit that affect fly tipping. It would be helpful if the Minister could give us an update on progress so that we know how far we are likely to get. I shall certainly mention the issues that have been raised this afternoon to my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green), who is dealing with related matters on the Anti-social Behaviour Bill, so that he can raise them in that context, because it is important that an environmental impact assessment also takes place as part of that process.

The idea of zero waste is ambitious, but I make no apologies for tabling an amendment that is aspirational—a word that the Government use for targets that they do not intend to meet, such as those relating to renewable energy. It is right to put down a marker and say where we want to go. There is no harm in setting what might seem to be unrealistic targets, although I have no idea whether we will be able to meet them in 20 or 30 years. The other day I quoted Lenin, but I think it was Chairman Mao who said that a journey of 100 miles starts with a single step.

Alan Whitehead (Labour, Southampton, Test)

That was Confucious.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

How could I make such a mistake—well, it was someone Chinese.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

Presumably not from a Chinese takeaway.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

I would not take away either of those two characters.

If we set aspirational targets, we may find that people respond in unexpected and helpful ways. For example, in California, a target was set for the use of petrol-free cars. Everyone said that it could not be done, but it was. Sometimes, it helps to set targets that look impossible, and in many ways, Californians have led the environmental movement.

Sue Doughty (Liberal Democrat, Guildford)

As those of us who, for our sins, have been involved with such programmes know, some of these ideas about aspirational targets are borrowed from quality management and total quality management programmes. In the case of quality, defects are driven out until one gets as close to zero as possible. We are trying to work towards zero waste. It is rare to get total quality, but the constant process of working to keep on identifying the next slice

of improvement is valuable. That is one of the original sources of the term zero waste.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who makes her point well and emphasises why aspirational targets are appropriate. No one has mentioned closed-link technology, except in passing, and I would like to see the Government pushing that, to ensure that industry creates no waste in the first place. If we could minimise the waste stream and minimise industry's costs, we would give this country a competitive edge. As we progress further into this century, environmental progress and environmental technology will be key drivers for the economy. We must be at the forefront of that. There are advantages all ways around from aspiring to a target of zero waste.

The Minister rightly referred to the need to decouple economic growth concepts from waste production. It is important that we start thinking along those lines in a way that we have not done hitherto.

The Minister was also right to mention local authorities, because they can do a lot to recycle litter. I would not wish to adopt the laissez-faire attitude of new Labour or the Stalinist attitude of the Conservative party with regard to dictating to local government. There is a middle way between the two. I hope that if the Minister has not done so, he will think about issuing guidance to local authorities, not in a prescriptive way, but setting out the facts and figures, the powers that they already have and those that the Government are now giving them through other legislation. There is value in telling local authorities what they can do because they do not always know.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

That is an extremely interesting suggestion. We have had a light-hearted but important debate. Given the strength of feeling on both sides of the Committee, regardless of party, I suggest that the Minister take that on board and once again issue guidance—I am sure that it is there already—to reinforce the message on the issues that have been raised.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

I should be grateful if the Minister would do that. He has heard both Opposition spokesmen advocating it. He would find it helpful. Perhaps he and his officials will consider how it can be done as part of the process of education.

Michael Meacher (Labour, Oldham West and Royton)

I am very happy to do that without a commitment, because it could be that I find that guidance was issued six months ago—I cannot recall whether that is the case. I would like to think seriously about the suggestion. It would be valuable to alert local authorities to their powers and responsibilities and to see how far we can stimulate greater use of them. I shall consider the matter with my officials and make a statement later.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

That is typically helpful of the Minister, who is much loved by all of us on the Committee and beyond. He is not an isolated figure—he is admired by Liberal Democrats if not in Government circles, even though, for reasons that escape me, he made an uncharacteristically partisan point about Orders in Council. However, to pick up

the point made by the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle, I would remind him that I tabled a parliamentary question some time ago asking why he was not in the Cabinet. That was when the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions was in place, with a Secretary of State in the Cabinet. The Transport Minister was then No. 2 in the DETR and to make a level playing field, the Environment Minister should have been put in the Cabinet, yet our Environment Minister was not. Apart from the qualities that he brings, it would indicate a wider respect for the environment by the Government. That is why I keep banging away about the fact that the Government's environmental record should be the Minister's environmental record. If I make a plea for him to be given a Cabinet position, I am sure that that will put the mochas on it once and for all.

Lastly, in terms of bring and buy, I refer the Minister to the comments that I made on Second Reading. We want local sustainability, minimum transport movements and reuse of materials. The best example that I can give him is Harvey's brewery in my constituency. It produces fantastic local beer in Lewes and sells it locally in glass bottles with deposits. They are all returned to Harvey's. I shall be happy to supply the Minister with a bottle of Harvey's beer—if he does not regard it as a bribe—so that he can enjoy it and return the bottle to me to return to the brewery in due course.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 17, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 18 - Strategy for Scotland

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I beg to move amendment No. 73, in

clause 18, page 12, line 37, at end insert

'and must be in accordance with the Best Practicable Environmental Option.'.

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

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

No. 74, in

clause 19, page 13, line 25, at end insert

'and must be in accordance with the Best Practicable Environmental Option.'.

No. 75, in

clause 20, page 14, line 13, at end insert

'and must be in accordance with the Best Practicable Environmental Option.'.

No. 76, in

clause 24, page 16, line 21, at end insert—

'(6) In this Chapter ''Best Practicable Environmental Option'' or ''BPEC'' means the outcome of a systematic consultative and decisionmaking procedure which emphasises the protection and conservation of the environment across land, air and water. The BPEO procedure establishes for a given set of objectives, the option that provides the most benefits or the least damage to the environment as a whole, at acceptable cost, in the long term as well as the short term.'.

I should point out that we shall debate the amendments. However, clauses 18, 19 and 20 will all be moved formally.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I hesitated in case my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle wanted to leap to his feet, but I have interrupted his research for the later stages of the Bill. These are straightforward amendments. I do not think that they will take quite as long as the matters that we have just discussed—I see Committee members nodding in agreement. They relate, essentially, to the affairs of Scotland and Wales. To that extent, they are designed as an addition—

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

The ''Best Practical Environmental Option'' is surely that which my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire sought to achieve through the amendment. That was simply to ensure that at no stage did we see what we mentioned earlier—the dumping of recyclable material in landfill sites. The Minister has taken us through this, but we are back in the same old groove.

I am sure that you will agree, Mr. Amess, that although it is a long intervention, it is important. We are seeking to achieve it in every authority in Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. That is the reason for the amendments. I think that the Minister will agree that ''Best Practicable Environmental Option'' would be a helpful and useful addition, although he will doubtless sally forth with his usual comment—that the Bill does not need amending.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

My hon. Friend won more brownie points in that short time than in the rest of the Committee's proceedings. He is right that the ''Best Practicable Environmental Option'', the phrase that my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire uses in the amendment, is a means of devising a systematic procedure to emphasise the protection and conservation of the environment across land and water—as explained in amendment No. 76. It should apply to Scotland and Wales, as well as to England. It would be a useful additional catch-all provision, an opportunity for us to say that the Bill is targeted at a range of objectives, but that the Bill's wider impact needs to be tested. This useful summary amendment would allow us to do precisely that.

The procedure would establish a given set of objectives. The option would provide the most benefits for the least damage to the environment as a whole, with an acceptable cost in the long term as well as the short term. It is broad and deep; it would give us an opportunity to measure the overall impact of the Bill across a range of areas and over time. It is a strategic amendment, as suggested in previous discussions. The Opposition believe that it is important that the signals that we transmit should be part of a wider strategy. In that, we are close to the Liberal Democrats—as close as I ever want to be, but they take the same view.

I do not want to labour the point yet again, because, time and again, the Minister returns us to the ''Waste Strategy 2000'' and ''Waste Not, Want Not''. I assure him that we are aware of those documents and that we understand them. We do not argue that the Bill should replace either of them, and certainly not the strategy, but that it should interlock with them.

The Minister underestimates the need to telegraph or signal that message. I am concerned that the Bill

will be seen as excessively narrow. I hesitate to use the term again, but I will—I do not want the Bill to be seen as legislative cover. It should be seen as something of importance—in itself and in terms of its relationship with the bigger picture and the wider strategy. By allowing a procedure that facilitates a deeper and broader analysis, the amendment would help us achieve that bigger objective. To that end, I am delighted to commend the amendment.

Sue Doughty (Liberal Democrat, Guildford)

I shall speak briefly. As the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings said, his party and mine are close on this matter. The ''Best Practicable Environmental Option'' is increasingly being adopted by councillors as a way of looking at their waste strategies. Clause 18 strengthens the tools that are available to them. We spoke earlier about many of the problems with the waste hierarchy, and incineration's place in that hierarchy. There are deep fears that large incinerators will be dotted across the country as a means to solve the problem of biodegradable municipal waste. If one considers the Bill without this clause, some of the strategies will seem more attractive than asking, ''What is the 'Best Practicable Environmental Option'?''

The Conservative amendment strengthens the proximity principle and the holistic approach to waste management, which is better than saying, ''Shall we send this waste to landfill or to incineration?'' The amendment is useful, as is the fact that the party has picked up on the royal commission's definition of environmental pollution. We are happy to support the amendment. I have not seen where the BPEO definition is included in the English legislation; however, having seen it included for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, I may have missed the point at which the hon. Member for South Holland and the Deepings mentioned it. I stand corrected if it has been included elsewhere.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

What a delight it is to be called, Mr. Amess. As the hon. Member for Guildford said, the ''Best Practicable Environmental Option'' will add some weight to the Bill. I add my support for the amendment, although I cannot do so as eloquently as my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire would have done had he not had a damaged foot. The amendment would help the Bill, and I hope that the Minister will agree that to introduce these now widely accepted terms would be thoroughly constructive, and it would add tremendously to his gravitas.

Michael Meacher (Labour, Oldham West and Royton)

I do not wish to encourage the hon. Member for Leominster too much.

The BPEO is defined in amendment No. 76, so I need not repeat it. The definition derives from the 12th report of the royal commission on environmental pollution. It is a published and well recognised tool to aid decision making in areas that will affect our environment.

I strongly agree with the amendment, but there is no need to codify the definition of the BPEO in legislation. That would be disadvantageous, because it is a working definition in the same way as I said that the waste strategy is a working document. The BPEO

definition is not an authoritative exposition that is set in stone. It can change through experience or due to a change in the state of the natural environment. It is a way to think about issues that could be subject to change. None of that detracts from the definition's value. I understand the intention behind amendments Nos. 73 to 75, which would require the measures for achieving targets mentioned in strategies for Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland to be in accordance with the BPEO.

The BPEO procedure was the guiding principle in the development of those strategies, and that tool continues to be used to inform their delivery. In England, ''Waste Strategy 2000'' uses the same definition as that used in the amendment. It gives specific advice on how decision makers can identify the BPEO. The Department's guidance for local authorities on municipal waste management strategies specifically mentions the need for what happens locally to be determined on the basis of the BPEO. ''Wise about Waste—National Strategy for Wales'' also uses the definition contained in the amendment, and that document identifies that BPEO methodology should be used in specific circumstances, such as when local authorities are preparing municipal waste management strategies or when local planning authorities are considering planning applications for waste facilities.

Scotland and Northern Ireland have yet to prepare their strategies to comply with the requirements of the landfill directive, although Scotland's current national waste plan and the Northern Ireland waste management strategy 2000 are both explicitly based on BPEO methodology. I assure the Committee that their strategies, as required under the Bill, will do the same. Used in the right way, BPEO methodology can be useful and effective. Each part of the UK has already recognised that fact and is using it to inform its strategy. On that basis, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will understand that the amendments are not necessary.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

I rise to my feet and thank the Minister. Does my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings agree with the Minister's conclusions? If he does, I shall sit down quickly. I am grateful to the Minister for his comments, and I am glad that those matters have been taken into consideration. I am not sure whether we should be pressing this to a vote at this stage.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

My hon. Friend is seeking a quid pro quo for an earlier intervention. My judgment is that the Minister has made helpful remarks, to which I referred when my hon. Friend sat down, but my inclination is that if my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire were here, he would be unlikely to put it to a vote.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

I am grateful for that intervention. In order to hear the rest of the comments that my hon. Friend is likely to make, I shall sit down.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

That was most dextrous of my hon. Friend. The key point is the reference to the well accepted approach. The Minister properly acknowledged, that the BPEO is a well established

and well respected means of assessing wider impact. My hon. Friend is anxious to insert it in the Bill, but, in a sense, it would be too demanding and it would constrain the Government and the Bill too tightly. We can debate the issue in the later stages of the Bill, and we may now seek a compromise—an acceptance that the BPEO should be taken into account or borne in mind—although I understand the Minister's reluctance to make a definitive commitment.

If we were to gain from the Minister a suggestion—and I think that he has half-given it—that the Bill and its measures would be subject to such independent scrutiny but would not be constrained by it, that would be extremely positive and it would confirm my instinct not to press the matter to a vote. I do not know whether or not I am making myself clear. I understand why he would not want the BPEO included in the Bill, but we should not detach it entirely from our consideration of the Bill's implications and legislative requirements. The Minister may come back on that point or intervene, but on that basis, I do not want to press the matter to a vote.

Michael Meacher (Labour, Oldham West and Royton)

I should be surprised if the hon. Gentleman pressed such a matter to the vote because the BPEO, as I indicated, is already widely used. It is used by two of the four countries within the UK, and the other two are expected to start using it this year. It follows a practice that was set down as a procedure by the royal commission and is exhaustively used by the Environment Agency. There is no dispute about it. The only issue is that including in legislation would not be wise because it would encase too rigidly in stone what is meant to be a dynamic concept. The BPEO is relative to the exact circumstances of the case. It cannot be described in a generality that applies whatever the circumstances. So long as it is widely, if not universally, accepted—there are no problems with its application so far as I know—it is best to leave it as it is and not to include it in the Bill.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

The Minister has satisfied my inquiry. Our thought was that it was widely used and had application to the Bill. It is the background against which the Bill is painted, and it will be adopted by the other parts of the UK, which is why my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire proposed the amendments applying the concept not just to England but to Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. I fully understand the Minister's point. We would not want to fix the concept in stone; it is dynamic rather than static. The environment itself changes, so measurement in broad environmental terms is bound to be a moving target. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 18 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 19 and 20 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 21 - ''Biodegradable waste'' and ''municipal waste''

Sue Doughty (Liberal Democrat, Guildford)

I beg to move amendment No. 78, in

clause 21, page 14, line 41, leave out 'such as' and insert 'including, but not exclusively'.

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

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

No. 79, in

clause 21, page 14, line 42, leave out 'and'.

No. 80, in

clause 21, page 14, line 43, at end insert

', and certain plastics designed specifically to degrade within a period of 12 months'.

Sue Doughty (Liberal Democrat, Guildford)

The purpose of the amendments is to recognise that the scope for biodegradable waste has increased in the last few years. We used to think of it merely as food and garden waste and paper and paper board, but new technologies have created packaging, in particular, from other materials. One hears about packaging made from potato starch, which is biodegradable, and plastic carrier bags that can degrade within the year. I worry that we talk about biodegradable municipal waste without really knowing what it is. We all know what garden waste and food waste look like. However, with the packaging and other materials that are coming into use, we do not know what is biodegradable. Our purpose in adding the words

''certain plastics designed specifically to degrade''

was to draw attention to the fact that some materials are creeping into common use and to ask whether they are part of the biodegradable waste that we are counting.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

My contribution will be in the form of two questions. The Minister may be able to answer them now. If not, I hope that he will either answer them in writing or come back to the Committee. They relate to the first and second parts of the clause.

The hon. Member for Guildford referred to the first of my questions, which relates to the changing nature of biodegradable waste and how it is defined. Just as the Minister said in our last discussion, these things are dynamic, both in the processes that can be employed to assist with waste disposal, which are constantly changing, and in the nature of the materials with which we are dealing. New materials are being developed all the time—for example, plastics are becoming more biodegradable in some cases and less hazardous in others. What impact is that likely to have on the steps that we need to take to meet the requirements of the Bill? That will have an impact on recovery, reuse and recycling. Can the Minister give us more detail about the changing nature of biodegradable waste?

My second question relates to municipal waste, although, again, I do not expect the Minister necessarily to have the information to hand. I want to know how municipal waste is changing. As lifestyles, technology and the materials that we use change, so does the typical municipal waste bin. To use the Minister's phrase, what goes into wheelie bins now will be quite different from what went into them five, 10 or 20 years ago. We must have a profile of waste so that we can reach proper conclusions about how to deal with it. Unless that profile is accurate—again, I accept that this is a dynamic issue—it is hard

to reach conclusions about the Bill's likely effectiveness.

So, I am seeking information about biodegradability, the waste profile and the relevant trends. I would be grateful if the Minister could pick up those matters.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

I have a short question. We are dealing with the definition of biodegradable waste, but at what point is biodegradable waste biodegraded? At what point is it no longer biodegradable? Is there such a definition? In my constituency, a tremendous company called Biorganics runs a composting scheme. It deals largely with feathers from the Sun Valley factory, which is just inside the Hereford constituency. One of the factory's big problems is the huge amount of feathers that it produces, because it has no way of dealing with them. They are made of keratin, which does not naturally break down, which is why one sees feathers lying round the countryside. However, the scheme allows compost to be produced—at least, that is the generic term. In fact, it is a sort of soil, which is used on the fields. It is a tremendous fertiliser.

Hugh Robertson (Conservative, Faversham and Mid Kent)

For growing chickens?

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

My hon. Friend teases me.

Unfortunately, the composting process is rather smelly. It produces a strong smell of ammonia, which upsets the residents of Stoke Prior and to which they are quite sensitive.

As I said, therefore, I am curious to know at what point during the process biodegradable waste is biodegraded. I hope that the Minister can tell me, because it would be helpful to know.

I am also curious about the scheme under which councils may find it useful to encourage householders to put their compostable waste in a green bag and have it taken away, rather than composting it themselves in their garden. Councils, as municipal authorities, may be tempted to increase the amount of biodegradable waste that they compost rather than preventing it from going in the bin in the first place.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

There is an interesting point, which my hon. Friend may want to tease out of the Minister. Has a model been produced to assess the effectiveness and efficiency of that scheme? An earlier amendment referred to providing composters to householders and raised the issue of whether that might not be an appropriate way of encouraging the proper and responsible treatment of waste. I worry slightly that the alternative of providing a facility where people can have materials composted for them is less effective. It will certainly mean more journeys, and it will be a bigger process. If things are dealt with on site, they will obviously be dealt with more quickly and efficiently. Have the Department or the Minister produced a model to assess the scheme?

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

I am grateful for that. I was about to make those very points myself, and now I no longer need to—without scraping the bottom of the wheelie bin, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle was teasing me earlier.

I hope that the Minister will address those two important points. First, there is the point about when biodegradable waste is no longer biodegradable. Secondly, what happens if the definition does not encourage people to use their council in relation to composting? I am talking about people who have the chance of composting material themselves, rather than people—perhaps living in a block of flats—who are not in a position to have even a communal composter or wormery.

Alan Whitehead (Labour, Southampton, Test)

The hon. Gentleman may like to know that some research—I do not know the exact references—was carried out by local authorities some while ago, following the distribution of composters. The results showed that only something like 10 to 15 per cent. of people to whom composters were distributed used them as composters. There were many other uses: rabbit hutches, storage for tools and old running shoes and so on. However, the actual use of composters as such was fairly low. I am sure that he will want to take that into account.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

I am grateful for an intervention that was both light-hearted and important. Composters are, as hon. Members probably know, a type of dustbin into the top of which material for compost can be put. Compost is readily available at the bottom. The problem with composters is that many people just have a pile. I believe that at Barker Towers, where my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle lives, there are many compost heaps—that is what he was whispering to me earlier. People would normally have a compost heap, rather than a composter. If people are using composters for storing tools and a variety of other purposes, that is a shame. I hope that every effort will continue to be made to encourage people to have a compost heap of their own.

Michael Meacher (Labour, Oldham West and Royton)

The amendments are about matters of definition, although one would not have guessed that from the debate. Not only was I asked earlier about an algebraic formula, but I am now being asked about when biodegradable waste is biodegraded. I am not sure that I can answer those questions, so I shall turn to the amendments.

The amendments would amend the definition of biodegradable waste in the clause by replacing the words ''such as'' with ''including, but not exclusively''. They also remove an ''and'' and add at the end of subsection (1)

''and certain plastics designed specifically to degrade within a period of 12 months''.

On the first point, we can argue about the meaning of words, but the words ''such as'' mean the same as, but are better than, ''including, but not exclusively''. I am not sure about the force of the argument for making the change. The key point—I shall also argue this about definitions of biodegradable waste—is that the words in the Bill are used in the landfill directive definition. That is important, because, as I keep on saying, we are concerned with meeting our requirements under article 5(2) of the directive. For that reason, I cannot accept amendment No. 78.

The changes proposed in amendments Nos. 79 and 80 would also result in the definition in the Bill being

different from that in the landfill directive. They would extend the list of examples of biodegradable waste to include specifically

''plastic designed . . . to degrade within a period of 12 months''.

What does the phrase in the amendment mean? Does it mean completely degrade, partially degrade, or that the process of degradation has begun? That is one difficulty. The real point is that the amendment is unnecessary: to the extent that any waste is capable of anaerobic or aerobic decomposition, it will be biodegradable. It is not necessary for such waste to be expressly included in the clause.

Gregory Barker (Conservative, Bexhill and Battle)

If one is to create useful compost, it is imperative that one is discerning about the materials that are composted and separating them out. If one simply uses any material that is capable of being composted or biodegraded, one ends up with something dangerous. I am thinking particularly of cooked foods, which are often mistakenly put into kitchen composters. That is probably the most common example. I wonder how the definitions will help to inform a strategy that, in turn, will help to inform a wider public about how we ensure that what we compost serves a useful purpose, rather than simply becoming problematic.

Michael Meacher (Labour, Oldham West and Royton)

I do not believe that the definitions in the landfill directive or the Bill will answer the sort of problems to which the hon. Gentleman referred. The problems are relevant, and are answered by having an organic standard for composting. We spent several months last year producing an organic standard that we finally published. It was subject to widespread consultation with the Composting Association and stakeholders about what was good quality, recognised organic composting. That has now been agreed and is established, and is the answer to the hon. Gentleman's question.

There was also the problem of animal by-products being put into home composting. After foot and mouth, the Government were extremely concerned that no action should be taken that might resurrect foot and mouth in this country. On the other hand, we were criticised because the exclusion was so wide that home composting was completely discouraged. We sought through a European Union regulation to try to find the right balance between the two. We want to encourage home composting, but without any risk of human or animal disease.

The definition of biodegradable waste in the Bill is, as I said, derived from the landfill directive. It is important that the definitions are the same, as the objective of the landfill allowance scheme is to meet the targets set in article 5(2) of the directive. A wider definition would complicate the system and disconnect it from the landfill targets in the directive. In order to demonstrate that we have met our obligations under the directive, our report to the Commission would have to submit figures using the directive definition. At the very least, that would create unnecessary complications for the monitoring authority, as it would need to collect figures covering both definitions. It would also bring further pressure to bear on disposal authorities, which I am not sure is the

intention. A narrower definition would mean that we had failed to implement the directive fully, and would leave us open to infraction proceedings. The amendment carries that risk to the extent that it seeks to introduce a time limit on when waste can decompose.

We should stick closely to the definitions in the directive. I cannot answer biological questions about the nature of biodegradability, although I could get experts to answer them. However, that is not the point. However they are answered, the important point is that we keep close to the directive. I almost said that we are required to do so whether it is right or wrong, because that is what we are required to do by law. I cannot accept the amendment for those reasons.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

The Minister is asking what we do when waste has been biodegraded by some other method. In the case of the feathers, which I described earlier, it is soil, which is then put on a field. It could be put in a hole in the ground, which might be construed as landfill. That is why the definition is important, because the sort of landfill that soil and feathers represent is not the sort of landfill that we are talking about in the Bill. However, the example is still valid, which is why the definitions are critical.

Michael Meacher (Labour, Oldham West and Royton)

I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. The waste acceptance criteria define inert waste. If biodegradable waste is treated so that it meets that definition, it ceases to be biodegradable waste, which answers the hon. Gentleman's point. Any plastic capable of anaerobic or aerobic composition is biodegradable waste, to which amendment No. 80 relates, and will be biodegradable waste according to the definition in the clause. I hope that the hon. Member for Guildford will be satisfied by that explanation and does not need to pursue the amendment.

On the main thrust of this group of amendments, however, I repeat that the matter is not about substantive policy issues but definitions, which I insist must be close, if not identical, to those in the landfill directive.

Sue Doughty (Liberal Democrat, Guildford)

I thank the Minister for that clarification, which was what we were seeking. We were concerned about what falls inside and outside the category of biodegradable, yet the Minister took an interesting and helpful angle on that question, and tied it back to the original objectives of the Bill, which we all support. Having received that answer, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sue Doughty (Liberal Democrat, Guildford)

I beg to move amendment No. 81, in

clause 21, page 15, line 4, after 'waste', insert 'collected by collection authorities'.

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

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

No. 82, in

clause 21, page 15, line 5, after 'waste', insert 'collected by collection authorities'.

No. 83, in

clause 21, page 15, line 6, at end insert—

'(c) and is in the case of (a) and/or (b) recorded for official purposes as such'.

Sue Doughty (Liberal Democrat, Guildford)

One might think that inserting the words ''collected by collection authorities'' would be an obvious thing to do. However, we are concerned, because councils have had a lot of problems in measuring their recycling levels. There has recently been an outbreak of sparring between political parties, as each has tried to prove that it is the greenest. The definition of how waste is measured has changed as the years have gone by. As each council tries to prove that it is green and that its recycling figures are on the gentle upward path, other parties come along, take advantage of the fact that the definition has changed and say, ''No they're not.'' Everything depends on how one counts things, as opposed to whether the general thrust is towards increased recycling, and we have been concerned about that.

We wish to define waste from households as municipal waste that is ''collected by collection authorities''. However, that waste could also be that which is collected at municipal waste facilities or dumped waste that is collected. Such distinctions are important when we try to define the figures. With the amendment we are trying to clarify the exact point at which household waste becomes biodegradable municipal waste and counted for those purposes. The worst example might be the problem of home composting. An estimate used to be made of the amount of waste that went to composting and was included in figures as a generally agreed rate. Now, however, councils are not sure what effect that has on the overall figures and what is sent to recycling.

There is still the problem of how to reward councils that encourage households by giving them cones and composters. We do not see that waste, because although people are being virtuous and filling up their composters nicely with it, it does not go anywhere to be recycled because it is not even collected in the first place. The amendment seeks clarification on how such waste is counted so that when councils look at their performance figures, they know the exact point at which it becomes material sent for recycling.

Michael Meacher (Labour, Oldham West and Royton)

The amendment would amend the definition of municipal waste in subsection (3) by limiting it to waste that is ''collected by collection authorities'' and recorded as such. As I have said many times, and again a only few moments ago, the landfill allowances scheme that the Bill would establish is designed to implement the requirements of article 5(2) of the landfill directive. We must not do anything that could result in the United Kingdom's under-implementing the directive. In order to do that, we must, as I said in the previous debate, ensure that our definitions are consistent.

Not all waste is collected by collection authorities. Waste disposal authorities have a duty to arrange for places where residents can deposit household waste and for the disposal of that waste. The amendments would result in such waste being excluded from the

landfill allowances scheme, even when it falls within the definition of biodegradable municipal waste. That could leave us open to infringement proceedings brought by the Commission.

I am not sure what the amendments want to achieve by requiring waste to be recorded before it falls into the definition of municipal waste. That would seem to narrow the definition and could lead to infringement proceedings. Solid municipal waste arisings are already recorded and will continue to be so. Municipal waste sent to landfill will also be recorded, as will the amount of such waste diverted to other forms of waste management. All the figures will be supplied to the monitoring authority to enable proper checks to be made, so I submit that there is no need to add the requirement to the definition.

The hon. Lady may have been tabled the amendments to probe what lay behind the provisions. I hope that I have given her an adequate explanation and that she will not press the amendments.

Sue Doughty (Liberal Democrat, Guildford)

I thank the Minister for his response. He is right to say that the amendments are probing, because the issues have caused many problems to councils in trying to establish what they are and are not collecting. We have had various discussions about collection and disposal authorities, the interface between the two and how we can co-ordinate their efforts to exploit best what the directive is trying to do. We all want that, but we do not want to fall over on the definition.

The Minister's answer was helpful because if he had said something else, we might have found that we were excluding material. However, his answer implies that we want to include as much in the counting as possible. That is what we wanted to determine, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I raised a couple of significant questions in the debate on the first group of amendments. The Minister properly did not respond to them because, as he implied in his response, they were really stand part points, so I shall raise them now. I shall repeat them for his convenience, and he may want to address them.

My first point is about the nature of biodegradable waste. As I said, that is dynamic, as the contents of a waste bin are changing, and, because technology is changing, things are now biodegradable that were not before. Processes are improving, and it would be useful to have some feel for how that is happening. What are the trends? What is the current picture and what is it likely to be in a year or five years? If we are going to have the strategy we all want, we will need to set targets, and we will need to set them against the trends. Is there a model for that, and is the Minister aware of it?

My second related point is about subsection (3), which defines municipal waste. If we are going to make a judgment about whether the nature of biodegradability is changing, we must make a

judgment about the profile of the average household's waste. It may be getting bigger or smaller, or it may be that the balance of waste is changing. Lifestyle issues may have had an impact on that during the past decade or more. I do not want to speak too much about my childhood, as it makes me sound as if I am lost in a halcyon past, but in the golden age when there were only ever Conservative Governments and television programmes were so much better, I suspect that the average waste bin was rather different. Again, there are probably models of that, and if we are going to meet the targets, I would be interested to know what measurements have been made of the change in waste profile and how it affects them.

Those are specific and testing issues, and I appreciate that the Minister may not have the information readily to hand, though perhaps he does, judging by what he is reading. If he wishes to return to the Committee later with the information or send it in writing, I would be satisfied.

Michael Meacher (Labour, Oldham West and Royton)

I apologise to the hon. Gentleman; he did raise the issue earlier. I made a note of it and failed to respond to my own note. The definition of biodegradability does not change. I think that the hon. Gentleman is asking about the nature of biodegradable waste and the trends in it. The main components of municipal waste are paper, cans, glass, textiles and disposable nappies. Trends develop over time, but I do not have the information to hand. However, I will endeavour to collect it and make a statement at the beginning of the next sitting on 29 April.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

That is most helpful. I am sure that the Minister has accepted that I asked the questions for a good reason, and I am grateful to him.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 21 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 22 - ''Landfill''

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

I beg to move amendment No. 84, in

clause 22, page 15, line 8, after 'land', insert

'both solid rock and sedimentary deposits, including soil'.

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

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

No. 85, in

clause 22, page 15, line 15, at end insert

', provided that this waste is not subsequently sent to landfill at that same site.'.

No. 15, in

clause 22, page 15, line 19, leave out 'three years' and insert 'one year'.

No. 86, in

clause 22, page 15, line 20, leave out 'one year' and insert 'three months'.

No. 87, in

clause 22, page 15, line 21, after 'deposit', insert 'and/or storage'.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

With good will on both sides, it should be possible to deal with this group of amendments quickly. They are disparate amendments that have been grouped together, so each will require an explanation. Amendment No. 84 is simply a probing amendment to establish the Minister's definition of land, as it is important to clarify that. We have suggested a possible definition. Amendment No. 87 is an attempt to tidy up what could be an ambiguous arrangement in clause 22(3), by inserting the word ''storage.''

Amendment No. 85 expresses our concern that a possible abuse could be built into the Bill because clause 22(2)(a) allows for the temporary storage of waste, but clause 22(2)(b) speaks of waste being deemed suitable for disposal. It is possible, with a site that is doubling as a waste transfer site as well as a landfill site, that waste received for landfill could, if it is convenient for reaching targets, be classified as waste that is being stored. That could happen even if the intention is to deposit it in landfill elsewhere on the site or even at the place where it is being stored. That loophole should be closed. I hope that the Minister will respond to that.

Amendments Nos. 15 and 86 seek to reduce the time that waste can be held in limbo. They seek to

avoid possible abuses in the classification of waste. It may be possible for waste to be held under clause 22(2)(d) for up to a year before it is disposed of. The receiver of the waste ought to know quite quickly whether it is to be disposed of or not. If it is to be disposed of, what is the point of storing it on site for a year? That opens a possible loophole. Clause 22(2)(c) speaks of

''the storage of waste, prior to recovery or treatment, for a period of less than three years as a general rule''

That is excessive. How will such waste be held for the three years? Is that counted for the purposes of the Bill as waste that has been subject to treatment or disposal, and therefore recovery—waste that has been dealt with effectively, as is the Bill's intention? Or is it treated as waste held, or waste that is in effect landfill because it is being held without being recovered or recycled? There is a loophole in that respect that needs to be closed.

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

I wish the Committee a happy Easter.

Debate adjourned.—[Mr. Ainger.]

Adjourned accordingly at Five o'clock till Tuesday 29 April at five minutes to Nine o'clock.