|
Column Number: 263
Standing Committee B
Tuesday 29 April 2003
(Morning)
[Mr. Win Griffiths in the Chair]
8.55 am
The Chairman: Before we resume our debate, I shall give the Minister the opportunity to clarify one or two issues that he wants to bring to the Committee's attention.
The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Michael Meacher): I am very grateful, Mr. Griffiths.
At our sitting on Thursday 10 April, the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) asked a number of questions about trends in the nature of biodegradable waste and in the profile of waste from the average household. I have responded in writing to nearly all the issues raised, and I hope that hon. Members will receive those responses today. I am sorry that that will not be in time for this morning's sitting, and for that reason I shall state some of our main conclusions.
Unfortunately, we do not have any information about trends in the nature of biodegradable waste. However, analysis of waste composition based on work done in the mid–1990s gives information about the proportion of the municipal waste stream that is biodegradable and about the main waste streams that make up that element. According to those data, around 63 per cent.—nearly two thirds—of municipal waste is biodegradable. That is the figure that will be used by the Secretary of State when setting targets for England, Scotland and Wales for the landfill allowance scheme.
Around 51 per cent.—that is just over half—of biodegradable municipal waste is made up of paper and card, and a further 33 per cent.—a third—is made up of putrescible waste such as green waste and food waste. The remaining 16 per cent. is made up of textiles, fines and miscellaneous combustible materials. Further analysis of the composition of municipal waste was also undertaken as part of the recent strategy unit report; that suggested a higher percentage of biodegradable garden and kitchen waste and a lower percentage of biodegradable materials such as paper.
Unfortunately, due to the limited amount of data available, I am unable to give hon. Members further trends in the nature of biodegradable waste. However, the Environment Agency will be doing a further survey of the composition of municipal waste over a period of time.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about the profile of the average householder's waste. Household waste makes up 90 per cent. of municipal waste. The largest component of that is paper and card—again, that is about a third—and putrescible waste, which is just over a fifth. The other main contributors, in order, are glass, miscellaneous combustible waste, fines, ferrous
Column Number: 264
metal and dense plastics. Hon. Members can see that the streams that make the largest contribution to household municipal waste arisings are biodegradable; and they will therefore come into the remit of the targets set out under the Bill.
It is also clear that household waste arisings are increasing. That is a matter of considerable concern. From the municipal waste survey we know that average annual growth between 1995–96 and 2000–01 is 3.3 per cent. per annum for municipal waste as a whole and 2.7 per cent. per annum for household waste. Part of the increase in waste arisings can be explained by the increasing number of households. Growth in households has outstripped population growth for many years. When that is taken into account, the average annual growth in waste per household is 1.8 per cent. per annum. That is significantly less, but it is a constant increase.
Other reasons for the increases include economic trends, higher living standards and changes in consumer behaviour. Factors such as the collection infrastructure may also have an effect. For example, the introduction of wheeled bins—wheelie bins as we call them in Oldham—may result in more household waste being collected and entering the waste stream.
Those are the most accurate data that we have on trends and I hope that that information has gone some way to answer the hon. Gentleman's queries. More research is planned, and that will help us to understand what further steps need to be taken to tackle the increase in waste arisings.
Mr. John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings): On a point of order, Mr. Griffiths. I am grateful to the Minister. It is useful for the Committee that he has brought back that information in that way. I shall not comment at length—
The Chairman: It would be out of order anyway.
Mr. Hayes: However, it is important to say that it represents both good news and bad news, as the Minister implied—good news in terms of the capacity for recycling, reuse and so on, bad news in terms of the growth of the problem. Perhaps we shall explore both at greater length. Clause 22
''Landfill''
Amendment proposed [10 April]: No. 84, in
Amendment again proposed.
The Chairman: I remind the Committee that with this we are taking the following amendments:
No. 85, in
No. 15, in
clause 22, page 15, line 19, leave out 'three years' and insert 'one year'.
Column Number: 265
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 (Lewes): It is very kind of you to call me, Mr. Griffiths. However, Committee members will remember that, with my usual efficiency, I managed to condense what might have been a longer speech into three minutes in order to complete my comments before we finished on 10 April; the Official Report records that when I had finished speaking the Chairman on that occasion wished the Committee happy Easter. I refer the Committee to those comments and look forward to the Minister's response.
The Chairman: All right then.
Mr. Meacher: I am grateful for the good wishes from the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker). I had a happy Easter, and I hope that other hon. Members did as well, but it is a pleasure to be back. While the amendments are simple, they could create considerable complexities in the operation of the allowance scheme. They would certainly place extra burdens on waste disposal authorities and monitoring authorities.
The definition ''landfill'' in the landfill directive, which is reflected in the Landfill (England and Wales) Regulations 2002, contains certain exclusions. Those exclude the temporary storage of waste if the site is used for storage for less than one year; the unloading of waste in order to permit the waste to be prepared for further transport or recovery, treatment or disposal elsewhere; the storage of waste, prior to recovery or treatment, for a period of less than three years and the storage of waste, prior to disposal, for a period of less than one year.
For the purposes of the allowance scheme, amendment No. 85 would amend the exclusion for the temporary storage of waste if the site were used for storage for less than a year. That exclusion would apply only if the waste were not subsequently sent to landfill at the same site. The amendment is unnecessary as that exclusion deals with sites used for temporary storage of waste that are not normally used for that purpose.
Amendment No. 15 would reduce to one year the exclusion for a site used for the storage of waste prior to recovery or treatment. The effect of the amendment would be that the storing of waste for a period of more than one year would amount to sending waste to landfill and would count against a waste disposal authority's allowance, even if that waste were destined for subsequent recovery or treatment.
Amendment No. 86 would similarly limit the exclusion for the storage of waste prior to disposal to storage to less than three months.
As I have repeatedly said, the aim of the landfill allowance scheme is to enable the UK to meet its targets under article 5(2) of the landfill directive. The
Column Number: 266
storage of waste for less than three years prior to treatment or recovery, and for less than a year prior to disposal, does not count towards those targets—that is the position in the article and the Bill. I simply tell the hon. Gentleman that I cannot see the sense in using stricter exclusions in the Bill; it would make the system unacceptably complex. At the very least, it would involve putting in place more complex recording procedures, because weighing at the point of entry to the site would not be adequate.
To put this in practical terms, a site that at present stores, say, newspapers collected from households prior to recycling, would, for the purposes of the landfill allowance scheme, be considered a landfill unless recycling took place within one year. If, for any reason, recycling were delayed for more than a year, all newspapers sent to the site would, for the purposes of the scheme, be recorded as having gone to landfill. That would be the case even if they were subsequently recycled and counted against a waste disposal authority's allowances. It would seem odd not to count them as having gone to landfill when considering whether the UK had met its targets under the landfill directive. The thrust of the amendments would make it more difficult for us to meet the directive's requirements, and I am not clear why that would be beneficial.
Amendment No. 87 relates to subsection (3), which provides that the fact that a deposit of waste is at the place of production does not prevent that site from being a landfill. The amendment would include storage in the provision, but that is unnecessary, because the word ''deposit'' would, I think, cover disposal or storage.
I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman, in all his comments, has firmly committed himself to the waste strategy's overall targets. Many of his proposals have been sensible, and I have given them serious thought. On this occasion, however, they would gratuitously make life more difficult—even for landfill operators committed to the Bill's objective of increasing recycling and recovery. It is not helpful to change the dates in a way that makes meeting that objective less likely.
With that explanation, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not pursue the amendments.
|
