|
Column Number: 003
Standing Committee F
Tuesday 10 June 2003
[Miss Anne Begg in the Chair]
2 pm
The Chairman: I remind hon. Members that there is a money resolution in connection with the Bill and that copies are available on the Table, as is the Chairman's provisional selection list. Clause 1
Duties of the Secretary of State
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chairman: With this we may consider the following: Clauses 2 to 4 stand part.
New clause 1—Collections of recyclable waste—
'(1) The Environmental Protection Act 1990 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 45 (collection of controlled waste) after subsection (1) there is inserted,
''(1A) In arranging for the collection of household waste under subsection (1)(a) above, each waste collection authority shall ensure that, subject to subsections (1B) and (1C) below, by 2010 every household in their area has a separate collection of at least four types of recyclable waste.
(1B) If by 2010, a local authority has provided facilities or services that enable a household to compost biodegradable kitchen and garden waste either at home or through collections of waste which are processed in a central composting facility they may reduce the types of recyclable waste collected from that household to three.
(1C) If in the opinion of the Secretary of State it is reasonable to do so, he may by order specify that a waste collection authority may have additional time to meet the duty required by subsection (1B) above, and different times may be specified for different waste collection authorities, provided that any additional time specified is no more than five years and that reasons for any such specification are published in a report that is laid before Parliament.
(1D) In this section, ''types of recyclable'' waste shall be defined as follows:
paper waste
metal food or drinks containers
glass food or drinks containers, and other such glass as defined appropriate by the local authority
plastics
textiles, fabrics or clothes
unused household paints and varnishes used engine oils and lubricants
household furniture
electric batteries.''.
(3) In section 46(1) (receptacles for household waste), after ''section 45(1)(a)'' there is inserted ''or sections 45(1A), or 45(1B)''.
(4) In section 48(2) (duties of waste collection authorities as respects disposal of waste collected), after ''respects'', there is inserted ''the recyclable household waste or any biodegradable household waste collected subject to sections 45(1A), or 45(1B) or for other''.
(5) In section 51(1) after (b) there is inserted—
''(c) for the recycling and composting of waste collected by waste collection authorities subject to sections 45(1A), or 45(1B)''.
In section 51(1) for ''either case'' there is substituted ''all cases''.'.
Column Number: 004
Government new clause 2—Arrangements for separate collection of recyclable waste.
Government new clause 3—Recycling and composting: duty to report to Parliament.
Joan Ruddock (Lewisham, Deptford): I welcome you to the Chair, Miss Begg, as I am delighted to serve under your direction for the first time.
It may help the Committee if I explain a little of the background to the new clauses. The Bill began as a draft doorstep recycling Bill, promoted by Friends of the Earth, to introduce legislation that would dramatically increase the Government's national percentage recycling target. Clause 1 would increase that target to 10 per cent. by 2010. The only way that such a high target could be reached was to place a duty on local authorities to adopt a waste strategy that enabled all householders to dispose of waste sustainably, with special reference to the provision of services at or near the home—that is, doorstep recycling—and clause 2 covers that.
Despite my best endeavours to persuade my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment that he was being presented with a Bill to his liking, I received little thanks. He helpfully introduced waste strategies and the power of direction for waste disposal authorities in the Waste and Emissions Trading Bill, but left me with a Bill that needed radical amendment.
I begin, therefore, with a proposal to remove clauses 1, 2, 3 and 4—I wonder whether that is a record. There is great merit in the proposals because they will simplify the Bill and makes its purpose even more explicit. New clause 1, which I tabled with the support of hon. Friends and other Committee members, to whom I am most grateful, seeks to amend the Environmental Protection Act 1990. That Act already imposes a duty to collect household waste, and the new clause provides for the collection of four separated waste streams—or three and composting—for the purposes of recycling. The types of waste are defined.
Since publishing the new clause and the amendments, I have had the opportunity to explore their implications in full with my right hon. Friend and his advisers and it may help the Committee if I say that I am minded to withdraw new clause 1 in favour of Government new clauses 2 and 3. However, I shall seek certain assurances and explanations from the Minister. His new clauses do not offer the Rolls-Royce service established in new clause 1, but they would undoubtedly boost household recycling and go some way further to meeting the aspirations of the many thousands of our constituents who have been campaigning on the issue.
My concerns are as follows. First, why is new clause 2(2)(a) necessary? The Environmental Protection Act 1990 includes a provision for exempting local authorities from collections from properties when the cost is unreasonably high. What guarantees can the Minister give that that will not offer local authorities an easy opt-out?
Secondly, under new clause 2(2)(b), how will ''comparable alternative arrangements'' be defined?
Column Number: 005
Will there be a collection system delivering a similar percentage yield to what would be expected from a doorstep scheme and will a similar quality of materials be recovered? Some forms of recycling would be completely unacceptable as alternatives. The dirty MRF—materials recovering facility—which accepts mixed recyclables and residual waste together is not the way forward, and I hope that the Minister can satisfy me that such a process would not count as a comparable arrangement. He might also like to comment on home composting, which is not easy. Simply giving away a load of bins without follow-up would also not amount to a comparable alternative arrangement.
There are other issues on which I may seek further clarification, but I seek the greatest assurance on the opt-out provisions and look forward to hearing what my right hon. Friend has to say.
Mr. Jonathan Sayeed (Mid-Bedfordshire): Will the hon. Lady add to her list of requests one relating to organisations such as the civic environmental technology organisation, which claims in its leaflet that its municipal solid waste processing and materials recovery plant will recycle 80 to 90 per cent. of the waste input? However, when that claim is analysed, it seems that the compost produced is suitable only for
''restoration of derelict land, closed landfill sites etc''.
Furthermore, when the organisation says that it will extract plastics, it means that it will recycle them as fuel—that is, incinerate them. Its offer to local authorities, which sounds grand, is no more than a con trick perpetrated on local authorities. Does the hon. Lady agree that that cannot be considered comparable to proper recycling and that the Minister should ensure that such greenwash is expunged from any form of recycling?
Joan Ruddock: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman because he makes some valuable points and illustrates the main thrust of what I have said. It is on those points that we as a Committee will seek clarification and assurances from the Minister. We have had a positive dialogue, and I am delighted that we may find ourselves in broad agreement about a Bill that can deliver the purposes for which it was originally designed: to provide an increase in the proportion of materials recycled and the convenience to householders that they can have those materials collected from their homes.
The Minister's proposals offer just two waste streams, but mine offers four. I contend that any local authority that devises schemes for the collection of two waste streams might just as well collect four, if not more. Although the Minister's proposal is less than I would have wished, I believe that it offers a way forward for local authorities consistent with the objectives with which I began to draft the Bill.
I shall not speak at length now because many hon. Members want to make specific points. Amendments that were tabled at the last moment and that have been starred will not be called today. However, I want the Committee to have the opportunity to consider those points, so I am content now to listen to the
Column Number: 006
contributions of other hon. Members. However, I hope to intervene on the Minister later.
Gregory Barker (Bexhill and Battle): May I say how delighted I am to welcome you to the Chair, Miss Begg, particularly as I find myself speaking from the Front Bench on behalf of the official Opposition on this one-off occasion. It is what is called in show business a one gig only. There has not been a pre-emptive reshuffle, but my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray), who would normally speak on such matters, is in Iraq with the armed forces parliamentary scheme, hence this opportunity for me.
I particularly pleased to be called into service on this Bill and I congratulate the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) on what I hope will be a real coup in putting on to the statute book a measure that many people throughout the House have hoped for and urged for many years. It is a great credit to her and to the support that she has received from Friends of the Earth that we now have a glimmer of hope of putting the Bill on to the statute book.
I am pleased that, during my debut on the Opposition Front Bench, I have the opportunity to appear opposite the Minister for the Environment as I have great respect for him. I am pleased that he has managed to secure a more comfortable fate for this Bill than the Home Energy Conservation Bill on which I spoke last year. We must all cross our fingers and hope that the Bill before us has a safer passage through the House than that other environmentally friendly measure.
2.11 pm
Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.
2.26 pm
On resuming—
| 
