§ Mr. Arthur JonesI beg to move Amendment No. 2, in page 4, line 40, after 'waste', insert:
'other than for the purposes of recycling or reclaiming'.It deals with the definition in subsection (1)(a), where reference is made to the prohibition on depositing controlled waste on any land, or causing or knowingly permitting it to be deposited. The British Paper and Board Industry Federation is concerned about the matter. The federation suggests that another definition is required, and that is set out in the amendment. First, there is the need to distinguish dumped matter from usable raw material. The situation can be easily envisaged, particularly in the waste paper industry with its activities in recycling paper and board, where a tremendous amount of this type of material is gathered together in a dump but is subsequently brought forward for use. It is suggested that without a clear definition to cover those circumstances the industry might be in contravention of the Bill and would be guilty of an offence which the clause never intended should exist. The definition also has significant effects on succeeding paragraphs in which the implication is that board mills, for example, storing waste paper on their own ground ready for processing, might have to apply for a licence. I do not think that is what the Bill intends.
§ Mr. Denis HowellI hope I shall be able to persuade the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Jones) that the amendment is unnecessary. This is a further attempt to remove from the effects of Part I those wastes which are to be recycled or reclaimed, but we cannot deal with the matter as has been suggested by the hon. Member and by the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) in Standing Committee.
The difficulty is to decide what is to be fully recycled and what is to be partially recycled. It is not possible in practice to put the processes referred to into one category or the other. Some 946 chemical plants have been the source of very nasty effluents, and, although those effluents are being used in a recycling process, they have to be dealt with. These are two aspects of one problem. I can give an ssurance, however, that we fully appreciate the force of the arguments the industrialists have been using in support of excluding recycling and reclamation from licensing control. There is no intention on our part to extend the licensing system further than is necessary to bring waste disposal under control, btu we thought it right for the reasons I have set out to give ourselves elbow room or flexibility.
Clause 4(3) indicates some of the factors the Secretary of State will have in mind in making exemptions, and these include temporary deposits, small deposits, innocuous use of plant or equipment and processes for which adequate controls exist in other legislation. I hope that these provisions will alleviate the worries of industry. We believe that they should do so and that there is no need to fear arbitrary decisions in this matter.
§ Mr. Arthur JonesI am grateful for the reply. I take the point that this has been carefully considered, and I am happy to accept the assurances given. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.