HC Deb 24 July 1986 vol 102 cc835-40

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Boscaweni]

8 am

Mr. J. Enoch Powell (South Down)

It must strike you, Mr. Speaker, as happily and even providentially appropriate that so a long a debate that has ranged through the night over so many subjects should be terminating in the jaded and even mephitic atmosphere of the early hours of the morning by the consideration of the disposal of rubbish at a place called Drumnakelly in County Down in my constituency. But no one could argue that the disposal of rubbish is a a subject unimportant to the decent livelihood of a civilised society.

I wish to raise the matter with the Minister on a much wider basis than that of any single case and invite him to agree that the Government ought to take a larger view of their responsibilities in the province of Northern Ireland as a whole. The disposal of rubbish is, quite properly, one of the responsibilities of the district councils in Northern Ireland and I am not in the business of seeking the removal of powers but rather the addition of powers to local government in that Province. It is an appropriate responsibility for those authorities, especially in the matter of the collection of domestic waste, because it brings the administration into direct contact and somtimes conflict with residents and with local communities. However, there is a wider aspect and it is to that that I want to direct the Minister's attention.

At present, the district councils appear to act as almost independent authorities in settling upon sites for refuse disposal. Throughout the years that I have represented South Down I have seen a series of descents made by the local authorities upon the most beautiful sites in the constituency with the suggestion that they would be appropriate for the formation of a new rubbish dump.

There is a kind of hovering threat over the people in some of the more attractive parts of Northern Ireland, most of which are situated in my constituency, that they may be chosen for the next foray by the district council in its search for a suitable place for the disposal of rubbish. Often, the result of such forays is that two or three alternative sites are proposed, a careful examination is made of all of them, and they are then rejected with the assistance and advice of the planning department which is responsible to the Minister. But the damage has been done by the disturbance of opinion, by the alarm and despondency that has been caused, and by the irritation that has been created between ratepayers and the administering authorities.

This is an irrational way to go about the business. A long-term view needs to be taken upon a wider scale of the problem presented by the disposal of rubbish. In three ways this would be beneficial genrally as well as to the areas more directly concerned. First, we would have an end to the sudden descent of a district council upon a locality with a proposal for the formation of a rubbish dump. At least the proposals and intentions of the district council would be known years in advance, be open to criticism and would have been authorised, if at all, by the planning authority after due deliberation. That is the first advantage.

The second advantage is that we would have a more rational choice of sites and the opportunity of choosing sites where there might be economic advantage and benefit in the long run from their being selected for the disposal of rubbish. I am afraid that no such benefit can be discerned in many of the sites selected. In the site approved by the Minister at Drumnakelly in my constituency it would be very hard indeed for anyone to identify any economic, agricultural, amenity or other value which will accrue, either locally or generally, from the use of that site for the deposit of rubbish.

The second advantage can be reaped upon a wider scale. There must surely, in most parts of the Province, be places where economic benefits can be drawn from the depositing of rubbish; where it can be co-ordinated with other requirements for the general benefit. It is obviously impossible to reap that advantage if the 26 independent authorities are left to make the decisions. There must, therfore, be co-ordination between the authorities, not only in the actual work of disposing of rubbish, but in the identification, as far as possible, of joint sites which would be suitable and beneficial for that purpose.

The third advantage which would come from a wider view of the problem, is that we might be able to introduce upon the scene more modern methods of processing rubbish. I find it impossible to believe that at the end of the 20th century, the best thing that we can do with the rubbish generated in the Province of Northern Ireland is to allow each district authority to dump it in the place where least objection can be raised on amenity grounds. There must surely be processes which, on a larger scale than the deposits taking place at present, would be economic and might even be attractive. I hope that that is an aspect which appeals to the present Administration for consideration with private enterprise.

On all three counts the argument lies in favour, not of removing from district councils the ultimate responsibility for serving their ratepayers in this way, but the Department co-ordinating this activity and guiding it, so that the disposal of rubbish, instead of becoming a constant threat to the amenities and well-being of the people of the Province, becomes a source of benefit and is rationally and logically organised.

I add to that main proposition the contention that the Department should be more active in policing the execution by the authorities of the conditions attached to the planning permission for the deposit of rubbish. I have seen some schedules of conditions. They are very comprehensive. Reading a schedule, one might wonder how the residents in the area could object; one might imagine that they might even be gratified at the notion that such an establishment was to be set up in their vicinity. Unfortunately, there is often a big gap between the conditions and their observations. Both in the transportation of rubbish to dumping areas, and in the management of the dumping areas a great deal is left to be desired.

I do not think that the routes and transportation are adequately policed or supervised. There are far too many examples of unnecessary disturbance being caused by ill-chosen routes for the rubbish lorries and the consequent flying of rubbish into the countryside. Very often the management of a dump is not supervised with a view to the minimum disturbance to the environment. Provided that a rubbish dump is properly supervised, that the spreading is done at the right time and in the best way, and that the spreading of soil between the layers of rubbish takes place in good time, promptly and with sufficient frequency, there is no reason why most dumps should be a cause of nuisance very far beyond their actual locations.

In what I hope will be the interim period before we get a much more comprehensive, rational and modern system for the disposal of rubbish in the Province, the Department—which, after all, is the planning authority that gives the permission — should do much more to supervise and police these activities when they are carried out by the district councils.

8.10 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Richard Needham)

The right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) began by referring to the jaded look of the House. That certainly does not apply to him, given what he has just said.

Last year on 5 June, the right hon. Gentleman raised the problem of waste disposal with my predecessor. I am sorry that he has felt it necessary to raise the matter again, although I fully understand why. Nothing is more contentious, either to the right hon. Gentleman's constituents or mine, than the problem of getting rid of rubbish.

As the right hon. Gentleman knows—he referred to it in his speech—the responsibility for disposal of waste in Northern Ireland is with the local authorities, and neither he nor I would want to do anything to change that. But I have every sympathy with the general points that the right hon. Gentleman raised. One of the key questions that he touched on was whether the Department could, or should, do more to stimulate an co-ordinate the activities of district councils in the way they expect to work out their waste disposal requirements. He also referred to the supervising of tipping once a site has been brought into use.

Let me deal with the last point first. I have no statutory power to tell councils how to manage their sites. On occasions on my trips around the Province, when I see how tipping is not being done as well as it ought to be, I make sure that my officials get on to the local councils. But we have no statutory power. All that we can do at present is give them advice, and that we do. However, I accept that that advice is not always taken.

There will be an increasingly supervisory role in the management of these sites throughout the whole of the United Kingdom, and this will be done through the newly established hazardous waste inspectorate. Therefore, the problems to which the right hon. Gentleman referred will be tackled more effectively in the future than they have been in the past.

Mr. Powell

I wish to make a point in the context of available powers. Surely the powers are available in the form of the enforcement of planning control. After all, I hope that a private individual who was given permission to carry out certain operations subject to conditions would have those conditions enforced upon him by the planning authority. As in this case the Minister is the planning authority, surely in that way he has powers to supervise and police what the local authorities have done in the execution of a planning permission that they have been given.

Mr. Needham

We do, for example, lay down conditions for fencing, and if fencing does not take place we shall enforce it. However, much of the time, a problem arises when some of the conditions are not fulfilled during a short period. Rubbish may be blown across the road or, as the right hon. Gentleman said, the soil may not be spread adequately or sufficient protection may not be taken when the wind is blowing in the wrong direction. I have sympathy with the right hon. Gentleman's arguments, because it is a disgrace to the neighbourhood. The right hon. Gentleman will have to wait to see how the hazardous waste inspectorate solves this problem.

I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that I have made a careful study of the current position and I agree with him that local councils are the best instruments to plan adequately for the disposal of refuse in their areas. That is especially true in the rural parts of the Province. After all, the local council knows every nook and cranny of its area and it is, through its councillors, close to the feelings and wishes of the local people. It is best placed to discover the areas where refuse can be tipped with the minimum of nuisance and upset to residents.

This is not quite the position around Belfast, which raises different problems and where there is a need for a co-ordinated plan covering the six district councils which make up the greater Belfast area. This requires a 10-year strategy which will take care of the rubbish generated by the city and its surrounding towns. We will put forward our suggestions for this when we publish the Belfast Urban Area Plan at the end of the year.

The Department's present responsibilities and relationship with the district councils is covered by the terms of the Pollution Control and Local Government (Northern Ireland) Order 1978. That lays down that councils are required to make specific waste disposal plans on a 10-year basis. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will accept that there is now an Order in Northern Ireland which lays down, over 10 years, the strategy that the councils must adopt.

The plans are based on detailed surveys of the waste being produced and the current methods of disposal, and must set a strategy for future arrangements. The vital element in the development of those plans is the consultation undertaken by the districts with anyone who is interested in waste disposal. That includes neighbouring district councils. The councils must contact their neighbours to discover the best way to proceed, jointly, in the rural areas. The councils must also undertake consultations with my Department. During this consultation stage the Department of the Environment plays an important role to ensure that there is consistency and compatibility right across the Province.

Any approved plan must take into account access to it and the effect that it is likely to have on local roads. I am encouraged — I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will share that encouragement—that significant progress has been made by the district councils in the production of these plans. Eleven district plans have been completed, including Banbridge in the right hon. Gentleman's constituency—and another 10 are at various stages of preparation and consultation—that includes Newry and Mourne, which also touches on the constituency of the right hon. Gentleman.

Only five councils have not yet carried out the necessary surveys. Although there is no statutory deadline, I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that I will do all that I can to make sure that the completion of those plans goes through as quickly as possible.

With regard to Down district council, the right hon. Gentleman must be aware that the survey has been completed and the plan should be available, publicly, early next year. We in Northern Ireland are considerably further down the path in the production of these plans than the rest of the United Kingdom. At the moment, I have no statutory power in my locker to use on those councils which have not yet undertaken the surveys. If I believe it is impossible to get the surveys undertaken for any reason, I will of course reconsider whether the Department's powers are sufficient. I must tell the right hon. Gentleman, however, that I do not think that that will be a speedy process.

As for the Down district council, the principles which I have mentioned apply. I accept entirely that to find suitable sites in the Down district council area is far from easy, for the reasons given by the right hon. Gentleman. The Department has liaised closely with the council in helping it to find somewhere to go. We have ensured that the technical requirements—for example, the prevention of water polution — are adhered to. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the proposed site at Drumnakelly. The council came to a conclusion on that site after at least 11 other sites had been considered and assessed. There were site meetings and discussions with both members and officials of the council.

As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the present tip is at Inch, near Downpatrick. This site has had to be closed and as a temporary measure two other sites — one at Burrenbane and one at Ballygowan—are currently being used. Nevertheless, these can be nothing other than temporary and the council is therfore faced with the pressing problem of finding a new long-term tip. There is a further proposed short-term site at Dunmore, near Ballynahinch, which will have a life of about two years. The need for a major long-life landfill site can be met only by Drumnakelly—it is the only suitable site that we have been able to find — and it will last for about 40 years. As I understand it, acquiring this site and finalising the engineering works on it will take a further 12 months.

The site is not in an area of outstanding natural beauty or green belt. The greater part of it, to which most of the tipping will be confined, is out of sight of the public road and almost every house within a mile of its boundaries. As I understand it, there is only one house which faces directly on to the site from some high ground about 340 yards away. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will want to know that the conditions which we have imposed in the planning permission ensure that only a small portion of the site will be visible to any traffic on the public road, and to about five or six houses which are 150 yards from the site boundary. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that it will be effectively screened before tipping commences.

Not all the site will be used for tipping. There are a number of rocks that will be left untouched and exposed to maintain the ruggedness of the landscape, which is typical of the countryside around it.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell

There will be winds.

Mr. Needham

I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman is right in saying that wherever it is in Northern Ireland there will be plenty of wind. That is one reason why it is vital to ensure that the fencing is right.

It was only after we had had the widest consultation that the site was accepted at a relatively remote location. A considerable degree of shelter is afforded by the lie of the land. The quality of the land itself is not of a very high grade. Nor is there any apparent threat to the conservation of the area, the scenery or the wildlife. We are responsible for prevention of water pollution, a matter which we take seriously. In the first instance we have granted a Water Act consent for five years, subject to the conditions that I have mentioned.

I shall touch briefly on the matters that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned in terms of other methods of waste disposal, such as incineration, and whether it would be possible to find some element of private enterprise that we could bring in. I have to tell him that no interest has been shown by the private sector up to now, although the Department has tried to gain it. We are keeping open all methods of use and disposal, to ascertain whether there are any new technologies that we could bring in that would reduce the need for landscaping. For the foreseeable future there does not seem to be too much of an opening down that road. I note, as will my Department, the points that the right hon. Gentleman makes on that score.

I can only reiterate that sites for tipping will always be difficult to find. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman accepts that, in this instance, we have not fallen foul of the strictures that he made in last year's debate and which he repeated today. He said that sites applied for by district councils were turned down on planning grounds. I hope that he accepts that we are proceeding, throughout the whole Province, with the production of 10-year plans which cross local authority boundaries, which will give the public an adequate look at what is proposed for their areas.

I should be delighted to visit the site at Drumnakelly with the right hon. Gentleman if he feels that particular aspects of landscaping, fencing, and so on, are required. I assure him that I shall keep the strategic aspect of the problem under review. If I feel that any of the councils are lagging behind or that we are not getting on as quickly as we should with an adequate Province-wide strategy, I shall reconsider any extra measures that we might take to remedy the problem.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-six minutes past Eight o'clock.