HC Deb 02 May 1990 vol 171 cc1145-54

Amendments made: No. 163, in page 27, line 42, after 'deposited', insert 'in or'.

No. 164, in page 27, line 46, at beginning insert 'in or'.—[Mr. Heathcoat-Amory]

Mr. Paul Marland (Gloucestershire, West)

I beg to move amendment No. 106, in page 28, line 18, at end insert— '(5) The Secretary of State shall exercise his power under subsection (3) above to make regulations excluding from the controls imposed by waste management licenses those ferrous and non-ferrous scrap dealers and processors whose business is to recycle such scrap as the Department of Trade and Industry may classify as non-hazardous in a list which it shall publish, based on customs and excise tariff classifications.'.

Mr. Speaker

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 100, in clause 39, page 41, line 6, at end insert— '(1A) Without predudice to the provisions of any regulations made, or having effect as if made, under section 55 below, it shall be the duty of each waste collection authority, if requested by a harbour authority or terminal operator, to arrange for the collection of any industrial waste deposited at reception facilities—

  1. (a) provided in accordance with the Prevention of Pollution (Reception Facilities) Order 1984 for vessels using the harbour or terminal; or
  2. (b) provided in accordance with the Merchant Shipping (Reception Facilities for Garbage) Regulations 1988 for ships using the harbour or terminal;
unless other arrangements for the collection of the waste are made by the waste disposal authority whose area includes he area of the waste collection authority.'. No. 328, in clause 44, page 49, line 26, at end insert— '(c) to send to the planning authorities for the areas covered or affected by the plan a copy of the plan or, as the case may be, particulars of the modification to be considered in relation to development plans prepared for those areas.'. No. 142, in clause 54, page 58, line 43, leave out from beginning to 'it' in line 44.

Government amendments No. 77 and 78.

No. 298, in clause 65, page 70, line 10, at end insert— ', nor scrap metal, whether ferrous or non-ferrous, handled in the normal course of business by a scrap dealer registered under the Scrap Metal Dealers Act 1964.'. No. 299, in page 70, line 12, at end insert— ', except that the presumption shall not apply where metal is sold for a consideration to a scrap metal dealer registered under the Scrap Metal Dealers Act 1964'. Government amendment Nos. 79, 80, 196, 197, 330 and 123 to 125.

Mr. Marland

I realise that there is much pressure on time, but I have sat here since 4.30 and I am anxious to put my speech on the record. I shall start by making my own position absolutely clear. I am involved in the metal recycling industry which enables me to speak in the debate with a certain amount of understanding and first-hand knowledge of the industry.

Recycling of all types makes a massive contribution to the environment, not only by minimising waste and keeping the countryside clean, but by making a tremendous contribution to saving our finite resources. To give the House an idea of the scale of this industry, I am pleased to be able to say that, in Britain, metal recyclers process or recycle 4,000 old motor cars a week. That is more than 2 million a year. They also recycle 150,000 white goods items—cookers, refrigerators and washing machines—a week, and 50 per cent. of all the copper used in the United Kingdom is recycled, as is 40 per cent. of all the aluminium used in the country.

The energy savings from recycling are just as spectacular as the amounts involved. By recycling aluminium, for example, the energy used is only one twentieth of that required for refining bauxite. For every 1,000 tonnes of ferrous scrap turned into steel, there is a saving of 140,000 gallons of fuel oil. Those are big and impressive figures for what is a big and impressive industry.

When the Bill was in Committee, there was much satisfaction in the recycling industry for the supportive remarks by the Government. The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, my hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory), will remember from previous debates that there is great concern in the metal recycling industry that scrap metal is defined in the Bill as waste, and that there is a strong possibility that it could be treated in the same way as dangerous chemical waste.

The local authority environmental health inspector is free to interpret the regulations as he sees fit, and if he decides to be over-officious he could make the life of a metal recycler very difficult and seriously inhibit his business. Scrap metal is not waste but a valuable secondary resource, and it is wrongly defined in the Bill.

The World Health Organisation defines waste as something which the owner no longer wants at a given place and time and which has no current or perceived market value. The Japanese, who usually get most things right, say that waste refers to something the owner of which cannot use or sell for any countervalues. The Bureau International de la Recuperation, the international arm of the recycling industry, says that waste is redundant goods, by-products or residues that have no value and must be disposed of at cost.

I know that the Department of the Environment will not accept that definition, for in a letter to the hon. Member for Rochdale (Sir C. Smith) my hon. Friend the Member for Wells says that the key test of whether something is waste is the attitude of the person who produces the waste. The letter says that if the holder of the substance, goods or article wishes to dispose of it, then it is waste to him. Whether or not the waste has any value or can be of use to somebody else does not affect the fact that it is waste. What about scraps of gold in a jewellery-making business, or a five-year-old motor car that the owner wishes to dispose of in order to buy a new one? I do not believe that a five-year-old motor car is waste, but the definition in the Bill, and in the letter, makes it so. Clearly, they are not waste, and neither are the metal turnings from an engineering plant. They are valuable secondary raw materials and should be classified as such.

The hon. Member for Rochdale is assured in the letter that there are some exceptions to the rule, such as waste paper and textiles or rags. They are not classified as waste as they do not pose an environmental problem, but some rags and waste paper are impregnated with some pretty nasty substances and, when they come to be disposed of, if they are burnt, they can give off some unpleasant odours. The Government are seriously out of line with what the industry believes in, and what normal commonsense dictates.

In Committee, I tried to raise the status of some of this non-toxic waste through the attitude of the holder of the material to the material that he held. His attitude to the material would determine its legal status. If the material was unwanted, and could not be sold—if the owner had to take it away, for example—fair enough, it was waste. If the material arose out of the holder's business activity, such as waste paper, off-cuts of aluminium or metal turnings from boring steel, and had a resale value, it should be classified as a secondary raw material. That is slap in line with the BIR proposal.

There would be categories of secondary raw materials, just as there are categories of waste, be they hazardous or non-hazardous, and they would be treated accordingly. I pointed out to the Committee the sheer size and value to our balance of payments of the exports of secondary raw materials and the frequency of transfrontier shipments within the EEC suggest that this demanded that something should be done to clarify the situation. Sadly, the suggestion of introducing the classification of secondary raw materials was firmly rejected.

To be fair to my hon. Friend the Member for Wells, he said that if I could find cases where local authorities had been too heavy handed and had inhibited the development of the recycling business, I was to get in touch with him, and he would try to do something about it. Since I last spoke to him about this subject, I have visited scrap metal and recycling businesses in Long Marston, Derby, Sheffield, Leeds and Glasgow. Although there is concern about the implementation of some of the regulations, I have not yet found any of the first-hand evidence that he asked me for. However, I saw metal recycling yards where there was no toxic material whatever—no acid from batteries or engine oil from old motor engines.

However, there is concern that local inspections are done at random, in rather a haphazard way, very much influenced by personal choice. It seems that the local environmental health officers would rather avoid the yards where savage dogs are kept and the yard is not concreted over, and where the proprietor is thoroughly offensive. While these are the very people who give the industry a bad name, the local environmental health officer would rather go to a well-run yard where he gets a cup of coffee in a warm office, has a nice chat and then tours a well-run yard while wearing a pair of shoes. He then sometimes makes a lot of fuss about a small oil seepage from an old car.

I stress that the scrap metal and recycling industry does not fear registration or control, but it believes that these should be appropriate and fair. A cloud is appearing on the horizon, and I ask my hon. Friend to comment on it. It is the possibility that future regulation will stipulate that metal recyclers will have to be licensed to handle waste. To obtain a licence, the operator would need a certificate of competence issued by the Institute of Wastes Management. As I have said, the industry agrees that regulation is a good thing and that it must be enforced. The scrap metal industry is as anxious as any other to pursue quality control. Is the Minister satisfied that the Institute of Wastes Management itself is competent to issue a certificate of competence to an industry that it knows nothing about?

Having recognised that the definition of waste is Europeanwide and even a worldwide problem, not merely a domestic one—hence the interest of the BIR—my hon. Friends and I turned our attention to Europe and went to meet Mr. Jean Marie Junger, who is a senior offical in the Euro equivalent of the Department of the Environment. He told us that the European Community would like to help the reclamation and recycling industry and suggested having recourse to three criteria that would exempt valorisable waste or, as I prefer to call it, secondary raw materials, from the procedures that would be applicable to disposable waste.

First, operators and collectors of recyclables should be listed. That means not that they should be registered, licensed or authorised but just that they should be listed. The list could be based on a national federation membership and then widened. Secondly, it was recommended that each country should decide on a single body which would have authority over the reclamation and recycling industry. That authority would be a different one from the one which deals with disposable waste. In the United Kingdom, I believe that the Department of Trade and Industry should be responsible for the recycling industry and that the Department of the Environment should be responsible for the disposal of waste. Thirdly, the reclamation and recycling industry could be exempted from the administrative consequences of the directive on transfrontier shipments of hazardous waste through the use of various lists of goods, which could be prepared on the basis of Customs and Excise classifications.

10.45 pm

Non-toxic valorisable waste or secondary raw materials would be on a white list, toxic valorisable waste would be on a grey list, whereas disposable waste would have to be on a black list. As a basis for the white list, the Customs and Excise tariff classifications could be used. Products that would be on the white list would be entirely exempt from any control whereas those on the grey list would be subject to a simplified monitoring procedure.

On the basis of that advice, I tabled the amendment, for if we are going anywhere it is into Europe. The amendment is in line with European thinking and has the full backing of the British Scrap Federation and the support of many hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber. I understand also that the British Secondary Metals Association is anxious to identify with it, though I have not had direct dealings with it. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will carefully reflect on the amendment, for it is one that has been seriously and painstakingly put together. It would do much to encourage an industry which itself can do much more to help cherish our environment.

Mr. Jeremy Hanley (Richmond and Barnes)

I shall speak on two seemingly unconnected matters though they appear in the batch of amendments that we are considering. The first is the matter to which my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Marland) has just referred—the inclusion of the secondary metal industry within the definition of waste. That means that the industry could be subject to possibly unsuitable and bureaucratic licensing requirements. There are many who believe that, although such requirements may be appropriate to the waste disposal industry, they are not appropriate to a sector that is dedicated to the reclamation and recycling of metal.

The recycling of metal by the secondary metal industry provides the United Kingdom with the equivalent of about £1.5 billion in imports saved or exports made each year. If the metal were not recycled, it would be dumped—some of it is toxic—or consigned for landfill disposal. I submit that both actions are potentially damaging to the environment. The imposition of costly new licensing controls on the metals reclamation industry will threaten the scale of the United Kingdom's current recycling activity at a time when every environmentalist is seeking a dramatic increase in recycling. The industry appears to be committed to the safe disposal of all waste and is prepared to be subject to a stringent code of practice. It is unfortunate that our recycling activities will be caught up in what could be considered to be a web of controls that will probably have no impact on the end disposal of real waste.

Secondly, I wish to ask my hon. Friend the Minister a second question relating to my local borough. My previous statements have been on behalf of the Richmond Metal Company. My next statements will be on behalf of Richmond-upon-Thames council. I know that my hon. Friend takes a keen interest in the collection and recycling of waste. He is aware that the council is concerned about what will happen to its effective way of collecting waste. Its method is supported by all parties on the council. I am fairly sure that after tomorrow there will be no change of policy, although I hope that there will be a change in the party in power. The council has led the movement for the recycling of useful waste. Successive Ministers have visited the borough. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs made his debut in ministerial engagements when opening a new waste paper collection plant.

Currently, the borough is both a waste collection agency and a waste disposal agency. It appears that, under the Bill, it will be prevented from buying equipment for baleing and sorting recyclable waste. The council is good at recycling waste. Indeed, the current administration probably creates more waste paper than any other local authority and so needs to recycle it. Under the Bill, it will no longer be allowed to acquire the machinery to recycle that waste.

I am concerned that when the West London waste disposal authority no longer deals with that area of recycling, the council will no longer be able to dispose of its waste. It will have to contract its services to a new authority, thereby wasting what could be the most effective and least expensive way to produce something of value out of disposable waste. I want my hon. Friend to assure me that the new body that will be established under the Bill will be not only the most effective but the least expensive way to recycle beneficial products into society. It would be crazy to close the recycling plant simply for some piece of dogma. I want an assurance that the new body will have a large input from the local authority. If the local authority finds that it is the cheapest body to recycle waste, I hope that there will be no undue costs or bureaucratic constraints imposed upon individuals in the borough.

Mr. Roger Knapman (Stroud)

rose—

Hon. Members

Hear, hear.

Mr. Knapman

I sense that my hon. Friends want me to address my remarks to amendment No. 100, which stands in my name. It is an amendment to clause 39, under which harbour authorities and terminal operators must provide reception facilities for waste from ships using their harbours. The waste can take many different forms. It can be residues, mixtures, mixtures including oil, other noxious liquid substances or, of course, vast quantities of garbage.

The potential problem is that, although harbour authorities have the absolute requirement to accept those wastes into their reception facilities, they may not be able to dispose of them from their reception facilities to what one might call their final resting place. If that happened, the harbour authorities would be placed in a difficult position; it may not be putting it too strongly to say that the legislation's intention would be frustrated.

I understand that the Control of Pollution Act 1974 states that ships' waste is industrial waste. The deposit of such waste on land requires a licence, otherwise the deposit would be prohibited. That prohibition does not generally apply to the deposit of waste from the ship into the reception facility, but it does apply to the disposal of the waste from the reception facility.

Clause 39 specifies the duties of a waste collection authority, but will the Minister consider subsection (2), which says that, although a waste collection authority may arrange for the collection of industrial waste from premises in its area if it is requested to do so by the owner, it is not obliged to do so and must also obtain the consent of the waste disposal authority before exercising that power.

Therefore, a harbour authority or terminal operator who must provide reception facilities for residues might not be able either to obtain a licence to deposit the waste elsewhere or to persuade the collection authority to collect it, with the consequences that I have already described.

The amendment deals with the problem by inserting a new subsection (1A) which would make it the duty of each waste collection authority, if requested by a harbour authority or terminal operator, to arrange for the collection of any industrial waste deposited at reception facilities … provided … unless other arrangements for the collection of the waste are made by the waste disposal authority. I think that my hon. Friend will agree that that would in no way prejudice the provision of special waste as provided for in the Bill, and I should be grateful if he would give the matter his characteristically detailed consideration.

Mr. Trippier

I was not surprised to see that we have amendments seeking to exempt the scrap industry from waste controls. I would be the first to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Marland), who was particularly tenacious in Committee in his defence of the metal scrap industry, and he gave us fair warning that the matter would not be allowed to drop.

We have before us some hard-line and some more reasoned amendments, with which I shall deal briefly.

Amendments Nos. 298 and 299 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire) would alter the definition of waste to remove scrap metal from waste management controls altogether. I am not prepared to distort the established definition of waste in that way. Nor can I accept that the treatment of scrap metal is such an environmentally harmless activity that it can be entirely exempt from controls without further ado.

Amendment No. 106 adopts a less absolute stance. The wording of the amendment owes something to proposals being prepared in Brussels to exempt non-hazardous recyclables from the new EC controls on the movement of waste. The European Commission is attempting to define what recyclables are non-hazardous on the basis of tariff classifications, but agreement has not yet been reached. The amendment would achieve the exemption of non-hazardous scrap recycling on the same tariff-based classification.

However, the parallel is misleading. It is one thing to exempt scrap metal, which may be quite safe and inert to transport, from controls on its movement, but it is quite another to exempt the processing of scrap from domestic site licensing controls. The Government support the view that EC controls should not hamper trade in recyclables. Such trade may be needed to make recyclables viable. But that does not constitute a reason for ending controls on scrapyards and metal recycling plants, which can be a source of local environmental problems. There is provision in the Bill for innocuous processes to be exempted from site licensing.

I emphasise that I am most concerned to keep burdens on the scrap industry to a minimum, as long as that is consistent with environmental protection. I would like to see the scrap industry make a case for exemption on those grounds, and I again invite it to do so, but I cannot accept any of the amendments which seek to achieve exemption through primary legislation.

11 pm

My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West raised the subject of the Institute of Wastes Management. It will not be issuing certificates of competence. There is a training board—the waste management industry training board—and an advisory board to set up qualifications, chaired by Lord Gregson, who takes the Labour Whip in the House of Lords and for whom I have the highest possible regard. The board is composed of members of industry and local authorities. The scrap industry should be involved in that to ensure that it is competent to decide on qualifications.

My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) referred to the excellent example in his constituency of Richmond borough council in recycling waste. He was concerned that it should not be put at risk by any measures in the Bill. I assure him that that is not the case. The Bill prevents any authority which is both a collection and disposal authority—as Richmond is—from providing those facilities directly. As a disposal authority, Richmond will have duties under clause 45 to arrange for the recycling and disposal of waste by arrangement with a waste disposal contractor. It does not make any sense for the authority to provide its own facilities as a collection authority, which as a disposal authority it would then have to pass to a contractor.

Mr. Hanley

Is it not true that the local authority could still have a sizeable influence over that contractor if it was deemed to be desirable that that influence existed?

Mr. Trippier

In two ways. First, the local authority would be the regulatory authority. Secondly, in the case of a local authority company—an arm's-length company—as defined by the Local Government and Housing Act 1989, 20 per cent. of the board have to be local authority elected representatives or chief officers. If the facility which my hon. Friend has described to the House is as good as lie suggests, I have no doubt that the new National Association of Waste Disposal Contractors will be successful in winning the contract once the bids or tenders are put out.

Finally, I shall reply to amendment No. 100 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman). The problem of pollution of coastal waters from ships' refuse needs attention, but placing a duty on local authorities is not necessarily the best way to tackle it. Waste collection authorities already have the power to collect that waste if they are requested to do so. The private sector is only too willing to provide collection and disposal services to port authorities.

I know of no problems where an authority has been unable to find a contractor to take waste, and I am sure that the proposed duty would place an unreasonable burden on the collection authorities to provide specialist collection equipment. I cannot accept that amendment.

Mr. Marland

My hon. Friend has replied in his normal constructive and helpful way. Bearing in mind that the problem is not solved, and I would like to feel that his door would always be open, especially in view of the fact that we have a White Paper coming up in the autumn, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made No. 113, in page 28, line 40, leave out from 'to' to `and' in line 41 and insert 'imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or a fine not exceeding £20,000 or both;'.

No. 114, in page 28, line 46, leave out from `to' to 'and' in line 48 and insert 'imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or a fine not exceeding £20,000 or both;'.

No. 69, in page 29, leave out lines 3 to 14.—[Mr. Trippier.]

Forward to