HC Deb 29 October 1990 vol 178 cc782-94

Lords amendment: No. 92, in page 48, line 11, leave out first ("receptacles or")

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. Heathcoat-Amory.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker)

With this it will be convenient to consider the following amendments: Lords amendment No. 93 and amendments (a) and (b) thereto; Nos. 94, 96, 97, 109, 110 and amendment (a) thereto.

Mr. Pike

Although I should have pressed the amendments if the Government had been willing to accept them, we do not intend to divide the House because we are aware of the time. In all seriousness, the Government should be prepared to accept these modest amendments. If they do not, they will restrict the intention to move forward with recycling. I do not believe that the Government would want to admit that they are not in favour of recycling, so they should be prepared to support the two amendments.

The amendments refer to clause 46, which deals with Duties of waste collection authorities as respects disposal of waste collected. The clause also deals with recycling of waste by waste collection authorities. Subsection (6) states: A waste collection authority may, … provide plant and equipment for the sorting and baling of waste". It should be noted that by implication that clearly identifies such functions as a function of the collection rather than the disposal authority. However, subsection (7) states: Subsection (6) above does not apply to an authority which is also a waste disposal authority; … the authority may make arrangements with a waste disposal contractor" to undertake the recycling function. In Committee and on Report, we discussed on several occasions the varying division between regulation, collection and disposal authorities. No one system is common throughout the country. I certainly do not intend to go through those arguments again, but it is because of the variation in functions that the anomaly in the Bill would create a nonsense. The Government would not wish that to be the case.

The restrictions in subsection (7) will apply to metropolitan and local authorities, which are not part of a statutory waste disposal authority and to the Welsh district authorities. In each of those cases, the authority will be a collection and a disposal authority at the same time. In addition, in London there are four statutory disposal authorities, which may be abolished under section 10 of the Local Government Act 1985.

In January 1989, the Government consulted on the role and functions of waste disposal authorities. When their decision on the results of the consultation were announced, they stated: the four statutory disposal authorities in London will be abolished when their assets and liabilities are transferred to local authority waste disposal companies". Since then the Government said: We have therefore agreed to reconsider the case for each of the authorities to remain in being"—[Official Report, House of Lords, 23 October 1990, Vol. 522, c. 1274.] Indeed, they did so, and it was reported in the Official Report of the other place of 23 October. Of course, that is not sufficient to guarantee the position. The Government should be prepared to move in the direction that we seek.

7.15 pm

The amendment also has the support of Liberal Democrat Members, who will express their support in a few moments. The problem remains that a waste collection authority which is, or could become, a waste disposal authority as well, will be prevented from undertaking recycling activities. It is no good the Government supporting the principle of recycling during hours of debate in Committee, on Report and in another place if they do not deal with an anomaly in their Bill—which will become an Act in a few days—which in certain instances will physically prevent recycling from taking place. That is why we tabled the amendments. They are an attempt to ameliorate the effects of clause 46(7).

The Government have attempted to clarify which activities would be permissible. Despite the fact that the Bill refers to plant equipment sorting and baling, the Government have suggested that the provision of bottle banks will be allowed. However, it is doubted whether the Government's assertion that a bottle bank is a receptacle and, by implication, not a piece of equipment for sorting waste, is a rational distinction that could survive the test of law. Not only is a wide range of other banks used for collecting different types of waste but often other associated specialist equipment could by no means be defined as a receptacle.

I could give details of various activities in the London boroughs affecting Richmond, Westminster, Sutton and Havering. The same could be instanced for the Welsh districts. However, it would be wrong to take up the time of the House by going through those details. The Bill creates a problem and the Government should accept the modest change made by the amendments.

The Government must also recognise—they still fail to do so—that recycling is not a lucrative exercise. Even schemes that are considered economically successful have resulted from considerable pump-priming by local authorities, and it was necessary to plough back any income to maintain the viability of such schemes. As the Bill is drafted, an authority could engage contractors to do the work. Any proposal would inevitably entail additional costs or variations in the scheme, which would reduce its viability.

There is an important principle here, and if time permitted we should press the amendments. I hope that the Minister is prepared to accept that the Bill creates an anomaly that he would not want. He would not wish to bar any London authority or Welsh district authority, which was both a collection and a disposal authority, from dealing with recycling when other authorities are encouraged to undertake recycling. That would be nonsense. If the Minister is sensible, he will see the logic of the amendments and accept them.

Mr. Paul Marland (Gloucestershire, West)

According to the rules of the House, I begin by declaring an interest in metal recycling, which enables me to speak with some authority on the industry and, I hope, to point the Government in the right direction under the heading of recycling arrangements. As my hon. Friend the Minister will know, it is with a certain sense of disappointment that, despite being at my most persuasive, I have not managed to persuade him that the right way forward would be to separate scrap metal from the general definition of waste. He continues to insist that that is what it is and that that is how it should be treated. In fairness, I must admit that he has left his door open to me by giving me an assurance that, if I can find a metal recycling merchant who is finding it difficult to have his premises licensed, my hon. Friend will discuss the matter with me. If I submit full details to him, he will investigate the matter. As yet, I have not come up with a scrap-metal dealer who is encountering such difficulties, expecially as local authorities have only just started to license scrap-metal yards.

There are some difficulties about the length of time for which local authorities are prepared to issue licenses. Sadly, some are not prepared to issue them beyond five years, but the investment required for the efficient recycling of metal, whether ferrous or non-ferrous, means that more than five years is needed in which to recoup such investment. The industry is, however, living with that problem.

At the moment, George Lyons and Co. of Liverpool is having trouble with an unco-operative Merseyside development corporation. I hope that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mr. Parry) and I will be able to sort that out without resorting to ministerial help. It is important to remember that most local authorities are only now beginning to embark on the licensing of their scrapyards.

On the definition of waste, we must look for assistance where we can. Perhaps the Confederation of British Industry has come to our rescue because, in its documents on the business agenda for Europe in the 1990s, it seeks for a clear distinction to be made between waste and secondary raw material so that recycling is promoted and resources are better utilised.

As I said in many speeches to the Committee on this subject, I understand that the European Community may be issuing a directive on inter-European movement of waste. Exemptions to regulations may result from that directive based on the category of waste to be moved across frontiers. The categories of waste are as follows: white, grey and black. Obviously, the most hazardous material falls into the black category. Such categorisation would benefit the movement of ferrous scrap, which would obviously come in the white group. Eurofer, the European equivalent of the British Scrap Federation, has had assurances from the Commission that it is aware of the problems created by calling scrap metal waste and it has agreed that ferrous scrap could be removed from the category of waste.

If ferrous scrap is removed from the category of waste or is classified differently by the Commission, will my hon. Friend the Minister preserve our Euro-credentials and follow suit in the United Kingdom? In common with many other hon. Members, I dislike the expression "a level playing field", but the United Kingdom reclamation industry needs reassurance that it will be treated the same as the European reclamation industry. It is disconcerting to record that the licensing of scrapyards has not yet begun in Denmark, Belgium, France or Italy—Lord only knows what is happening in Ireland. What is required is fair competition across Europe.

There are some other specific matters on which I seek reassurance from my hon. Friend. Will representatives of the reclamation industry be consulted about any future changes to the licensing procedure? When Lord Hesketh was at the Department of the Environment he gave me and other members of the industry the reassurance that such consultation would take place. Now that Lord Hesketh has moved on, I should be glad if my hon. Friend could reaffirm that commitment. Consultation on the annual costs and criteria for the licensing of scrap yards would also be enormously reassuring. Similarly, it would be reassuring to have discussions with the Department of the Environment on the waste management paper concerning advice to local authorities on the procedures for licensing.

Lest the House should think otherwise, I want to emphasise that the reclamation industry does not in any way want to pollute or to irritate. It wants to set high standards and to ensure that their enforcement is practical and efficient. I am pleased to tell the House that two scrap-metal recyclers have been awarded the British quality standard award BS 5750 for setting a high standard in their own businesses. I believe that we owe a great deal to the scrap-metal industry and to farmers, who are probably the most active promoters of a clean environment.

There is some confusion over recycling credits and who shall get them from the county council in rural areas. Will the skip operator and the reclaimer obtain those credits or the district local authority, which, in many cases, is already charging for bottle banks and the like? Will those authorities be reimbursed for doing so, as well as being paid? Will the waste collection authority receive the credits?

It would be commendable and emotionally appealing if recycling credits were given to the boy scouts for collecting old drink tins or bottle tops or to a local women's institute for collecting waste paper—many of whom make a first-class job of it. If such functions are undertaken by a professional organisation, such as a refuse collector or a scrap-metal dealer, will it collect a recycling credit? After all, those organisations perform a commendable job. We also need clarification of exactly what a recycling credit is. Is it a cash payment? Is a credit note to be offset against some local authority charges or something else? Whatever it may be, it would be helpful to have some clarification.

There are other on-going problems that must be addressed. Firstly, will the reclamation industry be consulted on any enabling legislation as a result of the Bill? It should also be consulted about any changes that the Department of the Environment may want to introduce once the Bill is enacted. Secondly, will my hon. Friend confirm that the inspectors, or whoever, who follow the regulations to ensure that they are adhered to, all work to the same brief, regardless of their location? It is difficult for the industry if the inspectors in Liverpool are working to a different brief from that used in Guildford. I must insist that the cowboy operators do not profit at the expense of the legitimate trader.

Finally, I should like to put on record how much I have appreciated my hon. Friend's willingness to discuss these matters during the passage of the Bill and the ready way in which he has sought to familiarise himself with ferrous metal reclamation.

Mr. Simon Hughes

Amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 110, which has been tabled by my hon. Friends and I, is extremely straightforward: it requires that those who carry out the recycling are paid for the process.

Our amendment relates to the new clause proposed by Lords amendment No. 110. It changes the option that there "may" be payment to the waste collection authority to a requirement that there "shall" be. I hope that the Minister will be favourably disposed towards that amendment.

I do not dissent greatly from the arguments advanced by the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Marland), but he will not be surprised if I speak to another specific concern—one which I am sure the Minister expected that I should want to express. The hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) has already mentioned the problem, which is now the subject of amendments tabled by the Labour party and my party. If a waste collection authority should become a waste disposal authority, it would be prevented from carrying out certain recycling.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State and his colleagues have received written representations on this matter and the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities was questioned about it at a recent conference. Concern about this matter is especially prevalent in authorities such as the London boroughs of Richmond and Sutton, which have taken the lead in recycling initiatives under the administration of my Liberal Democrat colleagues.

Richmond is a collection authority and also one of the constituent members of the west London waste authority—one of the four statutory London waste disposal authorities. I do not think that there is any party political doubt that that borough has been at the forefront of recycling activities. It operates a range of collection activities covering bottles, rags, cans, office waste paper, computer paper and commercial glass. There are many points around the borough for the collection of board, waste oil, plastic and so on. It has storage bays for recycling, which other boroughs also use. It is now investigating micro recycling centres. It has a lot of fairly sophisticated equipment either already commissioned or planned. It clearly has a sophisticated process for servicing the facilities and doing an extremely good job.

To take up the point of the hon. Member for Burnley, it would be invidious for a local authority to have to pay and make a loss on some environmental and recycling activities if, on the rare occasion when it was to make a profit—which it normally uses to encourage voluntary activity—it was to be prohibited from any activity.

7.30 pm

My colleagues in Richmond are worried that the Government's approach will mean that my colleagues will not be allowed to retain in house, organised by the local authority as opposed to contracted out, all the recycling initiatives which it is accepted have been among the best in the country.

The Sutton case is parallel. It is a collection authority and, as the Under-Secretary will know, it is also a disposal authority by virtue of being a member of the voluntary south London waste disposal joint committee. It has purchased vehicles for glass collection, put its in-house direct labour operation out to compulsory, competitive tender and won the contract. As a result, it has begun to programme a range of activities that require investment of money and officer time. It is equally concerned that that project is likely to be thwarted by the current trend of Government activity.

I expect that the Under-Secretary has seen the letter written to the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities, dated 22 October, by the leader of Sutton borough council, Councillor Graham Tope. Councillor Tope asks a limited number of specific questions, which I shall repeat because, as far as I know, they have not yet been answered and go to the core of the issue. He asks whether it is the Minister's intention that the Bill will allow a waste collection authority that is also a waste disposal authority to provide and operate, either by direct labour or private contractor, a recycling facility and be in receipt of a rebate which will be a transfer from its waste disposal or waste collection account to a recycling account. It seems to the councillor, as it does to my colleagues and me, that that is an encouragement to be a good recycling authority. It is a perfectly proper activity.

What is intended to be the commercial, financial interaction between waste disposal authorities and waste collection authorities? What about commercial contractual commitments entered into, as at present, by local authorities, either with other local authorities to do their recycling for them, or with direct service organisations or private companies? Will they be allowed to go ahead and honour those or will they have penalties imposed on them if they do? Will there be a programme whereby waste collection authorities will have to invite tenders for the receipt of waste that they collect? How will they be able to carry out what they are presently doing without breach of contract?

I confirm the concerns that have also been taken up with Ministers by my colleagues in Richmond upon Thames. The Minister will be aware that my colleague, Lord Ezra, raised those matters in the other place in the debate only a week ago. There has been correspondence, including some from Lady Blatch, as the Under-Secretary of State responsible for such matters in the other place, and from the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, the hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory), to officers of the London borough of Richmond, but they do not address the fundamental concern. We have not yet had a reassurance that local authorities will be able, if they are in the constitutional position of being both collection and disposal authorities, to carry out in house the recycling activity that they have clearly done well and wish to carry on. There are all sorts of practical implications in that.

I hope that the Minister can be far more positive and will accept the amendment to Lords amendment No. 110. I hope that he will accept the amendment to Lords amendment No. 93 and say that, where recycling has been pioneered by good local authorities, they will be allowed to go on doing it and will not be forced by what I can only assume is an initial mistake to have recycling out of house, so that it is no longer an operation in which they can lead the local community and volunteer effort, and set an extremely good example that many other local authorities are willing and happy to follow.

Mr. Peter Bottomley (Eltham)

While we are considering the statutory responsibilities and the question whether the amendment should read "may" or "shall"" it is possible to re-emphasise what my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Marland) talked about—the commercial recycling and reclamation, and the individual and voluntary groups. Obviously, they can mesh together. If we ever forget to emphasise how important it is for each of us to consider what we can do and try to ensure that those with commercial opportunities for selling and reclaiming products receive some response to what they do, whether they do it correctly or not, we shall not achieve the full spectrum of necessary activity.

I pay tribute to the mayoress of Cambridge. When she bought a plastic product packed in a container that stated that it was recyclable she tried to find out how it was recyclable and was told that at some future stage it might be possible to sort out different sorts of plastic and perhaps that form of plastic could be melted down and used. I regard that as offensive. We must start with current products that can be recycled, with voluntary help to overcome the transport and collection costs, as with aluminium and paper, and then move to the time when the value of waste paper is taken from £3 a tonne back to £30 a tonne and promote more commercial opportunity in collection and disposal.

My hon. Friend the Minister has done a great deal to provide a focus for all the efforts, but when people consider the results of the legislation, they will remember the role of voluntary organisations and domestic households, as well as commercial premises.

Mr. Peter Hardy (Wentworth)

I am a Member who recognises that world resources are finite and recycling has an important part to play. However, experience in my constituency during the past 18 months makes it clear that recycling has to be carried out within a framework of adequate and ongoing supervision and regulation. I recognise the need for the reclamation of metals. As a Member with a significant part of the British special steels industry in my constituency, I should be foolish not to do so.

I shall restrict my speech on the group of amendments to a local incident with which the Minister for the Environment and Countryside is familiar and to which he has devoted a fair amount of time and energy. About 18 months ago, a consignment of toxic waste, contained in a load of copper scrap, reached my constituency. The material was supposed to be uncontaminated, but after it had lain in the open for some time it was discovered to be contaminated by carcinogenic materials—what I described last year as a poisonous cocktail.

That incident has cost my local authority considerable sums in supervision. It has also had to bear the burden of anxiety felt throughout the local community. The saddest part is that the material was already in Britain and had been here for some weeks before the poison was discovered, which suggests that the regulations should be changed and that the role of the local authority and its capacity to meet the costs that it incurred should be enshrined in new legislation.

The Minister may care to offer his latest comments on the position, but 18 months later the material is still in my constituency. It is now contained in more than 2,700 drums and has been there for 12 months—heaven knows when it will go. While that material remains in my constituency, it is evidence of the inadequacy of regulation and the need for care and supervision to assist local authorities to ensure that their communities are protected. It may be that it was unwitting poisoning, although we cannot be sure until the court case is resolved in the United States. However, that incident provides adequate evidence to sustain continuing concern in the House. We want a commitment from Ministers that, if existing regulations prove inadequate and bring the risk of a repeat performance of that which has blighted my area, they will not hesitate to introduce amending legislation—which I believe will be necessary at an early stage.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett (Denton and Reddish)

I support the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike). I am delighted that he is now speaking from the Front Bench; his presence there is long overdue.

I am concerned that we are endangering the legislation by making recycling less practical and more difficult, rather than easier. We should be encouraging recycling. There are two approaches to the problem—pre-collection sorting and post-collection sorting. Unfortunately, the legislation tends to put those two approaches in competition, rather than encouraging co-operation. Pre-collection sorting was pioneered in Huddersfield 10 years ago—I think that it was an Oxfam scheme—but, unfortunately, it ran into financial difficulties and ceased operation. More recently, Friends of the Earth, in co-operation with the Sheffield local authority, operated a recycling scheme.

Both schemes involved the householder separating his rubbish into four or five different piles and putting them into separate containers, which were then collected from the households. People in other authorities separate their rubbish, although the refuse collection service does not deal with separated items. The householders have to take them to bottle banks, waste paper collection points, tin can collection points and so on.

There are considerable attractions in the pre-sorting process. For example, it increases public awareness of how much is being thrown away and the value of those items. The scheme is cheap to operate because it relies on the householder to sort the rubbish. However, the scheme has disadvantages. It can be inefficient because some people will not go to the trouble of sorting their rubbish; the elderly and the disabled may find sorting difficult; and in tower blocks and flats there is often the difficulty of only one refuse chute for rubbish, so that it is difficult to sort it effectively.

Another problem is that, however hard one tries, a large proportion of rubbish is not sorted. A certain amount can be extracted, but it is difficult to extract and sort all the rubbish into reusable materials. The process can also be expensive. There are many examples of people who religiously take paper and bottles to collection points, but in fact they use more energy transporting the rubbish than is saved by recycling.

I suspect that the pre-sorting process causes problems for waste disposal authorities that have begun to develop post-sorting of refuse. The temptation is to take from the refuse the one or two valuable materials that will command a high price. That destroys the economics of sorting all the rubbish. That is why I disagree with the Liberal-Democrat amendment to replace the word "may" with "shall". If a collection authority is separating paper, bottles or any other materials in the rubbish that might otherwise go to landfill, it is doing a valuable service and should receive some remuneration to take account of the fact that it is reducing the amount of landfill. If a local authority sorts all the refuse in its depot, the pre-collection method that takes out the most valuable items—for example, aluminium and tin—may destroy the economics of that authority's attempt to recycle all the waste.

One disadvantage of post-collection sorting is that it does not impress upon the public the importance of the resources being used. It is unseen by the public, because it takes place in the waste disposal depot. The process can also be expensive, especially because of the capital costs of installing equipment to separate the rubbish. However, almost 100 per cent. recycling can be achieved. The Greater Manchester waste disposal authority is running an experimental scheme, and I understand that an authority in the west midlands also has a recycling contract.

Paper, tin, aluminium and different sorts of plastic can be extracted and, eventually, there is a residue of humus material that can be turned into an acceptable substitute for peat, which is environmentally attractive. If all that takes place, Iandfill can be avoided and there is a recycled use of the materials. The danger is that that approach can be destroyed if the pre-collection authority extracts one or two of the more valuable materials. That destroys the economic viability of the large plants that are intended to sort all the refuse.

7.45 pm

There needs to be a co-operative approach in any local authority area. The collection and disposal authorities should discuss whether pre-or post-collection is the most reasonable. They should make financial arrangements to take that into account. The Government also have a key role in that because, whether it is pre- or post-collection, the paramount question is what price can be commanded for the recycled materials. The Government should be doing much more to ensure guaranteed prices for recycled materials. They should increase the specifications, especially in Government purchasing, for the use of recycled materials.

The Government have made some progress in the use of recycled paper, but they could go much further. It is regrettable that, in other areas of Government purchasing, there is no requirement for the use of, for example, recycled glass. I ask the Minister to ensure that this legislation does not produce an artificial conflict between the collection and the disposal authorities. The Government must do as much as possible to ensure guaranteed prices, especially in a period when it appears that there will be a general slump in industrial activity. We must not destroy the impetus of the recycling industry.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory)

The debate has echoed some of our discussions in Committee, and they were some of our best debates. There was an especially striking speech from the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) who, in an associated debate on packaging, brought to the Committee a shirt box containing a new shirt. He used that to show how the manufacturer could do without a great deal of the packaging, pins, labels and so on. It was an excellent prop.

In other debates, there were contributions from my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Marland), who impressed upon the Committee the fact that this country has a good record in reclamation and scrap reprocessing. He instigated a visit by me to a large and important scrap merchant in London which showed me what was happening on the ground. It also showed me the importance of doing nothing in the Bill that might impede the recovery of ferrous and other scrap.

I am happy to reassure my hon. Friend that we will continue closely to consult the relevant industry. My officials have already had preliminary discussions with the British Secondary Metals Association, and they will be happy to extend them to the British Scrap Federation. Those discussions will be most usefully held after we have issued a first draft of our licensing regulations and the associated guidance, so that there will be something definite on the table to discuss. Those notes and regulations will meet my hon. Friend's concern that different standards might apply in different parts of the country—and that is something we certainly want to avoid.

My hon. Friend mentioned the boundary transfer of waste. We are determined that regulations on an international or EC basis, although necessary, will not impede or inhibit the legitimate recycling trade. However, I repeat the point that I made in Committee, that we must not assume that all potentially recyclable waste is by definition non-hazardous.

My hon. Friend asked about recycling credits. T he Lords amendment sets out in detail how those credits are to be paid, and the philosophy is comparatively simple. When material is reclaimed from the waste stream and recycled, there is a saving on disposal costs. Put simply, each tonne of glass that we recycle is a tonne of which we do not have to dispose. The purpose of the amendments, which I believe have cross-party support, is to capture that sum of money in cash terms and to attribute it to the recycling activity.

Several hon. Members asked who is to receive those credits. Under amendment No. 92, they should, as a requirement, go to the waste collection authority, and also to third parties where appropriate. The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) wanted to ensure that that arrangement will not impede the more general recycling undertaken in the voluntary sector. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) that that sector is an essential part of the activity, and we must do nothing to inhibit it.

I ask the House to reject the Opposition amendment, because there may be instances where economies of scale will make it more appropriate for a recycling scheme to be run by a waste collection authority rather than by voluntary bodies. In other cases, a number of voluntary bodies may be operating similar schemes in the same area, and it would not necessarily be appropriate for a waste disposal authority to pay credits to a number of competing schemes—especially if some of them recycle only small amounts of waste.

One can imagine a situation in which the viability of a large door-to-door collection scheme depends on collecting and recycling of all the materials, including more valuable items such as aluminium cans. It would be unfortunate if a small-scale competitor went down the street in advance of the recycling wagon and simply picked up the more valuable aluminium cans, as that might render the competing scheme uneconomic.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce (Gordon)

Are not boroughs such as Sutton and Richmond concerned that it might operate the other way around? The local collecting authority may have established a viable business and then find that it is taken away and given to another agency, private or public, so that the authority would lose that revenue. Sutton was the first local authority in Britain to introduce the recycling of CFCs, and my own local authority of Gordon was the second. They do not make money from that activity, and it is only reasonable that they should be able to secure some benefit, so that they can cross-subsidise. If revenue is lost to local authorities, a greater burden will fall on poll tax payers.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory

I intend to address the question of unitary disposal or collection authorities, but I was making the point that some discretion must be allowed as to the type of third party recycling scheme that a local waste disposal authority wants to encourage in its area. Because we believe in such discretion, we reject the idea of making it compulsory that recycling credits should be given automatically to every scheme in any particular area.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned Sutton, and I am happy to acknowledge the work done by that London borough, which is something of a leader in certain aspects of recycling.

That leads me to the disquiet felt by the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike). In Committee, it was agreed that waste disposal authorities should transfer their disposal operations to what were called LAWDCs—local authority waste disposal companies. A local authority will be required to transfer all the relevant plant and equipment for the keeping, treatment or disposal of such waste to such a company, or to make alternative arrangements with the private sector for its provision. Judging from the hon. Gentleman's earlier remarks, I take it that he accepts the LAWDC principle.

It follows that it would not be sensible to allow those that happen to be both collection and disposal authorities to provide and operate as collection authorities equipment that they would be unable to provide and operate as disposal authorities. A line must be drawn somewhere, as to which plant and equipment a collection authority should operate. Our view is that the line should be drawn at the plant and equipment that a collection authority would normally provide as part of its collection duties.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett

The Minister says that a line must be drawn somewhere, but surely local government should be allowed to make its own decisions as to the most appropriate arrangement for a particular part of the United Kingdom, bearing in mind the tremendous variations that exist in the areas and populations involved. Instead of imposing legislation nationally, would it not be better and more democratic to allow such matters to be decided locally?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory

The hon. Gentleman was a member of the Committee and must be aware that the establishment of LAWDCs underpins this part of the Bill. I remind the hon. Gentleman that LAWDCs need not be privately owned but can be entirely in the public sector, joint ventures, or companies jointly owned by the private and public sector.

The hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) wrote to me to ensure that, in clause 46(6), the words plant and equipment for the sorting and baling of waste include bottle banks and other collection facilities. I examined carefully the wording of the Bill, and I draw the hon. Lady's attention to the title of clause 46: Duties of waste collection authorities as respects disposal of waste collection. It implies that we are here considering waste that has already been collected and is at the disposal phase. Only those facilities, and that plant and equipment, will be that from which we are precluding the collection and disposal authorities from owning. Consequently, bottle banks and light plant and equipment of that type should be permitted to be owned and run by the London boroughs that are both collection and disposal authorities. I hope that I have put the hon. Lady's mind at rest, and I invite the House to reject the Opposition amendments.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

Forward to