HC Deb 15 January 1997 vol 288 cc287-93

1 pm

Mr. William O'Brien (Normanton)

I declare an interest as a joint chairman of the all-party sustainable waste management group. The generation of waste, and its collection and disposal, are of paramount importance to the environment. The Environment Act 1995 was welcome, but the Labour party considered that it could have been strengthened in various ways.

During the passage of the Bill, the introduction of a landfill tax and of packaging recovery regulations was given serious consideration, as were the waste reduction targets set by the European Community and how they should apply to the United Kingdom.

I am interested in landfill because one of the largest landfill and reclamation sites in the United Kingdom, the Welbeck site, is in my constituency. It covers more than a square mile of reclaimed land—reclaimed mostly from colliery spoil and the results of colliery workings. The landfill tax was introduced last October, but a number of questions about it remain unanswered.

The West Yorkshire waste management group of local authorities has raised the matter of the processing of mixed waste from construction sites. The screening and crushing of such mixed waste changes the nature of the material but little. This material can be and is used on waste disposal sites to eliminate the need to quarry new material used for making roads on the sites, to allow vehicles bringing in waste to reach the tips. The material is thus widely sought after.

It is a pity that material from reclaimed or demolition sites which is used for temporary roads is not tax free; it is immensely valuable for this purpose. I hope that the Minister will take up and deal with this point.

It has been the practice for sub-soil used in site restoration, and for waste construction material for site roads, to be provided on landfill sites free of charge. Now, however, we find that building sites are burying unwanted materials, suitably landscaped of course, on their own sites. That means that a source of much valued material for landfill sites is drying up, leading to additional costs. There are also rumours to the effect that fly tipping is on the increase because of the new landfill tax.

The tax was meant to encourage the recycling of waste, because there is not much of a market in the United Kingdom for recyclable materials. The fact that international organisations import low-cost recovered materials means that there is little point in collecting materials here for recycling if they are not eventually to be used. Thus we need to encourage recycling with a stable market in the commodities concerned.

I know of a good example from my constituency. Mr. Steve Gilks, a disabled constituent of mine, got involved in collecting cans, plastics and paper for recycling, using the money raised to help local charities. On 13 December last, he presented a new recording machine to the Normanton talking newspaper for the blind. He told those receiving the gift that it was the result of collecting 300,000 aluminium cans. Between January 1994 and December 1996 he also collected nearly 95,000 tonnes of plastic for recycling.

Mr. Gilks tells me, however, that the bottom is dropping out of this market. He used to get £190 a tonne for plastic; that is now down to £60 a tonne. What is more, the grant from the Department of the Environment to help him with his work of collecting waste has been cut by half. That clearly makes his task more difficult.

Can the Minister explain why people like Mr. Gilks are not given more encouragement by the Department to continue collecting waste for recycling?

I wish to draw attention to the interesting work commissioned by various organisations. I think in particular of the Industrial Council for Packaging and the Environment. The research examines the relationship between food packaging and the food chain in general. The purpose is to design products so as to minimise waste in the home. The packaging industry has been actively involved in discussions of packaging recovery and in setting up Valpak. It is a collective scheme to capture, recycle and deal with packaging. We owe Valpak our thanks for its work in waste management.

When he comes to consider regulations for the waste industry, the Minister must keep in mind all businesses, both large and small, and he must keep to a minimum the number of excluded companies. All businesses must be encouraged to join Valpak or some such scheme. I hope that the Minister will outline the Department's intentions as regards those schemes.

Mr. Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield)

My hon. Friend knows of my interest in this matter and of my enthusiasm for the work of Valpak. He will also know of the stress and strain involved. We need much more positive Government backing for Valpak if the voluntary agreement is not to fall apart. Valpak and other organisations have been working hard towards the best possible answers. There is no single answer to waste minimisation; it is all about striking the right balance. Once waste starts to be moved along motorways, of course, it begins to damage the economy and the environment.

Mr. O'Brien

My hon. Friend is right. As we are aware, the new agency covers all types of environmental issues, but there are fears that the agency's dominant activities will be those that it took over from the former National Rivers Authority and Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution. I will put my hon. Friend's point to the Minister. Does he envisage that the agency's resources will apply to ensuring that waste management issues are given sufficient focus, with particular reference to packaging waste, which accounts for one third of household waste? The agency must give as much time to that issue as to some of the other issues for which it is responsible.

The Environment Agency has been advised that it should deliver goals without imposing excessive costs. In some European Union member states, packaging recovery has led to excessive cost. In Germany and Austria, citizens pay around £20 per year in inflated products to reach certain targets. The United Kingdom Government suggest that packaging regulations will cost between £5 and £11 per head of population. In view of the low level of energy from waste in Britain, how confident is the Minister that the recycling targets can be met from an extra cost below £11 per person per annum?

Environmental progress can be achieved only by taking a fully integrated approach to waste management, including packaging waste. If the costs to the UK scheme are to be minimised, how important is it that the legal responsibility for achieving the recovery targets are shared between various participants who lead in marketing packaging goods? We need to have some directive on how to achieve the recovery targets at the minimum cost that is suggested by the Government.

The Government have set a target for the recycling of domestic waste of 25 per cent. of the total by 2000. That can be met only if investment in the infrastructure is encouraged. Local authorities will play a key role in any recycling programme. Recycling performances in the UK are not as advanced as those in many European Union member states. The industry must be given a realistic timetable to meet the first-year obligations for registration and data provision. We can bring about success only by implementing a plan, rather than talking about it.

Will the Minister give some indication as to when he proposes laying the regulations for the packaging recovery industry before Parliament? Does he intend to demonstrate further co-operation with Valpak and the industry by progressing with regulations and using mechanisms to revise the regulations as experience is gained?

I ask for one further point to be clarified: that of wood in packaging, which is not included in any scheme. Friends of the Earth has drawn attention to wood in packaging. Many members in the industry re-use wood for packaging—I refer to pallets. Also, many people in the packaging industry have changed to re-usable plastic crates and trolleys, which is to be commended.

I understand that the European Union has not offered any real guidance on that issue and there may be questions in some EU countries as to wood being included in packaging. When does the Minister expect to report on wood packaging?

I have received many items of briefing material from many sources in the industry, interested organisations and individuals expressing support for and reservations on some waste management proposals. Although that material is welcome, it demonstrates the strength of feeling on the issue. Obviously, I would have wished to continue the debate for longer, but because of the time limit I must conclude by asking the Minister to answer my questions.

1.15 pm
Mr. Robert Atkins (South Ribble)

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) for allowing me to participate briefly in his debate. I do not want to delay my hon. Friend the Minister's reply. The hon. Gentleman spoke with the authority that I came to expect when I was the Minister taking through the Bill to which he referred, which became the Environment Act 1995. He was always an authority on the Committee, although I did not always agree with him.

I want to dwell just on the packaging regulations, with which my hon. Friend the Minister is heavily involved, as is the Secretary of State for the Environment. I shall quote from four letters that I have received from constituency companies, which raise particular points. I do not expect the Minister to answer now. He must concentrate on the points made by the hon. Member for Normanton, whose debate it is, but perhaps he could let me know his reaction later.

The managing director of Ward Packaging Ltd. in Leyland, which employs 110 people making paper sacks and bags, says that under the proposed regulations Ward Packaging will be burdened with an unrealistic administrative regime to identify its recycling targets, and that of its customers, at a very detailed level and at a significant cost. Having identified these targets I will not have the ability to achieve these targets because the packaging produced will not be within my control or that of my customers. Smurfit Corrugated, a substantial company throughout the United Kingdom, says: The problem arises because one part of the Packaging Chain—the big Retailers—might be able to use the considerable amount of used transit packaging that ends up in their stores to offset their obligation against other kinds of packaging, thus avoiding the costs that the other members of the Packaging Chain will have to bear. Leyprint, a substantial printing company, says: it puts up the cost of complying with the Regulations for the other parts of the packaging chain. This threatens the viability of industry-wide recovery schemes like Valpak whose costs will consequently increase. As a result, the UK's ability to meet its recovery and recycling targets may be undermined … with a knock-on-impact on profitability and jobs. Finally in this context, the owner of a small post office in Penwortham says that the introduction of the regulations will force him to raise my prices and lose customers to supermarkets or to cut my profit margin significantly … The Regulations will make my business very vulnerable to closure … as well as depriving people of a local shop. Set against that, large retailers maintain that the regulations will meet the requirement of an effective and equitable method of putting shared producer responsibility into practice. The Regulations are entirely in line with the industry agreement which was reached on December 15th 1995 between all parts of the packaging chain". The point with which I leave the House is that, clearly, there is some concern about the perception of what is happening, particularly among smaller operators, who feel deeply concerned about the regulations' implications. I hope that, during his discussions and in eventually making his decisions, my hon. Friend the Minister will take those concerns into account and recognise that it is important to consider every sector of the packaging and production chain in the implementation of financing measures.

1.18 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. James Clappison)

I welcome the opportunity to respond to the debate. I appreciate that the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) has a particular interest in the matter and speaks as chairman of the parliamentary all-party group on sustainable waste management. He also has a particular constituency interest in the matter in the Welbeck site.

The House will have benefited from the contribution by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins). He has quite a background on the subject and strong credentials on the greening of businesses. I have listened carefully to the concerns that he has expressed on behalf of small businesses. He was right to stress the importance of carrying every sector of the packaging industry with the initiative on producer responsibility.

I will deal with the detailed points raised by the hon. Member for Normanton, but I think that it would be helpful if I first set them against the background of the Government's waste strategy. As chairman of the parliamentary group on sustainable waste management, the hon. Gentleman will know that the Government have embraced a strategy that deals with the issues that he outlined—along with many others—within a comprehensive framework, to encourage good environmental practice and, in particular, sustainable waste management.

We strongly support the need for a sustainable waste strategy. At the end of 1995, we published a White Paper entitled "Making Waste Work", which examined the issues involved in sustainable waste management. The strategy set out in that document takes the principles of sustainable development—development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs—and applies them to the issues of waste management. Its main objectives are that we should reduce the amount of waste that we produce, make the best use of the waste that is produced and adopt practices that minimise risks to the environment and to human health. The foundation on which our strategy is built is the need to accept that the waste that we produce always has the potential to harm our environment, and that we must therefore make the production and management of our waste more sustainable.

We have already done much to promote more sustainable waste management. We have introduced new, improved controls on the management of waste through the registration of carriers, and through duty of care and revised licensing requirements. Those measures are designed to minimise the impact of waste on the environment, and provide a sound regulatory basis for the waste strategy.

I noted the hon. Gentleman's concern about fly tipping. He will appreciate that, before introducing the landfill tax, we were keen to ensure that a sound and effective licensing system was in place. We established such a system, and we intend to ensure that it operates as effectively as we expect it to.

In addition to regulation, we have promoted more sustainable waste management options through our support for economic instruments, such as recycling credits and the non-fossil fuel obligation. On 1 October last year we introduced the landfill tax, whose objectives—broadly speaking—are essentially environmental, and, we believe, send the right economic and environmental messages to waste producers. The tax will make those producers aware of the true costs of their activities, and will give them a further incentive to reduce waste production and recover more value from the waste that is produced.

The hon. Member for Normanton expressed concern about the processing of mixed waste from construction sites. He will know that waste from such sites forms a significant component of the waste that goes to landfill. Our overall objective is to reduce the proportion that goes to landfill from 70 per cent. to 60 per cent. by the time that we have specified; but, although I trust that the hon. Gentleman will accept the need to reduce that proportion, we are always prepared to consider particular cases, and to take environmental merits into account. Along with Customs and Excise, we shall be considering any anomalies that arise as a consequence of the introduction of the tax, although we shall need time in which to undertake the review. While we are aware of the issues raised by the hon. Gentleman, he will appreciate the need to set them against the aim of reducing the amount of waste that goes into landfill, which is one of the less sustainable—although sometimes necessary—forms of waste management.

The hon. Gentleman raised the case of Mr. Gilks, the gentleman in his constituency who spoke to the Normanton talking newspaper for the blind. I am sure that the House applauds such voluntary efforts, which have an important and environmentally beneficial impact. As the hon. Gentleman will know, we provide considerable support for those who undertake such activities—through, for example, the environmental action fund and, in future, the landfill environmental bodies that will come into being as part and parcel of the landfill tax. Encouragement is given to recycling and good practice in a variety of ways, including the producer responsibility initiative referred to by the hon. Gentleman. I promise him, however, that I will examine the particular case of Mr. Gilks and the grant that he mentioned.

Now that I have dealt with those issues arising from the landfill tax, I feel that I should re-emphasise the targets that we have set. We aim to reduce the proportion of controlled waste going to landfill from 70 per cent. to 60 per cent., and to recover value from 40 per cent. of municipal waste, by 2005. By the end of 1998, once we have more reliable data on which to base our target, we shall set a target for overall waste reduction. We have also established a wide range of secondary targets: for example, our aim to recycle or compost 25 per cent. of household waste by 2000. That target, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, is an important secondary target. We want to find ways of increasing the amount of recycling by households.

Mr. Sheerman

The Minister probably knows as well as I do that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) pointed out, the crucial factor is the active participation and leadership of local authorities. Many of us believe that, if we are to meet the targets that we all want to meet, local authorities must be given more incentives to take a lead and to be active partners with the private sector. They need encouragement, rather than being knocked back by the Department of the Environment.

Mr. Clappison

I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the need to encourage good practice on the part of local authorities, but I do not think that there are many examples of the Department of the Environment knocking them back. We want to spread good practice wherever possible, but, as the hon. Gentleman will know, practice varies from authority to authority.

The hon. Member for Normanton also mentioned producer responsibility, an important initiative that we have advanced considerably. Following extensive consultation with the packaging business, Government and industry have developed a joint approach for enhanced levels of recovery and recycling of packaging waste to be achieved by 2001. That means, in effect, nearly doubling the amount of packaging waste recovered or recycled in the United Kingdom.

Before the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) leaves the Chamber, may I answer the point that he made about Government leadership? I think that the Government have given a lead, but the hon. Gentleman should not doubt that, throughout the process, we have wanted to listen to the voice of industry. We have considered it important to continue to work with industry, and have felt that initiatives should come from it. No one should be under any misapprehension, and imagine that our wish to work with industry and wait for it to develop its views constitutes a lack of leadership. For the reasons outlined by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble, it is important for all the businesses concerned—including the small businesses to which he referred—to be brought on board. We think that we have achieved that, and that industry is now working with us.

Industry has always contended—and the Government have endorsed its view—that, if the United Kingdom is to attain the EC directive targets and comply with the requirements of that directive, the full co-operation and commitment of all sectors of the packaging chain will be needed. Only then will we be in a position to maximise industry's approach to producer responsibility for packaging. We have therefore consulted widely, taking into account a wide range of views from all sectors of industry—including major trade associations and the Confederation of British Industry—and the views of the Packaging Advisory Committee. On 18 December, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced the modifications that we will be making to the draft regulations that were issued for consultation in July. The amendments reflect the responses to that consultation, and maintain the consensus that has been generated over the past few years. We will lay the regulations before the House very shortly.

I listened to what the hon. Gentleman said about that. It is important for the obligation to extend widely, to as many firms as possible, and, in particular, for "free riders" to be deterred. We have been concerned about that throughout the process. We want a fair, wide-ranging and equitable system: that is the obligation.

The collective scheme—Valpak—is an important part of that. We have made it clear that we will leave it open to firms to choose individual routes if they wish to do so, although the collective scheme is there if they wish to take advantage of it. It is important for the Government not to place industry in a regulatory straitjacket but to allow it as much flexibility as possible to choose its preferred route and to express its views.

As time is running out, I shall respond to the other points made by the hon. Member for Normanton by writing to him. I should, however, emphasise to him and to the House that the Government have a wide-ranging and comprehensive strategy on this matter which is based on targets that we have set. We have ambitions to improve waste management as part of our overall environmental policy. We believe that we have already achieved a great deal, and we have created the mechanisms to achieve a great deal more in the future. That is our ambition.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris)

Order. Time is up.