Community Protection (Landfill) (Hansard, 13 April 1999)

§ Mr. David Taylor (North-West Leicestershire)

I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to reduce landfill disposal of municipal and special wastes and to control the location of landfill sites; to require the assessment of the impact of proposed landfill sites on public health, the local economy and the environment; and for connected purposes. Last autumn, my Countryside Protection (Landfill and Opencast Mining) Bill was given a First Reading. It made provision for a presumption against landfill sites and opencast mines in open countryside. Subsequent announcements by the Government have answered some of the concerns that led me to bring that legislation before the House. Just two weeks ago today, tougher regulations in minerals planning guidance 3 on opencast mining were introduced. I welcome them as they resolve most of my worries about opencasting.

However, a major problem covered by my earlier Bill remains, and is tackled by this Bill. Former mining constituencies such as mine, with a long history of mineral workings, are especially vulnerable to continued planning applications for opencasting and quarrying, which is sometimes linked to a more damaging activity. Opencast mines have an even uglier and more dangerous sibling: landfill sites.

The House will be aware of the study published last summer in The Lancet on a possible link between birth defects and certain types of landfill site. The report said:

Women who live within 3 km of hazardous waste landfill sites have a 33 per cent. higher risk of having babies with birth defects. I recognise that the statistical link between toxic landfill sites and the increased incidence of congenital malformations, cancers and cases of Down's syndrome in people living close to them is not necessarily a causal link, but there is sufficient epidemiological evidence to cause political concern.

I welcome the Imperial college statistical survey commissioned by the Government into the patterns of ill health around landfill sites. However, the conclusions of that study are still some years away. Precautionary legislative measures cannot wait that long. The unborn child must not be made to pay for our inadequate planning.

The presence of landfill sites close to local communities raises numerous health, economic, environmental and social issues. Just weeks ago, Leicestershire county council, in a panic about the shortage of landfill capacity, sold the environment of a village in my constituency for a generation. It allowed a huge refuse tip to be placed at the heart of our national forest. The Government office for the east midlands stood idly by, despite the fact that the application was outside national planning guidelines.

I am certain that what is happening to people living in that Leicestershire hamlet of Boothorpe is a fundamental breach of their human rights. Such injustice is echoed in many other places in our country. People's main concern is that old landfill sites are environmental nightmares, and new landfill sites are often as rigorously controlled as Chernobyl. All sites leak pollutants such as methane, which is a potent greenhouse gas, into the surrounding environment, or they leach out into the water table.

36 Landfill sites are still in operation despite the much tougher planning regime I propose, and my Bill would force their operators to meet the wider social costs incurred. It would ensure adequate compensation to communities and individuals who suffer. A compensation regime would deter business and industry from creating landfill sites. Money talks and business listens: voters talk and Governments must be made to listen.

I believe that the Government are listening. They are reviewing their strategy on waste. Their vision incorporates seven key commitments. They propose more recycling and energy recovery. That sounds fine, but let us not ignore the problems. Are incinerators huge and expensive one-stop solutions to a modern society's waste problems—throw them into the oven and, hey presto, they are gone? Not quite. They have three main byproducts: heat, fly ash and air pollution, the last two of which can cause significant environmental problems in their own right.

The Government propose increased public involvement in re-use and recycling of household waste, including perhaps charging for waste disposal. We need challenging and realistic targets. In theory at least, 80 per cent. of waste is recyclable, whereas in reality the national recycling rate is less than 10 per cent. Most other developed nations have far higher rates.

The Government intend to place a strong emphasis on waste minimalisation, and on the need to change the perception of the waste hierarchy. They propose a more creative use of economic incentives and the possible use of landfill tax revenues to fund recycling. They want increased public involvement in the decision-making process, which is a crucial requirement that is tackled by my Bill. I look forward to the announcement about the consultation, which is due very soon.

My modest Bill aims to identify a way ahead for the Government in certain respects. My county council, Leicestershire, is to hold a public inquiry on its waste land later this year. The plan, like others being drafted throughout the country, will define the future direction of waste policy in our area. The big question is: will the council opt for a recycling-led or an incineration-led policy? It is vital for it to get that right, and to avoid like the plague—I use that term advisedly—the use of landfill.

There are those who argue that anti-landfill campaigners are premature or alarmist. I do not accept that. These are great matters, and the public deserve greater reassurance. We want to ensure that landfill disease is not the next BSE.

This, then, is my charter for the healthy disposal of waste. The Bill proposes the establishment of a national landfill policy, consistent with human rights legislation; the banning of new landfill sites within 2 km of residential property, and the closure of existing sites of that kind within a year, or voluntary and compensated relocation of affected residents; an independent inquiry into the failures of landfill regulation, especially the conduct of the Environment Agency and waste planning authorities; independent and continuous monitoring of pollutants and notifiable diseases, the data being freely published to all interested parties; a ban on the granting of permission for, and the immediate closure of, landfill sites where there will be, or has been, a detrimental effect on public health; more Government-sponsored scientific research into the 37 causes of landfill diseases and prevention methods; and compensation for victims, such as children with Down's syndrome or other disabilities.

My Bill proposes the establishment of waste planning authorities to obtain independent health and environmental impact assessments, and a local economic analysis as part of the determination of applications. It proposes the setting up of an independent regulatory body for the planning, licensing and monitoring of landfill sites. It also proposes the full implementation of European waste management, landfill and pollution control directives, and a major review of the Government's hierarchy of waste disposal methods. It proposes a cumulative annual 5 per cent. reduction in biodegradable tonnage going to landfill, with the figure reaching zero by 2020. That is more ambitious than the European directive, under which 35 per cent. will still be landfilled.

In the Palace of Westminster this afternoon there has been a major national lobby, bringing together individuals and groups concerned about the impact of landfill sites on health and human rights. People have travelled here from all over the country; many have come from mining areas such as mine in north-west Leicestershire. The voices of individuals protesting alone are often lost in the winds of indifference, but the voices of campaigning communities can give landfill operators pause for thought, and the voice of a national lobby demanding change must spur Government into action.

Today's protest was called "Community Lobby Opposing Unhealthy Tips"—CLOUT. These communities now have clout, and they are starting to use it. As a Back-Bench MP, I may have relatively little clout, but in introducing my Bill I hope to bring to the attention of a wider audience the concerns with which many who are near such tips must live on a daily basis.

Government can act; indeed, Government must act. I submit that my proposals could form the basis for such action. They are worth while, workable and long overdue, and I commend them to the House.