HC Deb 13 June 2000 vol 351 cc776-7
4. Mr. Nick St. Aubyn (Guildford)

What representations he has received concerning the construction of new waste incinerators. [123992]

The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Michael Meacher)

I have received many representations on all of the policies in the new waste strategy.

Mr. St. Aubyn

Given the latest evidence from the United States, which confirms the views of experts at the Imperial Cancer Research Foundation that the release of dioxins by incinerator plants into the atmosphere poses a serious threat of cancer, does the Minister recognise the concerns of my constituents in north Guildford that no new incinerator plant should be built in Britain until this threat of cancer has been properly investigated by British experts; and the Minister can give absolute reassurance that the threats can be discounted?

Mr. Meacher

We believe that incinerators form a necessary though probably small part of the waste management strategy. It is impossible otherwise to achieve the requirements of the landfill tax directive, which are mandatory. They are to reduce the amount of household waste going to landfill from 85 per cent. at its current level to no more than 35 per cent. of 1995 levels by 2016. That is a shift in any one year of up to 33 million tonnes. If we can all do that by reducing the amount of waste created or by a large increase, which is exactly what I intend, in recycling, re-use and recovery, that is fine. However, incinerators are bound to play a small part.

Under the November 1996 EU directive, emission standards are vastly tighter and stricter than they were in the 1960s. Dioxins must be no more than one part in a billion per cubic metre, and that is a minuscule amount. Far more dioxins are released on Guy Fawkes night from the burning of wood than are released from the regular use of incinerators.

I am rather surprised by the hon. Gentleman's point because, in the Tory Government's 1995 waste strategy, of which the Leader of the Opposition, as Secretary of State for Wales, was a co-sponsor, said: The Government— that is, the Tory Government— agreed … that incineration with energy recovery should play a larger part in waste management in the future.

Mr. Bill O'Brien (Normanton)

I thank my right hon. Friend for his response to the question. If we could get recycling under way and introduce combined heat and power to burn domestic and industrial waste, that may not do away with the need for incineration, as advocated by the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn), but it would help the economy and reduce waste and the need for more landfill sites. More recycling and more combined heat and power would meet the Government's policy requirements.

Mr. Meacher

The Government are extremely keen to see a big increase in good quality combined heat and power and in the use of renewables, and that is why both have been exempted from the climate change levy. We are also pursuing a massive increase in recycling. I made it clear in our strategy document that the Government intend to double the level of recycling within the next three years and to triple it within five years, and to reach a level of 30 per cent.—up among the European leaders—by 2010. If we do all that, incineration will play a relatively small role.

Mr. Damian Green (Ashford)

When the Minister considers his policy towards incineration and the Opposition's more environmentally friendly policy, will he and his colleagues take to heart the comments of the Green Alliance which, in its parliamentary newsletter, says that the Conservatives have succeeded … in catching the public mood by acknowledging recent scientific unease and public concerns over incineration? He should take that to heart because the director of the Green Alliance, who wrote that, has just been appointed his Department's environmental adviser. Does he agree with his new adviser that the Opposition's policy on waste is better and greener than his policy?

Mr. Meacher

I certainly do not believe that a Government who produced a level of recycling of 2 per cent. in 1992 have any claim to being environmentally conscious. The current level of 9 per cent. is far too low, but under the previous Government it was no less than pathetic. What we have seen, which is beginning to be the Opposition's trademark, is a degree of opportunism in rejecting the previous Government's policies and coming up with the exact opposite. The electorate will know what to make of that.