HL Deb 22 June 2004 vol 662 cc1195-208

7.48 p.m.

The Earl of Selborne rose to ask Her Majesty's Government, further to the Report of the European Union Committee on European Union Waste Management Policy (47th Report, HL Paper 194), what steps they are taking to improve the development and implementation of European Union waste legislation.

The noble Earl said: My Lords, my Question refers to European Union waste management policy and specifically draws attention to the report by the Select Committee on the European Union that came out last year. I had the privilege of chairing Sub-Committee D, which drafted the report.

It must be recognised that European Union waste management policy has not been an easy area of legislation for this country to wrestle with. We found that often we failed to influence the debate and from time to time had difficulty implementing the legislation in a timely and effective way. One need only think of the approaching deadline for the co-disposal of hazardous and non-hazardous waste and of the End-of-life Vehicle Directive and the Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Directive. All have caused great difficulty, and we must learn some of the lessons.

One of the documents that we scrutinised was a European Commission document that suggested a thematic approach. The document is called Towards a Thematic Strategy on the Prevention and the Recycling of Waste. We welcomed at least part of that thematic approach because it appeared to open the possibility of a sudden change in direction on EU waste strategy, which we felt was much needed. The report states: Current Directives foresee that all Member States should achieve the same recycling rates. However, the question is legitimate whether this uniformity in targets is most effective from both an environmental and economic point of view".

That goes right to the heart of the current problem with the EU approach of one solution fits all, which we found to be fundamentally flawed when trying to implement across Europe. In summary, we found that there was inadequate scrutiny by national Parliaments and by the European Parliament. We found that there were imprecise definitions of what is waste, which leads to different interpretations in member states. We found a lack of adequate baseline data, which made impact assessments of present and future legislation inadequate. There was a lack of impact assessments on amendments by the European Parliament and by the expert committee, the Technical Adaptation Committee. There was most uneven reporting by member states.

At the UK level, we recognised a lack of involvement in developing national strategic thinking by those best suited to contribute. We always seem to be overtaken by events. It was rather discouraging to find that the Environment Agency complained that it did not have an adequate opportunity to contribute to legislation in its formative stage. Certainly, that was true of the waste industry, which felt that it could be much better employed as part of the consultation process. We heard the same from local authorities.

A second fault at the United Kingdom level identified our failure to implement EU legislation in a timely way. That has been fully dealt with by the Better Regulation Task Force. At this stage, I would endorse its recommendations for project planning. We felt that the third area of United Kingdom failure was a lack of adequate co-ordination within government. We made proposals for how Defra and the DTI might work more effectively together.

To return to the areas of concern, the Technical Adaptation Committee (TAC) is meant to be an expert committee which should not be involved in determining policy. It should certainly not be left to conclude matters that are fundamental to the delivery of policy. However, on taking an example such as the landfill directive, industry found itself having to determine what class of waste it should handle before definitions had been determined about what was and what was not included as hazardous. That is a completely inappropriate use of a technical committee. It is impossible to decide how to invest in infrastructure until precise directions are given from the European Union about what should go into it.

The timing of the TAC deliberations was most unhelpful. Currently, we have the electronic equipment directive. The decision process took more than 2.5 years, so one really cannot say that there was any need for a rush. But here we have UK transposition required by August 2004 and the details of the TAC and its deliberations are still emerging on the DTI website. However, it is an advance at least to have a DTI website which is publishing those deliberations. That was not the case for earlier EU waste recommendations. We made a very firm recommendation that substantive definitions accepting the operation of the directive should be decided at policy level and not at expert level.

As regards definitions, there must be consistency between the different directives about the definition of waste and other technical terms. We saw an overlap between directives; that is, the Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive and the Waste Framework Directive. As regards something like taking a battery out of a car, the industry was not clear whether that should be dealt with under the End of Life of Vehicles Directive, the Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Directive, the Battery Directive or the Hazardous Waste Directive. How on earth can anyone plan sensibly to handle those materials if definitions are not agreed?

Turning to the lack of baseline data, there cannot be consistent legislation until one understands where one is starting from. Targets are quite meaningless if the data is suspect. The timetable for a proposed waste statistic regulation suggests that the first set of data will be available from the Commission in 2006, which will allow the assessment for trends by 2008. That makes quite problematical any future directives that may set targets.

Our firm belief is that we should resist setting further targets until we have got some robust data. In the United Kingdom, we should not wait for the European data, but we should try to generate some for ourselves in which we have some confidence.

The lack of impact assessments is a particularly worrying aspect. It is being addressed. The Battery Directive is subject to a pilot study, as well as the revision to the Groundwater Directive. We need to ensure that as amendments are moved by the European Parliament, they are subjected to impact assessments. As we have a proud record in this country, we should lead the way on that.

As regards who should collect the data in Europe, we felt that the European Environment Agency, as the main agency for collation of data, has a central role. It has the task of promoting awareness and producing reliable comparisons on the state of the environment across the European Union.

If we accept that the United Kingdom's influence on EU policy making has been less than impressive in the past, we must ensure that the Environment Agency, industry and local authorities are brought in at an early stage in deliberations. There is evidence, which comes through in the Government response to the report, that this has been taken in hand. Certainly, if the Better Regulation Task Force recommendations on project planning are accepted—as I believe they will be—by government, we will have a much more sensible approach. Co-ordination in Government needs to be led within Defra, which has a concordat with the Environment Agency. The DTI needs to do the same. We need a single website; we need to have one unit.

The example of the landfill directive and all the other waste directives to which I have referred in my short address demonstrates that we have most inadequate data, definitions and objectives. If we are to have anything like consistent implementation across Europe, now is the time for the European Commission to take a long, hard look at the effectiveness of regulations. Indeed, the United Kingdom Government should look at their own ability to transpose such directives into law in this country.

7.58 p.m.

The Countess of Mar

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, for asking this Question today. I also express my gratitude for the way in which he chaired Sub-Committee D for quite a long time. It was a pleasure to work with him and I am sorry that he has gone. It has been a long time since this report was published. In fact, it is so long that I would have expected to see more results than those that have materialised.

Waste will always be with us, but there are measures that can be taken to manage it. Since 1975, the European Union has developed a waste management hierarchy that is based on prevention, reuse and recycling, energy recovery and final disposal. Disposal to landfill, used extensively in the UK, is seen as a last resort.

It is said, "The road to hell is paved with good intentions". There is also a saying, "All talk and no do". If ever there was an organisation to which both those sayings might apply, it is the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. I know that the Minister will not like to hear me say that. As we deliberated the EU legislation on waste management, we were told constantly that groups of people were having talks or were consulting, both within the UK Government and with their European counterparts. No one seemed to be willing to take any firm decision about what action was required. No individual or even units within a particular department seemed to have been given responsibility for overall management of EU waste legislation. The result is a lack of leadership, accountability and direction from government to stakeholders. I look forward to hearing the results of the review being undertaken by the Cabinet Office. Can the noble Lord give any indication of how soon is "soon"?

The failure of Government to learn from past experience—dare I mention the word "fridges"?—to stop talking, to take a grip on the timing of the implementation of legislation and to do something about developing a comprehensive and consistent policy has led to a state of confusion among those responsible for the disposal of waste. Local authorities and others responsible for implementing the law are too often found to be unable to meet the practical requirements of EU legislation which our Government have endorsed simply because they have not been consulted at an early stage.

For example, with less than a month to go to the deadline for ending the co-disposal of hazardous and non-hazardous waste, I understand that only two sites have been licensed to take a wide range of hazardous waste, two that will take asbestos and one that will take contaminated soils, filter cakes and packaging. The Government and the Environment Agency have been accused of weakening the rules for toxic waste tips and for waste that can be categorised as fuel for cement kilns as a result of lobbying by the chemical industries.

Waste industry stakeholders are unhappy about the risks to the environment inherent in the interim rules which mean that the disposal of hazardous waste to landfill before the full EU standards are imposed in July 2005 may well create problems that will have to be dealt with at a later date. Their reluctance to offer sites for the disposal of hazardous waste is understandable in the face of the liabilities they are likely to have to accept.

There are also serious concerns about the fly-tipping of hazardous waste because of a lack of local facilities for smaller companies to dispose of small quantities of waste economically. Have these companies been told about the new rules? Have they been told what they must do with their hazardous waste? Have they been told what hazardous waste is?

That is just one example of the way things can go wrong because of a lack of understanding by central government of the practical implications that new legal requirements can create for organisations and individuals. The Government have been very much more communicative with stakeholders about the progress of the waste electrical and electronic equipment directive, but unfortunately they seem to have been hampered by forces beyond their control. In their response to the report, the Government said that they hope to transpose the directive by 13 August. Will this deadline also be missed?

I was pleased to read that the Government, in their response to the report, recognise the importance of reliable data across all waste streams as the basis for waste management policy formation, planning and investment decision making. Throughout our inquiry we were aware of the hampering effect that the lack of data had on those responsible for policy making, drafting legislation and implementing it. It seems extraordinary that, in all the years since the waste framework directive of 1975, no one seems to have faced the fact that such a vast body of legislation—and it is a vast body—affecting the whole of the EU population has been based on conjecture. No business would survive if it operated on that basis.

The Environment Agency has a pivotal role as the waste regulation authority for England and Wales. It was apparent at the time of our inquiry that the agency was not always as involved in decision making as it might have been, a point made by the noble Earl. I am pleased that the Government, in their response, acknowledge the importance of co-operation between Defra, the DTI and the agency. May I ask the Minister at what stage is the formal confirmation of the concordat between the agency and the DTI? I note, too, that the Government acknowledge the need for the agency to be properly resourced. How do they propose to ensure that the agency has sufficient staff, with the appropriate specialist skills, to enable it to be proactive in the early stages of policy development as well as to carry out its regulatory functions? The Government have already indicated that they are prepared to provide the funding.

A great deal of confusion still surrounds EU waste policy and legislation, much of which seems to emanate from the EU. We found little evidence to substantiate Defra and DTI claims that the UK Government were having a major influence in driving strategic thinking in EU waste policy. Is the Minister able to say how many of the recommendations of the Better Regulation Task Force have been implemented, and are the Government becoming proactive within the EU? I look forward to hearing his response.

8.5 p.m.

Lord Palmer

My Lords, it is sad to think that after all the hard work that went into this report, it is very nearly eight months since it was published. On re-reading it, I had forgotten just how depressing the whole problem of waste is and is bound to become. I believe that waste disposal of any sort or kind, along with energy, are the two biggest problems facing the planet in the immediate future.

Like my noble friend Lady Mar, I too wish to pay tribute to the superb chairmanship of the noble Earl, Lord Selborne. Having served under him on Sub-Committee D for three years, I feel I have learned a great deal, for which I shall always be extremely grateful. We were also so ably served by our committee clerk, Mr Tom Radice, supported by the ever-helpful Marilyn Byatt.

Where this report is concerned, the lines of demarcation seem to be rather confused to say the least, as there are so many different bodies involved in each member state. Indeed, the problem of waste does not appear to come under a single European directive, but I accept that this is a most complex problem.

The noble Earl has succinctly covered most of the vital issues in our report. I think it is very worrying that 430 million tonnes of waste was generated in the United Kingdom last year and on all predictions that figure is probably going to rise by at least 4 per cent per annum in the foreseeable future. I think we must all agree that we are going to face serious problems about how to deal with it.

I do believe strongly that the fundamental and underlying factor about waste is that we must produce less of it in the first place. Mr Bird of Defra agreed this on page 77 in his oral evidence. Yet it was frightening that by his own admission, all we seem to do is discuss it, whereas we need to take firm action now, and not before it is too late.

I too was interested to read the Government's response to this report. I believe that we need to look afresh at our waste policy, and indeed that of all of the members of the European Union; we ought, for instance, to consolidate the 72 separate initiatives. I also believe that an improved investment incentive would help attract funding and a realistic commitment to build new waste management facilities.

The whole recycling policy needs to be re-examined. The Minister's right honourable friend Mr Meacher rightly said recently in a radio interview how pointless it is to make a 10-mile journey with empty bottles to have them recycled. This is, in many ways, the hub of the recycling debate and it is an important subject completely on its own.

As a farmer, I am all too aware that a change in policy or the growing of a new crop cannot just happen overnight and, likewise, waste facilities and all processing plants cannot just spring up at a moment's notice. I believe that the current legislation relating to waste management, together with mixed messages from government, whether it be central or local, are creating a climate of uncertainty; nobody is going to invest where there is a strong degree of uncertainty.

I believe that waste is the Cinderella of the nation's infrastructure and that time is running out, and fast. The report provides the Government and, indeed, the European Union with an ideal opportunity to take a fresh look at the whole problem. I hope they take it.

8.9 p.m.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer

My Lords, member states can be grateful to the European Union for putting waste firmly on the agenda of every national government. Whether it has been done in the right way by issuing directives with good guidance on their implementation is another question. However, there is no doubt in my mind that, without a push from Europe, not nearly as much would have been done in any member state.

At the same time, every member state—including Britain—bears some responsibility for having too little dialogue with Europe about implementation at an earlier stage. I am grateful to Sub-Committee D for the report, which highlights some of the issues identified.

It is a problem that we should still be talking about "waste". We should change the terminology. I believe that in the report the representatives from the Local Government Association, among others, referred to "resource reuse". Calling it "waste" simply suggests that it should be thrown away.

A couple of years ago I attended a meeting in your Lordships' House with Members of the Indian Parliament. We were discussing the GAP agreement. They explained that, in their view, it was inappropriate for waste companies here to tender for municipal services there because they simply did not recognise that there was such a thing as waste. They simply saw it as resources that would be used in different ways. They did not believe that our waste disposal companies would see their problems in that light.

However, the waste industry here, as represented by Biffa and others, has come to see very clearly that we no longer have rubbish and waste but resources that must be divided up and reused. Very little of the material we are referring to is actually waste.

It is clearly identified in the report that the waste industry—I use the term in its widest sense—is far too divided in almost every way. We have collection authorities and disposal authorities; we have municipal waste, industrial waste, inert waste, clinical waste, hazardous waste and biodegradable waste. The way in which it has been divided historically has been very unhelpful. If we were to re-divide it into categories such as "easy to reuse", "difficult to reuse" and "impossible to reuse", it would be a constructive starting point. The categories would be difficult to unpick but it would be very helpful.

I notice that a new statutory instrument has recently been introduced into Parliament under the environmental protection landfill regulations 2004. The aim of this statutory instrument seems to be to reduce our current targets to something a little more achievable. Is the Minister aware of any other targets that will need to be reduced in a similar way? Does he believe that the kind of redefinition I have suggested would be helpful?

I declare an interest as a Somerset county councillor. It is difficult for local authorities to get the message across that this is a much wider issue than simply recycling one's bottles, cans and paper. A good start has been made by many local authorities on recycling domestic waste, but as we know—and this was clearly underlined in the report—this is simply the tip of the iceberg. We need a whole life-cycle approach and we are miles away from that at the moment, which we can see from the abandoned car figures alone. I realise that the end of life directive may start to have an effect, but the attitude of the public and small and medium-sized enterprises is still that it is difficult to see what we can do with things that are not categorised in the simple way of paper, cans and bottles.

Another difficulty with the more sophisticated approach is that the Government have resisted a comprehensive labelling scheme to give an idea of the length of life that members of the public should expect from various items. The Minister will remember that I have raised this matter with him before. The Government have made some commitments, and the Minister quoted domestic appliances as a good example of energy-saving labelling. Nevertheless, there is nothing to indicate their expected length of life except for the guarantee. Unless one takes out an extended warranty, one does not know whether one's fridge should have lasted for five years when in fact it lasted only for three and will become part of the fridge mountain.

Along with energy labelling that shows how much energy is consumed while the appliance is running, there should also be labelling showing the level of embedded energy—the energy taken to make the appliance and dispose of it. That should be included for every single item of a substantial size that we buy. That would be a positive step that the public could expect from the Government. The public could then see exactly what sort of disposal problem would arise from the purchase of such products.

The Government should also address the change in attitude needed with regard to the constant wish to renew office equipment and fittings, internal shop fittings and domestic kitchens. A whole industry is built around the constant renewal of items. That emphasis must change. Again, the problem may he addressed by labelling that shows how long things last, but the problem has not been sufficiently addressed by the landfill tax, which has not proved effective to date in reducing this fashion for the constant renewal of perfectly adequate items.

What is being done about inert waste from the construction industry and soil, which is still proving to be far too large an element of that—I am not talking about contaminated soil—which is considered to be waste? It should not be such a problem to reduce the volume of such waste. Also, what is the position with regard to liquid waste? I understood that provisions had been phased out in 2001. I wonder whether the Environment Agency and others are still finding that there is a problem with people disposing of liquid waste in illegal ways.

8.18 p.m.

Lord Dixon-Smith

My Lords, the House owes a considerable debt of gratitude to my noble friend Lord Selborne and Sub-Committee D of the European Union Select Committee for their work in creating this report and for making sure that this debate takes place. How fortunate it is that it did not happen yesterday. Yesterday, we had a Statement on the EU Summit. With a great fanfare, the success of Europe moving forward was trumpeted. The United Kingdom was at its heart. This wonderful edifice was to be all-singing and all-dancing and would improve the world. Today, we deal with this report, and find that that whole wonderful edifice cannot even run a waste tip. That discovery would really rather have tarnished the bright shine on yesterday's events. What a difference a day makes.

I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, that the effect of the European Union in waste matters has been that of a catalyst, in that at least things are happening. But she is too pessimistic when she says that things would not have happened without the European Union. It was clear many years ago that we could not go on as we were, because landfill sites were simply disappearing too fast. I declare a sort of indirect historic interest, in that Essex at one time used to take 37 per cent of London's domestic refuse for disposal.

I agree with the noble Baroness's concept of resource reuse, which is something we need to consider very seriously. We need to change our attitudes in that regard.

I recall when the Waste and Emissions Trading Bill went through this House, which, again, implemented an EU directive—in, I believe, about 1990. We were immensely concerned that that Bill was simply enabling legislation that would be wholly dependent on regulations, and that the meaning of the Bill would be obscure, not to say totally hidden. The process was heavily criticised, and I wish that we had had this report before we dealt with that Bill. It would have helped the process enormously, and the Bill would have had to be enacted in a much better form.

This report reveals that the process by which European directives are arrived at is deeply flawed. There is inadequate research, so directives are not even consistent with the definitions in their predecessors. One cannot run any waste disposal business with that sort of problem. My noble friend Lord Selborne has already mentioned batteries, which are subject to four different directives, each with a separate way of dealing with one specific problem. That is no way to run a business.

Paragraph 25 of the report says that, Member States sometimes agreed to Directives without fully understanding their scope". That is not surprising if the process under which the directives were established was flawed. That comment is only part of a damning paragraph, and is capped in paragraph 29, which states: The Government were thus in a position of having signed up to legislation without knowing the practical implications; while landfill operators were faced with significant uncertainty and confusion about what the law required". If we are supposed to be at the heart of Europe, I begin to understand why there is antipathy and bored frustration in the electorate, as was revealed in the elections only 10 days ago.

We cannot deal with all the problems that are highlighted in the report. There are certainly issues on the European side that the report highlights and which, I hope, the European Union administration will take note of. Not the least of our problems in debating this report is that the Minister cannot be held in any way responsible for dealing with that side of the business. All that he can be held responsible for is responding to what I would call the United Kingdom side of the report. However, I would ask him to say something about what is happening in Brussels as a result of the report.

It is clear that one cannot formulate policy without adequate data on what is happening in the first place. Without adequate data, one cannot do a regulatory impact assessment—and without a regulatory impact assessment, one cannot formulate proposals that are likely to produce the effect that one desires. So we have a fundamental problem on the other side of the Channel.

However, at paragraph 84 we see that, on this side of the Channel, the Government do not provide convincing evidence of a strategic approach to … waste policy … Currently it appears that the Government's position is essentially reactive". If we are at the heart of Europe, and all we are doing is reacting, then the heart is not beating very strongly.

At paragraphs 105 and 106, we see that divided departmental responsibility is inhibiting a co-ordinated response to European initiatives. This is a problem that we can do something about. I acknowledge that, in response to the report, a review is being undertaken by a Cabinet committee. This has already been touched on by other members of the committee. It will be very interesting to hear when that report will be published and, more importantly, if it will be implemented when it is published. I know that that is anticipating a great deal but we need action to be taken.

It is very easy to say that this report is unhelpful but that would be completely wrong. It is immensely helpful because it is criticism with a purpose. The purpose is very simple: it is to improve the whole area of waste disposal policy and legislation and the way we handle the issue. The ball is now in the Government's court and I am grateful to my noble friend for the part that he has played in putting it there. I look forward to the Minister's reply.

8.27 p.m.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Whitty)

My Lords, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, for initiating this debate and, more importantly, for chairing the committee that did such stalwart work in this respect. Just to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, I was certainly not going to say that the report was unhelpful. Indeed, the tone of the Government's response will show that we found it a very positive report. Although it has pointed out a few significant problems about discussions at the UK level and European level, the Government can accept the general messages of the report, by and large. Therefore, we are extremely grateful.

The Government do take the issue of waste management very seriously. I do not think it is true that, as the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, said, we are sending mixed messages, either on waste prevention and minimisation or on the way in which we deal with waste. But, to address the unusually political point made by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, it is true that there has to be a European dimension to this. We need a coherent Europe-wide approach to waste management. We need to engage with the other member states, as well as with the European institutions, because the environmental impacts of waste management go wider than one country and because markets in waste are international. If there is no EU co-ordination of waste management policy, we run the risk of a "race to the bottom", which is in nobody's interest.

As the report rightly acknowledges, we also need to ensure that the European Union policy is holistic and adopts a strategic approach. In developing and implementing individual directives, we need to follow that holistic approach and to ensure that it is done as cost-effectively as possible. Given the large number of European directives that there have been—some overlapping, as the noble Earl indicated—that is one of the reasons why we support the principles of the communication from the Commission, Towards a Thematic Strategy on Waste Prevention and Recycling. We regard that as a major step forward. Both the communication and the UK Government's response look right across the piece and we need to develop that thematic strategy. It is not just the United Kingdom Government who strongly support that, although we are one of the leading proponents; many of our EU partners do as well.

The UK is very actively participating in discussions that will lead to conclusions at the Environment Council meeting at the end of the month, and those conclusions will steer the Commission's policy from then on. So I do not think we need fear that the United Kingdom is not playing a leading part in the discussions. Whatever the criticisms of past performance in that respect, we are helping the development of future EU policy. Meanwhile the United Kingdom is participating in those negotiations.

In the past, we have often been in the lead in practice. We supported and were senior proponents of the development of the Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive, the End of Life Vehicles Directive and the Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Directive. In particular, we tried to ensure that those were delivered in the most cost-effective way. Although we had a variable degree of success, I think that, without the UK intervention, many of those would have been less cost effective and more of a problem for industry.

We would say that the WEEE directive has been a particular success. The UK is the first member state actively to draw up technical guidance for industry to follow on final treatment. In fact, the UK has been asked if the guidance can be used to steer discussion of an informal technical adaptation committee subgroup so as to harmonise the approach with other member states. We are therefore in the lead on that.

I need, however, to deal with a number of criticisms and points made by the committee and in this debate. The noble Earl rightly referred to the Better Regulation Task Force and the action undertaken there. Although it is still early days in some ways, the Government are following through many of the task force's recommendations. Certainly we in Defra hope that those principles run through our approach to both UK and European regulations.

There were comments on the need to engage the Environment Agency more at the European level. I think it is very important that the Environment Agency is involved at the technical level and in policy discussions. We certainly see the need for it to operate fully with Defra, for which the concordat provides. Although the DTI has always accepted the principle of that concordat, we now accept that that needs to be put more formally. We are developing that procedure as well.

I believe that engagement with stakeholders in the UK has improved substantially. There is also better regulation, as the committee requested, between central and local authorities. That is a complex issue and a broad problem that we have debated at various points in various legislation relating to waste management and other local authority powers. Although it is not always easy to see the best way through, it is very important to ensure that progress is made.

The waste implementation programme, for example, provides a strong and direct interface with local government on a full range of waste management delivery measures. The local authority support unit has launched a new portal for all local authorities so they can all have access to case studies, best practice, practical toolkits and so forth. That has been a result of engagement between central and local government.

A number of concerns on specifics were expressed in the debate. The noble Countess, Lady Mar, referred to the position on hazardous waste and whether there is adequate provision to deal with such waste. It would be wrong to suggest that the capacity to landfill hazardous waste will cease to be available in July. When co-disposal ends as a result of the directive, merchant landfills will continue to accept hazardous waste and they will have a capacity to accept more than 1 million tonnes per annum. We expect that up to 15 merchant sites and 10 in-house sites will be able to do so. So I think that the numbers referred to by the noble Countess and in the media are a serious underestimate.

While that amount—1 million tonnes—is less than the historic level of hazardous waste, which is closer to 2 million tonnes, there are strong indications that the annual capacity will be sufficient to meet the need for a number of reasons: additional disposal sites will come on stream; we are clearing contaminated soils prior to the ban and therefore the demand is likely to reduce and, of course, there is on-site remediation, which we would encourage to a large extent. Many of the industries see that, far from causing a problem, the end of co-disposal will help them in terms of their on-site management.

A number of procedural issues were dealt with in the report. The Government fully accept the need to strengthen the regulatory impact assessment. We are pleased that the institutional agreement on better lawmaking has now been ratified. We are strongly supportive of the carrying out of impact assessments prior to the adoption of substantive legislative proposals. We are pushing the Commission in that general direction. It is also very important that the RIA gives rather more details than some of the European RIAs have done hitherto, even where they have been carried out.

I refer to responsibilities within government. Clearly, major responsibilities rest with Defra and the Environment Agency. Others—certainly sponsorship of the industry—rest largely with the DTI. Planning issues lie with the ODPM.

The Government are currently considering options for improving the co-ordination of interdepartmental responsibilities in response to the Strategy Unit report, Waste Not, Want Not, and the recommendations of the report that we are discussing.

I cannot give a clearer definition of "soon" except to say that my brief says "shortly" rather than soon. However, I do not suppose that the noble Countess, Lady Mar, is any the clearer for that. We shall not need to wait too long but beyond that I cannot give a clear date. Other decisions which were part of the recommendations such as the single website would be dependent on a decision regarding any reorganisation of government but in the mean time we have made significant improvements in relation to the current websites, principally the Defra website.

The noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, asked a number of questions about the position regarding waste from the construction industry. The mineral planning system and the aggregate levy on that are designed to reduce the increase of raw aggregates and increase recycling of demolition waste. The noble Countess, Lady Mar, asked whether the transposition date for the WEEE directive would be met. While major progress has been made on WEEE, the 13 August date will not be met despite our having extremely productive steering discussions both at UK and European level. The aim now is to transpose the directive completely by the end of the year.

The noble Earl, Lord Selborne, referred to the batteries directive, as did a number of other noble Lords, and the number of directives that impinge on batteries. The Government have learnt from previous waste directives. We are working very hard with other member states to ensure that definitions are clarified at the earliest opportunity and that the duplication and overlap of recommendations relating to batteries are resolved.

The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, referred to the definition of waste and whether we should look at material specific definitions or the conceptual definitions that she proposed. Some of these definitions are partly determined by EU legislation. The Commission is looking at material specific recycling targets and so forth that begin to address the issues of how much each material can be used. However, I am not sure that the other structure of definitions is yet being considered at European level.

Many points were made about data collection. We agree broadly with the need to improve data collection. We are working on that in order to report in line with our European obligations and in order to inform our policy and our practical implementation of that policy.

There are a number of questions that I have not answered. For example, the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, asked about liquid waste, and I am afraid that I shall need to write to her on that. There are a number of other questions that I am sure that, when I read Hansard, I shall find that I have not answered, and I hope that noble Lords will be content with me writing to them on those matters.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.49 p.m.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

[The Sitting was suspended from 8.40 to 8.49 p.m.]