New clause 32 - Moratorium on new municipal incinerators
Waste and Emissions Trading Bill [Lords]
10:30 am
Mr Bill Wiggin (Leominster, Conservative)
This has been an interesting, informative and helpful debate, particularly so as my amendment sought only to add the word ''or''. I made a few notes during our wide-ranging debate. I thank all hon. Members for their helpful contributions. We have a great deal of wisdom and expertise in the Room.
The first accusation is that the amendments and new clauses would gold-plate the European directive. I do not believe that that is so. All the amendments were constructive and would have helped achieve what the Government seek. However, there are different levels of expertise. The hon. Member for Stafford gave us some helpful information on the different types of incinerating machine being manufactured in his constituency that are now being used to recycle miscanthus and other types of wood pulp. My experience is that that is the right way forward.
I kept rather quiet because I am not as anti-incineration as others if energy can be recovered from the process. However, the debate focused not on the positive aspects of incineration but on the fact that we should use levels in the waste hierarchy first. Therefore, it was positive and welcome that both my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle—perhaps it was because of his youth, although, without wishing to be catty, I am in fact younger than him—and the hon. Member for Guildford mentioned the ambition that we perhaps all share to make the future greener and less polluted.
I agree that the Budget was a missed opportunity to introduce the financial and fiscal measures that will encourage the recycling and reuse of waste, as well as its reduction in the first place. That was a great shame, but the Minister no doubt will go from here and lobby the Chancellor to target such things with his next opportunity.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire made a good point when he urged the Government to consider new clause 32. He said:
''I have given considerable thought to it over a long period. It essentially says that a local authority, either by itself or corporately with other stakeholders, can use incineration but only after it has jumped through a series of hoops . . . wherever it is economically viable to do so, it must recycle.''—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 8 April 2003; c. 170.]
That has been the gist of the debate. No one really has spoken out against incineration per se—they have tried to pressure the Minister to move up the hierarchy so that we recycle and reuse first. New clause 29, which I have tabled and which comes in the next group of amendments, seeks to do exactly that. The intention is not to prevent incineration, but to ensure that it is the choice before landfill rather than the first choice.