New clause 32 - Moratorium on new municipal incinerators
Waste and Emissions Trading Bill [Lords]
9:15 am
Ms Sue Doughty (Guildford, Liberal Democrat)
We had an extensive debate on incineration on Tuesday which was, sadly, cut short because of lack of time. I do not want to repeat what was said then, but further points should be made before leaving the topic.
We all agree that incineration is not desirable, and the Minister has indicated that he is not comfortable with it. The two Opposition groups have also indicated strongly that they are not comfortable with the
situation. We all agree that we must reduce the total amount of waste sent to landfill and not just the increase in that amount, which is all that we are doing at the moment. That is how we can meet the EU directives and move towards a sustainable waste strategy. Yet we are still in a mess.
It is curious that we Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives seem to be putting forward a more radical approach. I am heartened by the fact that the Committee has chosen not to score political points because we are all vulnerable to the problem of what councils have been forced to do in the interests of expediency, as opposed to what they could be inspired to do given carrots and sticks to move them forward.
I am aware of at least one county in which nearly all the borough councils are against incineration, and the county's MPs also seem to have concluded that incineration is a bad thing. The county council is still proposing that incineration should take place, and the leader of the council is using his position as chair of the regional non-elected assembly to push for incineration. Much of the reason for that is the lack of viable options. We will not oppose any proposal for a moratorium on incineration, although we have some concerns about the detail of new clause 32. The hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker) generously said that certain parts of it could be improved, and I take that on board.
One need not be young to be passionate about this subject. I shall probably have grandchildren one day, and I want things to be good for them. Hopefully, there is a ray of sunshine that is converting even older people—if we are not already converted. The problem may only be a matter of wording, and I am sure that hon. Members will be able to help me. The new clause suggests that there should be a moratorium on incineration until
''each responsible local authority . . . can provide for the separation and recycling of domestic waste where it is economically viable''.
That would seem to suggest that if it is not economically viable, and we have heard many reasons why it may not be, we might quickly find that incineration is the only solution.
Subsection (b) of new clause 32 suggests that recovery of energy is acceptable from those forms of waste
''which it is economically non-viable to recycle, given the inferior quality of the recyclate''.
Given that we can do a lot with the recyclates—I think this is referred to in other clauses—I am slightly worried about that phrase in the new clause. The problem is how one interprets it. If one wanted to be hostile, one might say that, given those conditions, it would be very easy to get out of the moratorium. I would welcome any comments on that.
Under the present fiscal regime, sustainable waste management is not economically viable, and I share the concerns of others that the Bill includes nothing about a waste tax, which would give local government the opportunity to plan for sustainable waste management.