Clause 26 - Penalties under Chapter 1: General
Waste and Emissions Trading Bill [Lords]
11:15 am
Mr Norman Baker (Lewes, Liberal Democrat)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Gentleman. He speaks about my part of the world, so his comments are of particular interest to me. He has also tabled an amendment that touches on important matters and makes a lot of sense. I hope that the Minister will give it due consideration.
We are considering the relationship between waste collection and waste disposal authorities. It is terribly important in terms of making the Bill work and in
terms of the waste stream in general, although the Minister keeps telling us that the Bill's function is not to examine the waste stream. Irrespective of which party is in power, waste collection authorities tend to be greener, more creative and more responsive to the environmental challenge than waste disposal authorities, probably because disposal authorities, by their nature, are told to dispose of waste, while collection authorities see the material collected at source and are better placed to assess what is collected, where it can go, what the problems are on the ground—be that in the streets or, in the case of fly-tipping, in the countryside. They are also better placed to come up with creative solutions. It is absolutely right that their role in the waste stream should not be diminished, or indeed extinguished, in policy terms, by disposal authorities or the Bill.
By and large, waste disposal authorities are against incineration. Again, that is true irrespective of which party is in power. That appears to be the case throughout East Sussex, and it might be the case more widely. It is a bit rough on collection authorities that have developed environmentally friendly methods of waste collection and contributed to recycling or composting schemes to be told by the waste disposal authority that the waste produced will then be taken to an incinerator to be burned and, if we are lucky, converted into energy. The Bill gives those powers to the waste disposal authorities.
There is a potential in the Bill to undermine the creativity and environmental credentials of waste collection authorities. That it is not what the Government want to achieve, and I am not accusing them of trying to do that. Waste collection authorities may simply gather up what is collected and waste disposal authorities may then have a greater say than they have hitherto had. That would be unfortunate.
Any measure that aims to restore that balance and give waste collection authorities the power to behave in an environmentally sustainable way and not have that green light extinguished by the waste disposal authorities is something that we must encourage.
Encouraging waste collection authorities empowers local people in a way that giving power to waste disposal authorities does not. Of course the waste disposal authorities are elected, but over a wider area, as the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle has said. The challenge of minimising waste is best dealt with not over a huge area by waste disposal authorities but by individuals in streets, in local communities, finding solutions to their own waste streams in their own locales. I could recount at length some of the unique and innovative ways in which waste has been dealt with in my constituency by groups of individuals, the voluntary sector, district councils and waste collection authorities. Lewes is now rolling out doorstep recycling. I am concerned that innovation is not recognised more widely and could be compromised by the powers given to waste disposal authorities in the Bill.
Then there is the proximity principle, which the Minister continually recognises. The principle is that waste should be dealt with as close as possible to the point of its production, first because it minimises
transport movements and environmental consequences, but also because it brings home to individuals and communities the consequences of their behaviour, which creates the waste in the first place. The move to allow transportation of waste over some distance to be incinerated undermines the proximity principle and the connection of individuals with the waste that they create.
We see a similar undermining elsewhere. People used to know about animals and knew when they bought meat where it came from on the animal. Now, too many people are buying meat on a plastic tray, wrapped in cellophane from a supermarket, and have no idea even what animal it comes from. The link has been broken, and we are in danger of making a similar mistake with the waste stream if we are not careful.
We cannot allow the situation in which waste disposal authorities are, frankly, not very good or very creative, when waste collection authorities are. Nor can we have a situation in which waste collection authorities are undermined by heavy-handed waste disposal authorities. In East Sussex, we have a number of waste collection authorities that are quite innovative. Wealden is Conservative-controlled, but I am happy to say that it is innovative on recycling, as is my authority in Lewes. I am sorry to say that the
county council, which is Conservative-controlled, is not innovative as a waste disposal authority. That is not a party point, because I have respect for the lead member of the council, Tony Reid. However, institutionally, the transport and environment department of the county council is weak. It suffers from weak leadership, and that is part of the problem. We are now going to entrust a waste stream in East Sussex to a weak department, where hitherto responsibility was spread out across East Sussex and across waste collection authorities in a way that at least meant that there were compensatory factors that made up for that weak waste disposal authority.
The concepts that are set out in the amendment and the new clause have considerable merit. They have merit in redressing the balance between waste collection authorities and waste disposal authorities, and in preventing a headlong rush to incineration, which many of us fear. I hope that the Minister will look at those matters sympathetically.
It being twenty-five minutes past Eleven o'clock, The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned till this day at half-past Two o'clock.