Mr Win Griffiths (Bridgend, Labour)

I remind the Committee that with this we are taking the following amendments:

No. 85, in

clause 22, page 15, line 15, at end insert

', provided that this waste is not subsequently sent to landfill at that same site.'.

No. 15, in

clause 22, page 15, line 19, leave out 'three years' and insert 'one year'.

No. 86, in

clause 22, page 15, line 20, leave out 'one year' and insert 'three months'.

No. 87, in

clause 22, page 15, line 21, after 'deposit', insert 'and/or storage'.

Mr Norman Baker (Lewes, Liberal Democrat)

It is very kind of you to call me, Mr. Griffiths. However, Committee members will remember that, with my usual efficiency, I managed to condense what might have been a longer speech into three minutes in order to complete my comments before we finished on 10 April; the Official Report records that when I had finished speaking the Chairman on that occasion wished the Committee happy Easter. I refer the Committee to those comments and look forward to the Minister's response.

Mr Win Griffiths (Bridgend, Labour)

All right then.

Mr Michael Meacher (Minister of State (the Environment), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Oldham West & Royton, Labour)

I am grateful for the good wishes from the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker). I had a happy Easter, and I hope that other hon. Members did as well, but it is a pleasure to be back. While the amendments are simple, they could create considerable complexities in the operation of the allowance scheme. They would certainly place extra burdens on waste disposal authorities and monitoring authorities.

The definition ''landfill'' in the landfill directive, which is reflected in the Landfill (England and Wales) Regulations 2002, contains certain exclusions. Those exclude the temporary storage of waste if the site is used for storage for less than one year; the unloading of waste in order to permit the waste to be prepared for further transport or recovery, treatment or disposal elsewhere; the storage of waste, prior to recovery or treatment, for a period of less than three years and the storage of waste, prior to disposal, for a period of less than one year.

For the purposes of the allowance scheme, amendment No. 85 would amend the exclusion for the temporary storage of waste if the site were used for storage for less than a year. That exclusion would apply only if the waste were not subsequently sent to landfill at the same site. The amendment is unnecessary as that exclusion deals with sites used for temporary storage of waste that are not normally used for that purpose.

Amendment No. 15 would reduce to one year the exclusion for a site used for the storage of waste prior to recovery or treatment. The effect of the amendment would be that the storing of waste for a period of more than one year would amount to sending waste to landfill and would count against a waste disposal authority's allowance, even if that waste were destined for subsequent recovery or treatment.

Amendment No. 86 would similarly limit the exclusion for the storage of waste prior to disposal to storage to less than three months.

As I have repeatedly said, the aim of the landfill allowance scheme is to enable the UK to meet its targets under article 5(2) of the landfill directive. The

storage of waste for less than three years prior to treatment or recovery, and for less than a year prior to disposal, does not count towards those targets—that is the position in the article and the Bill. I simply tell the hon. Gentleman that I cannot see the sense in using stricter exclusions in the Bill; it would make the system unacceptably complex. At the very least, it would involve putting in place more complex recording procedures, because weighing at the point of entry to the site would not be adequate.

To put this in practical terms, a site that at present stores, say, newspapers collected from households prior to recycling, would, for the purposes of the landfill allowance scheme, be considered a landfill unless recycling took place within one year. If, for any reason, recycling were delayed for more than a year, all newspapers sent to the site would, for the purposes of the scheme, be recorded as having gone to landfill. That would be the case even if they were subsequently recycled and counted against a waste disposal authority's allowances. It would seem odd not to count them as having gone to landfill when considering whether the UK had met its targets under the landfill directive. The thrust of the amendments would make it more difficult for us to meet the directive's requirements, and I am not clear why that would be beneficial.

Amendment No. 87 relates to subsection (3), which provides that the fact that a deposit of waste is at the place of production does not prevent that site from being a landfill. The amendment would include storage in the provision, but that is unnecessary, because the word ''deposit'' would, I think, cover disposal or storage.

I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman, in all his comments, has firmly committed himself to the waste strategy's overall targets. Many of his proposals have been sensible, and I have given them serious thought. On this occasion, however, they would gratuitously make life more difficult—even for landfill operators committed to the Bill's objective of increasing recycling and recovery. It is not helpful to change the dates in a way that makes meeting that objective less likely.

With that explanation, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not pursue the amendments.

Mr Norman Baker (Lewes, Liberal Democrat)

I am grateful to the Minister for his exposition in response to the amendments that my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Sue Doughty) and I tabled. I assure him that the intention was not to make it more difficult to meet the targets—far from it. We want industry and waste disposal authorities to meet them. We tabled the amendments because we wanted to ensure that the flexibility that the Minister wants people to have in meeting those targets did not create loopholes through which people could take their waste. The three-year storage arrangement opened up the possibility of people classifying waste as being in storage, even though that may not have been the intention when the waste was first received. The purpose of the amendments was to prevent that loophole from arising.

We are also concerned about multi-faceted sites—those that are not simply landfill sites or waste transfer stations, but which have multi-faceted functions. Waste could be moved around such sites and reclassified accordingly. The Minister may say that that will not happen, but that is the issue raised by the amendments.

Having heard the Minister's response, I am happy not to pursue the amendments. However, I hope that he will take our concerns on board. They may be misplaced, but I hope that he will ensure that they do not become a reality.

Mr Michael Meacher (Minister of State (the Environment), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Oldham West & Royton, Labour)

I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's objective. We certainly do not wish flexibilities to develop into loopholes. The exclusions are set down in article 5 of the EU directive, which cannot now be altered unless the European Council decides to do so. I repeat: the Bill fulfils the requirements that that directive places on the UK. The provisions will not have the effects of which the hon. Gentleman spoke, for the reasons that I have given. However, I take his point and assure him that we will keep an eye on the matter and that if there is any evidence of what he mentioned, we will take action.

Mr Norman Baker (Lewes, Liberal Democrat)

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Michael Meacher (Minister of State (the Environment), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Oldham West & Royton, Labour)

I beg to move amendment No. 19, in

clause 22, page 15, line 24, leave out subsection (4).

Mr Win Griffiths (Bridgend, Labour)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 88, in

clause 22, page 15, line 25, after 'biodegradable', insert

'as outlined in Regulations relating to concerns associated with animal health'.

Mr Michael Meacher (Minister of State (the Environment), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Oldham West & Royton, Labour)

During the Third Reading of the Bill in another place on 6 March, a definition of composting was added to the clause. We have given due consideration to the matter and have decided to remove that definition from the Bill—hence the amendment.

I strongly emphasise that the Government take all aspects of biosecurity seriously. We would not introduce any measure that increased either the risks to public or animal health, or the vulnerability of the rural economy—including agriculture—to an outbreak of animal disease. After the searing experiences of both BSE and foot and mouth, that is the unquestioned priority. However, there is no need for a definition of composting in the Bill. Composting is only one of the measures that will be included in strategies for meeting targets for the reduction of biodegradable municipal waste sent to landfill. The list is not exhaustive and other methods of meeting landfill allowances may be included. In using measures to divert waste from landfill, the requirements of all other relevant legislation must be met, which include restrictions on the processing of catering waste.

The Bill is not the right vehicle for imposing broader restrictions on composting. The composting time/temperature treatment standard is set out in the

EC animal by-products regulation, which will apply from 1 May—in a few days' time. The regulation sets a treatment standard of 70ºC for one hour for animal by-products, but allows member states to introduce national standards for premises where only catering waste will be treated.

Mr Bill Wiggin (Leominster, Conservative)

I did not hear that.

Mr Michael Meacher (Minister of State (the Environment), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Oldham West & Royton, Labour)

Did I not say 70º? I certainly intended to.

The consultation that we have recently completed proposes such national standards for the treatment of catering waste. Those standards are in line with an independent risk assessment that has been carried out on behalf of the Government, and fully protect animal health. The standards will be in the Animal By-Products (Identification) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2003, which will come into force in May and will replace the Animal By-Products Order 1999.

If we are going to move away from landfill as a method of dealing with waste, which we are, it is important to offer options that move us up the waste hierarchy. Working to the definition that is now laid down not only is almost impossible—some biodegradable materials heated to that level would, I am told, burst into flames—but would, more seriously, render the resulting material useless as compost. Such material would become sludge and would not be effective for composting. It is vital that composting of catering waste is one of the options. Nobody, least of all me, wants the only alternative to be incineration. Amendment No. 88 would amend the definition of ''composting'' in clause 22(4). It seeks to provide for regulations to specify what is meant by ''selected waste'' in that clause. I hope that, for the reasons I have already mentioned, it will be clear that the definition of ''composting''—and therefore this amendment—is unnecessary.

I repeat that this Bill is not the right vehicle for the regulation of composting. First, if we were to adopt the definition that was put forward in another place, it would not work in practical terms. Secondly, this Bill is not the right place for a definition of composting, or its regulation. I hope that the Committee will support the Government amendment.

Mr Bill Wiggin (Leominster, Conservative)

I took what the Minister said very seriously, particularly his comments on animal diseases, and I know that no Government would want to see another outbreak of foot and mouth disease. It is a shame that the inquiries that the Government sponsored did not identify whether the pork pie theory of how the disease was brought into the country was confirmed, and therefore it is very difficult to be able to promise, as the Minister would love to, that this disease will not reoccur. Particularly now, when we are hearing about SARS, we are all very worried, particularly in my constituency, about avian influenza. I know that there is a host of other animal and human diseases that cause a great deal of consternation. We want to do the right thing.

I hope that the Minister will elaborate a little more on the scientific reasons why their lordships chose

98ºC instead of 70ºC. I am sure that there are extremely good reasons why 70ºC was enough for the European Union legislation, but I suspect that the reason that 98ºC is on the face of the Bill is that that is the ultimate temperature which no pathogen can survive. There are certain organisms, which are found in volcanic areas, that can survive at very high temperatures. That may be what their lordships were thinking of when they put 98ºC on the face of the Bill. I also appreciate that the animal by-products rules are coming in, and perhaps they will be sufficient. In my constituency there is a company named Biorganics that composts feathers, and it would very much like a clear definition of what constitutes an animal by-product. I have written to the Minister about that.

I know that the Government want to produce a workable Bill and that the clause that we are discussing was agreed in another place, with the express understanding that it would make the Bill safer. I hope that in the Minister's closing comments he will clarify why 70ºC is adequate and 98ºC is too high. If that is the case, I am sure that his good intentions will shine through. I should like him to deal with the logic of why it was put on the face of the Bill, rather than simply tell us that it is enough.

Mr Norman Baker (Lewes, Liberal Democrat)

I listened carefully to the Minister and I have read the relevant sections of their lordships' Hansard on the matter. Their lordships appear to be concerned about the biosecurity threat that they believe would be caused if insufficient heating were required. However, I accept absolutely the Minister's point that to heat to 98º would effectively render useless the material that is heated.

The House of Lords seems to have decided that if composting could threaten biosecurity, the biosecurity threat should be dealt with irrespective of the consequences for composting. That is a stark choice, and I imagine that all hon. Members would want to find a way around it. We want to ensure that biosecurity dangers are eliminated as far as possible, but the composting industry is an important element of waste strategy and it should be allowed to continue and prosper. On my trips around the country, I have received representations from those involved in composting, who warn that if undue restrictions are placed on composting, such as that which comes from the Lords, it will effectively rule out composting.

I cannot counter that argument. On a number of occasions, we have told the Minister and others that we do not want landfill or incineration, and there is a range of alternatives. In all honesty, we should not rule out one of the main alternatives, which is what I think would happen if the Bill included a 98º requirement. Notwithstanding what was said in the House of Lords, including comments from the Liberal Benches, I therefore conclude that it is appropriate to accept the Government amendment and for the reference to 98º to be removed.

It is important that the Minister is clear about what will be achieved with the 70º figure. He cannot simply say that it is an EU ruling. We want more justification than that. We are not here simply to act as a cipher for

EU directives. We want to know what will be achieved by having a lower temperature, and we want to know the qualification and quantification of the risk involved. What assessment has been made of the biosecurity threat that will remain if the temperature is set at 70º?

I am happy to go along with the Minister if he can tell us that the risk will be minimal, but I want to hear it said explicitly before voting on the matter. It is important for the farming community. More generally, it is important for human health—and for the taxpayer, bearing in mind the cost of foot and mouth and BSE in recent years.

Lastly, the Minister said three times that the Bill was ''not the right place'' to regulate composting. I disagree profoundly. We are debating the Waste and Emissions Trading Bill, and composting is waste of a sort. I apologise for returning to our debate on Second Reading, but we are not debating the ''EU landfill implementation Bill''. It is a waste Bill, and we should be looking at waste more widely. We are not here simply to implement EU directives. It is impossible to debate the Bill without looking at the implications for composting. It is relevant because the House of Lords has drawn attention to it; it is included because of the knock-on effects. We must look at the waste stream in its totality. I disagree with the Minister's assertion.

If the Minister can convince us that 70º will provide the biosecurity protection that we want, I shall be happy to go along with it, but we need to hear it stated more explicitly.

Mr Paddy Tipping (Sherwood, Labour)

Some of us lead rather sad lives. Like the hon. Gentleman, I have spent many happy hours touring composting plants during the past year—both nationally and internationally. It is clear that a good deal of research and science lies behind composting. We have a false perception of composting; we seem to think that is like the tip at the bottom of the garden. Much work has been done on composting, and I have no doubt that composting could play a major role in reducing the waste stream. It is an effective method of disposal.

We must analyse the risk, however, and make a judgment on it. My view is that the judgment of risk that led to the insertion of the temperature in the House of Lords was wrong, and that the temperature is far too high. A temperature of 98º would lead to natural combustion. Most important, however, it will kill the micro-organisms that exist in compost and which do the work. To heat it to that temperature would make the resulting compost useless sludge. I am pleased that the Government have proposed an amendment that overrides the view of the Lords. The Minister is right to say that the animal by-products legislation is the way forward. We have to assess the risk, and the correct judgment is being made.

My final point is about the role of composting in waste disposal. I am keen that people should home compost. I know that the Minister does it and I guess that other Committee members do. It is sad that the Bill does not recognise the contribution that we make to the environment by home composting—it is concerned solely with local authority achievements—

and that while local authorities across the country are keen to meet their recycling targets, which I applaud, those targets are driven by green waste composting. It would be sensible, cost-effective and environmentally sensitive for those local authorities to promote home composting and to help people to do it. The Bill gives them no credit for that. I know that the Minister is aware of the issue and I hope that he will reflect on it and, at the very least, praise the local authorities that take a vigorous approach to home composting.

Mr John Hayes (South Holland & The Deepings, Conservative)

This short debate is important. The Minister's case for counteracting the will of the Lords by removing their addition was founded on two points: first, that the Bill should not deal with composting—I am not sure that that is true—and secondly that, if it did deal with composting, 98º would not be the right temperature for the incineration of compost waste.

My point about the first of those arguments applies to all our deliberations. The Minister made it clear at the outset that he saw the Bill as legislative cover. There are those in all parts of the Committee who see the Bill as not merely a convenient response to an edict from a foreign land, but an opportunity to do something imaginative and bold. As the hon. Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping) said, it is difficult to separate the issue of composting from that of waste. Because composting is central to our consideration of waste matters, it is artificial to attempt to do it in the Bill. It would be a missed opportunity if there were no reference to composting, or point of contact with such considerations, in the Bill.

I accept entirely the Minister's point that we cannot take a comprehensive view of that detailed subject in the Bill, or in this part of it. However, we should refer to it and make it clear that we understand the point made by the hon. Member for Sherwood; it cannot ultimately be excluded from the proper considerations of how we deal with waste.

The second foundation on which the Minister built his case—that 98º is the wrong figure—is difficult to challenge, because that is a scientific matter of some magnitude. However, I would want him to go into more detail in order to persuade the Committee that the scientific case is well made. The Lords' view was probably born of real concerns prompted by disasters in recent years. Who does not share those concerns? It is the micro-organisms that make composting possible, but they may spread fear as well as doing good. Uncertainty about which organisms would survive a 70º burn, and about their effects, for good or ill, surely encourages us to adopt the precautionary principle and to use the highest possible temperature for incineration—hence the Lords amendment.

Therefore, I am yet to be persuaded by the Minister's case. I rather share the Lords' view that we must be certain about the message that we send in the Bill and in Committee about the safety of disposal. That is particularly true of animal by-products, which have caused so much concern recently. I am not convinced that composting is not a proper consideration for the Committee or the Bill. Unless the Minister can make his case even more persuasively,

drawing on all his powers and eloquence, I am afraid that I shall advise my hon. Friends to support the Lords and reject the amendment.

Mr David Drew (Stroud, Labour/Co-operative)

Thank you for calling me, Mr. Griffiths. I apologise for my lateness. I travelled up here this morning.

I want to raise a simple matter, and this seems the most appropriate point at which to do so. Those involved in certain types of farming rely almost entirely on the waste flow as their way of reinvesting in the whole cycle of agriculture. I have been talking with representatives of the biodynamic part of agriculture, which I tend to do because they are based in my constituency. Largely in response to the animal by-products order from Europe, they have made it clear to me that we will imperil this type of agriculture if we put ever more constraints on the way in which it reinvests waste products from existing stock and crops.

I know that some see the biodynamic part of agriculture as a very minor aspect of agricultural production, but it is growing and is of considerable interest. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will say something—he may already have done so in his introduction, which I missed—about the fact that we must be careful not to constrain parts of agriculture.

Mr John Hayes (South Holland & The Deepings, Conservative)

The hon. Gentleman is right, which is precisely why the Bill must refer to such issues. I, too, am interested in them. Indeed, a composter in my constituency does much of what the hon. Gentleman described. If we ignore such things in the Bill, we shall send out the wrong signal, just as we shall if we restrict or over-regulate the industry. For the reasons that he gave, we must strike a balance in our approach to waste and composting.

Mr David Drew (Stroud, Labour/Co-operative)

I think that we are coming at the answer from the two ends of the spectrum, although I hope that we shall meet in the middle. I simply make the point that the measure inserted by the Lords makes it virtually impossible for people to continue to reinvest natural, organic materials in the process.

Although I support the Government, they must carefully consider where composting fits in the context of the Bill. In particular, we have to recognise that natural processes must not be ruled out because of the constraints that have been imposed.

Mr Bill Wiggin (Leominster, Conservative)

The hon. Gentleman has touched on the essence of why we must fully debate these issues. First, we all know that there is a difference between vegetable composting and animal composting. The concern lies with animal material, which, in nature, would be eaten by other animals before being returned to the soil. The Bill says that we are looking

''to maintain selected biodegradable waste at 98 degrees celsius''.

The concern is that that means meat and food products. It would be detrimental to spread those across fields, because that would allow pathogens to jump up the food chain. If that happened, farmers' livelihoods would be even more at risk than if only safe compost was put on fields.

Mr David Drew (Stroud, Labour/Co-operative)

I do not deny what the hon. Gentleman says—it is the very essence of the biodynamic industry's argument. Animal by-products are not necessarily separated from crop by-products because the most important thing is the ability to build continuity into the system. The industry would have serious misgivings because what is proposed would make it virtually impossible for it to carry on doing that.

I shall not bore hon. Members with my understanding of the biodynamic industry, except to say that we should be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. We are trying to encourage more sustainable practices in agriculture, composting and whatever else, but we should not impose constraints that do not have a scientific basis. I agree with the point that the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings made about pathogens, but, again, that depends on the nature of the animal. For a clear species—one that has no past record of disease problems—it would be unfair to shut out that production by too much regulation.

Mr Michael Meacher (Minister of State (the Environment), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Oldham West & Royton, Labour)

I shall try to be persuasive, as the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings requested. Some valid points have been made that I shall try to respond to directly.

The temperature used for sterilisation in the rendering process is 98º. The problem is that that would kill all useful agents as well as harmful pathogens and would render material unfit for use as compost. That is why we do not believe that 98º is right. However, there is the basic question of whether 70º for one hour is adequate. We are all united in wanting both not to take any risks and to ensure that the process destroys any harmful pathogens present. The EU Scientific Veterinary Committee has agreed that heating for one hour at 70º is sufficient to kill dangerous animal pathogens. Such EU Committees are made up of technical experts drawn in from all countries in the EU and are not politically dominated. I think that if that Committee has given its considered and clear view, that is acceptable. If there is any evidence to the contrary, we shall take that seriously.

Mr Gregory Barker (Bexhill & Battle, Conservative)

We are of course talking about selected biodegradable waste at 98º, as the Bill makes clear. Can the Minister tell us what quantum of the total amount of waste that is sent to composting every year is, for want of a better word, hazardous? What percentage did the Lords, roughly speaking, have in mind?

Mr Michael Meacher (Minister of State (the Environment), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Oldham West & Royton, Labour)

On the question of hazardous waste, co-disposal is now coming to an end and EU legislation now requires landfill operators to make a choice between running hazardous landfills—[Interruption.] Perhaps I may just finish. Landfill operators can also run non-hazardous landfills. I accept that there are questions to do with the adequacy of capacity for hazardous waste, but I assure hon. Members that we are considering that closely at present. From memory, I think that some 11 landfill operators have opted for the hazardous route. There must be adequate capacity, but we are talking about selected material.

Mr Gregory Barker (Bexhill & Battle, Conservative)

I apologise; I think I slightly misled the Minister with my remarks. ''Hazardous'' has technical connotations in the context of waste, but I meant slightly or potentially dangerous materials rather than obviously hazardous, such as compost from animal by-products. What are we talking about in terms of the overall compost heap?

Mr Michael Meacher (Minister of State (the Environment), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Oldham West & Royton, Labour)

The answer is about a third. About 33 per cent. of biodegradable and municipal waste is made up of putrescible waste such as green and food waste, which is a sizeable proportion of the municipal waste stream.

The hon. Members for Lewes and for South Holland and The Deepings both asked about my comment that the definition and regulation of composting was not appropriate for the Bill. I was not suggesting that it was out of order to talk about composting when discussing a waste Bill. However, compost is not waste but the result of a recovery operation to turn waste into a useful resource. [Interruption.] I do not want to make much of this; I am simply making what I believe is a correct statement. However, I shall turn to the substance, which is far more important.

There must be regulation of composting. As I said, the time/temperature treatment standard was set out in the European Union animal by-products regulation, which will apply from Thursday. It allows member states to introduce national standards. We have consulted extensively on them, and the new standards will be contained in animal by-products regulations, which are intended to come into force in about a month's time, replacing the Animal By-Products Order 1999. My point is that although composting is relevant to the Bill, it is not appropriate for its regulation and precise definition to be set out in it. There are other legislative channels for doing that. They are in place, and measures will shortly become operative.

Mr Norman Baker (Lewes, Liberal Democrat)

I agree with the Minister that compost material is not waste but a resource, and I have been making that point about all matters subject to the Bill, which should perhaps be called the resource management Bill rather than the Waste and Emissions Trading Bill. The word ''waste'' is misused generally, not only in relation to compost material.

My question relates to the previous intervention by the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker). In response to an earlier point, the Minister said that the European scientific committee had indicated that a temperature of 70ºC would destroy animal pathogens. He did not say ''all animal pathogens'', so I am keen to know what percentage of such pathogens would survive. [Interruption.] I am sure that that will go on the record in a minute. Furthermore, what quantification of risk will exist?

Mr Michael Meacher (Minister of State (the Environment), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Oldham West & Royton, Labour)

As the hon. Gentleman observed, I have made careful investigation into the matter, and I am assured that a temperature of 70ºC would kill all harmful animal pathogens. The Government have no reason to believe that heating to 70ºC for at least one hour is not adequate for preventing any conceivable

return of foot and mouth or other animal health diseases.

I take the points made by my hon. Friends the Members for Sherwood and for Stroud (Mr. Drew) about the composting industry. It is an important part of the overall network, and I met representatives of it at an annual meeting about six months ago in the midlands. They pressed me strongly, but I probably disappointed them by saying that my overriding priority was to prevent any conceivable chink that could allow a recurrence of foot and mouth. I still think that that is the right position, but, consistent with that, we want to see a flourishing composting industry.

My hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood noted that home composting is an important part of the whole. The problem for local authority targets is being able to include home composters in the target when no verifiable standard is applied to them. I understand that the Environment Agency is examining the problem and seeking a way of accurately measuring home composting. It would be far better if it could be included, as it is a valuable contribution to the overall requirement. It is a matter of finding a way that is reliable and which does not constitute, as the hon. Member for Lewes said, a loophole.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud also stressed that composting and the use of natural processes should not be ruled out. I absolutely agree. That is the best form of recovery. Composting provides for an alternative and useful resource. The use of natural processes obviously represents the best approach. I am very keen to find a way of including home composting within the overall network. I hope that I have answered the points that have been made. I see that the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin) is shaking his head. He still wants 98ºC; he prefers sludge.

Mr Bill Wiggin (Leominster, Conservative)

Can the Minister explain to the Committee how something that has been sterilised at 98ºC can possibly be sludge? It is bound to be dry after heating to that temperature, so it cannot be sludge.

Mr Michael Meacher (Minister of State (the Environment), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Oldham West & Royton, Labour)

I think I had better take advice on that. I certainly have been briefed that the result would be sludge. That does not necessarily mean that it is a wet sludge. Can sludge be dry? I am not sure. The real point is that it is not a material that is fit for composting. The key point about composting and the use of natural processes is that they preserve useful agents. If those have been killed along with the dangerous pathogens, the whole purpose of the exercise is lost. The key question is whether treatment at 70ºC for one hour is adequate. I have no evidence at my disposal to suggest that it is not adequate.

Mr John Hayes (South Holland & The Deepings, Conservative)

I am not sure that the Minister is on his most convincing form. He has being taking advice on the hoof. There is nothing wrong with that, but it is indicative of a certain lack of certainty. We are not certain about 70ºC or 98ºC. The 98ºC point certainly renders the treated materials harmless, but how useful they would be is a matter of debate. I will not get into

the fine semantic point about sludge, and whether sludge has to be a liquid or not. [Interruption.] Perhaps we are now getting into that debate, and no doubt Chairman Mao will play a part in it.

Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test, Labour)

I think we have got past that, now that we are on the other side of Easter. I would like to point out that you can superheat water well beyond its boiling point depending on the pressure at which it is heated. Therefore, it is quite possible to have very hot sludge.

Mr John Hayes (South Holland & The Deepings, Conservative)

I took that as read. The whole of the Committee knew that. We have advanced well beyond that stage, but I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. He brings to these matters a certain insight that others lack.

The real point is the issue of what has been described by the Lords as ''selected waste''. The point that was made repeatedly in interventions from my hon. Friends was that, as the hon. Member for Stroud rightly observed, this is about the danger of ruining the whole process of composting. We must deal with those items of waste that would cause the gravest concerns and the greatest hazards. If their lordships had said that everything must be burned at the specified temperature, that would be an untenable position, and I would not support it. That position would cause more harm than good. As the wording does state ''selected'', we can make an appropriate judgment that there are materials—again the Minister was shaky on this—that can be taken away from the overall waste that might go for composting and be dealt with in a rigorous way. I say ''shaky'' because, when challenged by my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle, he said that about a third of municipal waste was green or foodstuff waste. There is a fundamental difference between those two. Cooked food is extremely dangerous if composted, whereas much green waste is very useful. We need to be more precise about the proportion of the waste stream that is potentially dangerous. That is what concerned the Lords and led to the proposal for a high temperature. We are considering animal by-products and all those things that give rise to concerns and problems.

We need to keep composting in the Bill, for the reasons that we have debated at length today. We also need to have the capacity within the Bill to burn at a high temperature those things that would not be useful or the usefulness of which in composting would not be as great as the potential danger that they posed if they were let into the stream in a way that would allow pathogens to escape and cause problems. Because the Minister has not been sufficiently persuasive, we will press the matter in support of the Lords.

I am also mindful that the Minister has not chosen to insert 70º in the Bill, but has simply deleted the Lords' proposal. That shows uncertainty.

Mr Bill Wiggin (Leominster, Conservative)

My hon. Friend has voiced succinctly my fears as well as his own. I am grateful to the Minister for pointing out that we are talking about sterilisation. One would not put into a patient's mouth something that had been sterilised at only 70º. We are talking about killing pathogens in the process, and we are considering landfill, not the manufacture of

compost. Therefore, it would not be inappropriate to add ash to compost. We are also considering it in relation to storing.

Clause 22(4) represents a requirement to sterilise biodegradable waste before storing, and that is not necessarily the same as before landfill. We are not talking about the make-up of compost but about what we put into the ground. We have, perhaps, got our wires crossed about what we compost and what we landfill. That is why I draw the Minister's attention to the fact that clause 22 is about landfill: it is wholly appropriate to put animal waste through a sterilisation process before storing it or joining it with other compostable material in landfill. There is no mention at any stage of pressure under which the process will take place, but I am grateful for the educated opinion of the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead).

We are considering small quantities of specific material, selected carefully. If we were talking about hospital waste—more specifically, for example, dirty bandages that were biodegradable—we would insist on its being sterilised. This part of the clause concerns exactly the same risk to human health, and that is why sterilisation is the only answer. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings: had the Minister specified 70º in the Bill, it would have been difficult for us to differentiate. However, in the circumstances, it is essential that certain material be sterilised before being included in the biodegrading and composting processes.

Mr Michael Meacher (Minister of State (the Environment), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Oldham West & Royton, Labour)

I shall respond briefly. If the hon. Gentleman and his party are determined to vote on the matter, so be it. However, I want to make this clear: sterilisation is mentioned in respect of the rendering process; here, we are talking about composting. The hon. Gentleman said that one would not put into one's mouth something that had been cooked at 70º, but we are not suggesting that people should eat the composting—[Interruption]. I shall come to that point, because I think that the lower temperature is adequate to kill dangerous pathogens. There is no dubiety about it.

The hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings was generous in his comments, but I do not accept his view that I am shaky or uncertain about it. I am not. I am very clear about it. If scientific experts from across the EU are absolutely clear, which they are, that cooking the material at 70º for one hour is adequate to kill all harmful pathogens, I see no reason to doubt them. If a temperature of 98º—which was imported from a completely different context—is going to kill the useful agents as well as the harmful ones, and render material unsuitable for composting, it seems irrational to insist on that temperature. We must take account of that problem.

Mr John Hayes (South Holland & The Deepings, Conservative)

That would be more convincing if we knew what proportion of compost material fell into the category of products that were likely to be injurious to human health—such as animal by-products. If the Minister had had the courage to put 70º in the Bill, it would have been altogether more

persuasive. His argument for not doing the latter is that we should not be talking about composting—an argument that I entirely reject. His argument for not explaining the former is covered by his suggestion that 30 per cent. of municipal waste might fall into that category. We need more precision, and more boldness.

Mr Michael Meacher (Minister of State (the Environment), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Oldham West & Royton, Labour)

On the hon. Gentleman's first point, about the division between green waste and food waste, I cannot at this moment provide him with a split of the 33 per cent. However, whether it is half and half or two-thirds and one-third is not the point; the key point is that we are talking about the destruction of damaging pathogens, whatever the percentage between the two.

The other question is whether 70º should be included in the Bill. I tried earlier to convey to hon. Members that the Bill is not designed to include all the details on the whole of waste strategy. It is perfectly adequate for the matter to be dealt with under other legislation, and it does not have to be replicated in the Bill. We do not need a different definition, or even a repetition of the same definition, in the Bill. I repeat that a temperature of 70º maintained for one hour for animal by-products comes from the EU animal by-products regulation, and that will apply from Thursday of this week.

In addition, I said that there have been extensive consultations and that the Animal By-Products (Identification) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2003 will come into force by the end of May. It is not that I am being cowardly in refusing to put it in the Bill; it is in other legislation, and it is entirely appropriate for reference to be made to that legislation in the Bill. We do not have to repeat everything that is included in regulations.

Mr Norman Baker (Lewes, Liberal Democrat)

I understand what the Minister is saying, but he will accept that there is a difference between regulations and primary legislation, especially in the seriousness attached to such proposals—[Interruption.] He does not accept that. I accept it, however, which is why I make the point.

The question is this. The Minister appears to be putting forward the happy suggestion that a temperature of 70º will destroy all harmful pathogens but not the beneficial nature of the material. Does he mean that a lower temperature will destroy everything harmful but not that which is beneficial?

Mr Michael Meacher (Minister of State (the Environment), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Oldham West & Royton, Labour)

On the hon. Gentleman's first point about regulation, I referred earlier to the EC animal-by products regulation. An EC regulation is an alternative, binding instrument to a directive. The directive has to be transposed, usually over 18 months, with a small margin of discretion on the part of member states. An EC regulation becomes binding and operative in every member state on a particular day—dare I use the word ''fridges''? That was precisely the problem: we had no opportunity to transpose the directive in a way that was consistent with our situation. I also referred to our own animal by-products regulation. Again, I disagree with the hon. Gentleman inasmuch as regulations—secondary

legislation—are not somehow subordinate or less important legislation. They are binding, but we do not need primary legislation. There is always pressure on the Government timetable, and if we can make something binding without having to introduce primary legislation, it is clearly preferable for the Government to do so. However, there is no lack of legislative force.

The hon. Gentleman also asked whether it was not a little convenient that a temperature could be found, in this case 70ºC, that means that the useful agents survive but the damaging pathogens do not. I understand his slight touch of cynicism, doubt or disbelief, but I am assured that it can. The important thing is that the damaging pathogens are killed and that other agents can survive. Indeed, many agents in the natural world can survive perfectly well. I happened to read extensively over Easter about hyperthermophiles, which survive in vents at considerable submarine depths at temperatures of 110ºC or 115ºC. So it is perfectly possible for microbes or other bacteria with a useful function to survive at temperatures above 70ºC. I can only assure the hon. Gentleman that that is the advice that I have received from the technical experts, which there is no reason to doubt.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 9, Noes 4.