Ms Sue Doughty (Guildford, Liberal Democrat)

I beg to move amendment No. 95, in

clause 25, page 16, line 26, after the first 'sludges', insert 'and other nonhazardous materials'.

We have some concerns about definitions. Different parts of the Bill contain overlapping references to the spreading of waste, sludges and other materials. So long as it is properly monitored, spreading is an acceptable way of disposing of biodegradable waste. The Bill is concerned with reducing the amount of biodegradable waste that goes to landfill, so we should ask where else it might go, and one option is to spread it on the land.

We tabled the amendment, which relates to non-hazardous materials, because we were confused. The clause refers to

''sewage sludges . . . sludges resulting from dredging operations . . . or similar matter''.

All sorts of things are spread on the land from time to time, so we want to establish what similar matter means. Is it inert or biodegradable? What sort of hazard does it represent? We cannot use agricultural land as a dumping ground.

Similar questions have arisen in Scotland, where consideration is being given to the matter that is spread on the land, and where there are new rules relating to blood and gut contents, which have to be treated before spreading. There, a spreading operator has to produce evidence of agricultural benefit or ecological improvement before proceeding. How do we avoid material that might be hazardous if not dealt with correctly being included in the category of similar matter, diverted from landfill and spread on agricultural land? What monitoring is there, and how do we define what can be used?

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

Clause 25 sets out the activities to which chapter 1 does not apply—those that are excluded from the scope of the landfill directive by article 3(2) of the directive. The amendment would add ''and other non-hazardous materials'' to the exclusion for the spreading of sludges or similar matter on the soil for the purposes of fertilisation or improvement. The hon. Lady questioned the meaning of ''or similar matter''. The problem with the amendment is that it risks making the exclusion wider than that in the landfill directive.

We do not need a comprehensive definition of similar matter; the advantage of a general phrase is that it encapsulates materials that are similar but do not have to be pre-defined. If a particular non-hazardous material is deemed similar to a sludge and is spread on the soil for the purposes of fertilisation or improvement, it will be covered by the exclusion. If, however, it is not, it will not be excluded from the provisions of chapter 1—the landfill allowances scheme and the landfill strategies. I do not wish to be drawn into defining what is meant by ''and similar matter'' other than to say that we are talking about matter that is similar to sludges. The key point is how it is treated, and it will be treated in the way that I have indicated.

If the Bill excludes something that is within the scope of the directive, there is a risk that the UK will be considered not to be complying with its obligations under the directive. It is therefore important that the exclusions in the clause stick closely to those in the directive, and that is what we have provided for. I

hope that my explanation satisfies the hon. Lady and that she will not feel the need to press her amendment.

Ms Sue Doughty (Guildford, Liberal Democrat)

I thank the Minister for his answer. Like all Members, we have been trying to expand the Bill's scope so that it becomes a waste Bill, rather than simply implementing an EU directive. What we do about spreading waste matter on land is quite a broad issue, and the Scots must deal with it separately.

I am a little concerned when we say that we know what sludge is, because it is clear from the previous debate that that is not entirely true. One can have dry treated sludge, wet sludge, sludge in cakes and sludge that has been baked and rendered inert. Quite honestly, I do not think that we know what sludge is—the Committee is made up of non-technical people who represent their communities.

We propose including the words ''non-hazardous materials'' because the clause makes no reference to them and because we are concerned that the Committee does not know what it is dealing with. There was concern earlier about whether animal waste products could be heated up enough during composting. Happily, it turns out that prions are destroyed at a lower temperature than the bacteria that treat compost. We were delighted and most relieved to learn that.

I appreciate that the Minister does not have a definition of ''similar matter'' and that we are straying slightly from the point, but I would like to leave him with this thought: we have not fully defined what we are talking about, as it may be sludges or certain animal by-products, and some are hazardous while others are not.

The Bill refers to the appropriate treatment of such by-products at different points in their creation, disposal or degeneration, as one might call it in the example of sewage sludge. Sewage sludge is fairly heavily managed in terms of what goes on to be used in spreading and it is subject to strong regulations, but we are very vague about some other materials. If we are not talking about sewage sludge or other materials that are heavily managed, might not the word ''similar'' include something that is not so heavily monitored?

Mr Bill Wiggin (Leominster, Conservative)

I have one question for the Minister. He uses the word ''non-hazardous'' in every part of clause 25 except paragraph (a), and that is what I suspect concerns the hon. Lady. It is not unreasonable to request that he include that word, and an amendment asking him to do so is in no way wrecking.

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

In response to that point, let me tell hon. Members that subsections (1)(b) and (1)(c) refer to the deposit of non-hazardous dredging sludges, so the qualification applies to sludges. Subsection (1)(a) refers to ''sludges . . . or similar matter''.

I think that we are making quite a lot out of this. I cannot give a totally adequate ''Encyclopaedia Britannica'' definition of sludges, although I think that we all have a pretty good idea of what is meant. Okay, there may be materials on the margins that cannot be entirely accurately described as sludges, but

they are similar. I hope that Members can accept a common-sense attempt not to exclude such materials, which may not precisely be sludges according to whatever official definition is used. That is all we are talking about. I hope that the hon. Lady, having listened to our interesting etymological debate, will not pursue the semantics too much, because it would certainly be beyond my capacity to reply.

Ms Sue Doughty (Guildford, Liberal Democrat)

I thank the Minister for his response. We are exhausting the sum total of our understanding of what ''sludge'' means—it would be safer to press an amendment on that. We have made the point that we have concerns about non-hazardous waste and safety. However, the clause relates to an exclusion from the Bill, not an inclusion, so defining what happens when material is spread on the land is not a task for the Committee. We have made our point well, and I hope that when those issues come before us again we have rather tighter definitions so that we know what is in and what is out. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr Bill Wiggin (Leominster, Conservative)

I wish to make two points. We discussed activities to which chapter 1 does not apply, and we had a debate on sludge. I am concerned that there is a clear separation between the definition of materials that are spread on the land and involved in the biodegradable process, and of separate materials that go to landfill. I want the Minister to bear that in mind in terms of our debate on a previous clause as to how landfill is defined and the temperature at which material needs to be sterilised before it can go to landfill.

The other issue that I wish to raise is cross-border trading, which was touched on in other definitions. Can the Minister reassure me that it will be possible for all local authorities to trade their allocations across borders without difficulty?

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

On that specific point, cross-border trading would certainly be permitted—that issue arose at an earlier point—but it is expected that such trading would be preceded by an agreement among the relevant countries to ensure proper monitoring. On that basis, it could certainly occur.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 25 ordered to stand part of the Bill.