The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food
and Rural Affairs ()
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Environmental Targets
(Residual Waste) (England) Regulations 2022.
We want to make more of our precious resources. As it is, we
produce far too much waste. The target to halve residual waste is
a crucial legal mechanism to drive materials up the waste
hierarchy, so that we make the best and most productive use of
them.
The target will dramatically reduce the amount of valuable
materials we bury or burn. There are several ways to achieve
this. We want to reduce the waste being produced in the first
place. We can do that by making products last longer, by making
them designed for repair, and, in the case of foods, simply by
being less wasteful as a society. We must also redouble our
efforts to maximise what we recycle, so that materials can be
used again and again in the productive economy.
We will embark on our target pathway by delivering on our
commitments to implement the collection and packaging reforms,
including our Deposit return scheme,
which we announced the next steps for last Friday.
7.32pm
So we get to waste, and the Opposition have three main areas of
concern on this SI. First, the waste reduction target omits the
majority of waste in England. The 50% reduction target excludes
major mineral waste created from construction, demolition and
excavation activities. That is a significant oversight, as that
type of waste, while easier to handle than other waste streams,
accounts for the majority of waste produced in England and
carries environmental costs. The construction industry uses more
resources than any other sector in the UK, the extraction of
which results in high carbon and environmental impacts—and yet we
have heard little about that from the Minister today.
Secondly, the lack of ambition is an area of concern. Government
modelling shows a rapid reduction in residual waste of 25%
expected between 2024 and 2028. That means that half of the
targeted fall in residual waste is estimated to have been
achieved by 2028, with the next 14 years seeing the remaining 25%
fall from 2019 levels. That moderate fall over more than a decade
can be achieved with minimal measures, a licence for low-
ambition waste reduction policies throughout the 2030s. This
should be set against the Office for Environmental Protection’s
recent assessment of the Government’s progress in implementing
the environmental improvement plan, which reports that waste
headline indicators have actually deteriorated since 2018.
The need for a high-ambition approach to drive meaningful
progress towards waste reduction has never been greater. With
Government modelling suggesting that 91.9% of waste is either
readily or potentially recyclable—or potentially substitutable to
a material that can be recycled—the 50% target falls short of
both what is necessary and achievable.
Finally, we agree with many stakeholders, such as the Wildlife
and Countryside Link, who want to see a target to reduce resource
consumption. A target for residual waste alone does not account
for the extractive effects of economic activity on the natural
environment, and will not prevent them increasing. The Government
had been expected to introduce a resource productivity target as
part of the Environment Act target-setting process. They have
stated that more time is needed to develop the evidence base and
assess policies.
The Office for Environmental Protection and environmental NGOs
have recommended the Government develop a target in that area
that addresses resource use and the associated environmental
impacts of consumption, including embodied carbon. Not setting a
target for resource use, or for reducing the UK’s carbon
footprint, means we will just carry on exploiting natural
resources and exporting waste abroad, such as plastic for
recycling, which can be an environmentally damaging substitute
for meaningful progress towards a circular economy. Will the
Minister tell us why no target has been introduced and what she
is going to do about it?
My hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (), the shadow Minister for waste,
attended the Foodservice Packaging Association environment
seminar last Thursday. It was clear from the response to her
remarks that the industry is crying out for change and action in
equal measure. This statutory instrument, like all the others—we
go right back to where we started—I am afraid suffers from the
crucial lack of ambition that makes the targets too easily
achievable, frankly. That is a fault not just of the SIs we are
debating, but of the Government’s targets in general.
7.35pm
Mr Sheerman
The Minister may not know that I have a long history in waste. I
started Urban Mines 20 years ago and SERA—Socialist Environment
and Resources Association—25 years ago, and a number of other
organisations such as Policy Connect that focus on the challenge
for so many of our towns, cities and communities. We make waste,
and then we do not want to take responsibility for what happens
to it. I have always believed that we should not only have a
sense of responsibility for the waste that we create through a
profligate lifestyle, but ensure that we use the waste—use it
again, rather than drilling holes in the earth’s crust to take
virgin material.
Will the Minister express some indication of support for my Bill
that is before the House of Commons? It would ensure that, for
every local authority, we have an annual assessment of their
performance on waste. There are a number of criteria, but every
year there would be a formal report to the Department and then a
debate, so that we could see which local authorities are lagging
and which are meeting targets. We could really make some
progress.
I am absolutely fed up with people who live in a rural or
semi-rural environment, produce a great deal of waste and then
expect it all to end up in your constituency, Mr Stringer, in
mine, buried in some hole in the ground somewhere, or exported to
a struggling country many miles away. Does the Minister agree
that we must make it a responsibility to minimise waste? We
should recycle and reuse—all things we know how to do. More
ambitious targets should surely be a top priority for the
Government and for all of us in politics today.
7.37pm
I really disagree with Opposition Members when they say that the
target is not sufficiently ambitious. Our target to halve
residual waste is very ambitious. I also remind Members that the
Environment Act 2021 requires the Secretary of State to be
satisfied that the targets can be met. Our analysis is therefore
based on a credible policy pathway that is feasible to model, and
it concludes that a 50% reduction target is at the upper limit of
achievability.
Meeting the target requires progress beyond the existing
commitment to achieve a 65% municipal recycling rate by 2035, as
well as focused action to prevent waste arriving in the first
place. We are focused on much of what has been heard today, but
the improvements so far, since 2010, are significant. Waste in
scope of the target of being sent to landfill has decreased
substantially from 24.3 million tonnes in 2010 to 13.3 million
tonnes in 2018. In 2019, residual waste excluding major mineral
waste was 574 kg per person in England, which equates to 32.3
million tonnes of waste sent to residual waste treatment; the
target will reduce residual waste per person to 287 kg by 2042.
In consultation, the majority of non-campaign
respondents—49%—agreed with the scope. At public consultation,
the majority of respondents —44%—agreed with the method for
measuring against the target.
The hon. Member for asked me to look into his Bill. I am happy to
suggest to my colleague, the Under-Secretary of State for
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member
for Taunton Deane (), that she should meet the hon.
Gentleman to learn more about his proposal.
In conclusion, together, the six SIs that we have debated this
evening contain 13 stretching targets to tackle some of the
biggest pressures facing our environment, as we have heard this
evening. The targets are the result of significant scientific
evidence collection and development over preceding years. There
has been input from evidence partners and independent experts.
The targets are supported by over 800 pages of published
evidence. I can only suggest to Members present with a keen
interest—that interest has been demonstrated by the multiple
interventions —that they check out gov.uk and peruse those 800
pages of published evidence.
To return to the beginning, the Minister extols the Government’s
progress, but how does she square that with the Office for
Environmental Protection’s statement:
“We assessed 23 environmental targets and found none where
Government’s progress was demonstrably on track”?
The hon. Gentleman makes the point that targets are easy to set,
which is why the Environment Act 2021 requires the Secretary of
State to make meaningful and achievable targets. Further details
of how we will achieve those targets are not far away. They will
be set out in our environmental improvement plan. I look forward
to sharing it with colleagues when it is published on 31 January.
These targets are stretching. They are challenging. They require
Government to work with the whole of society to achieve, but the
results are worth fighting for: an improved environment, left in
a better state than we found it. That is the intention of this
Government. These targets support exactly that.
Question put.
[Division 5
The Committee divided:
Ayes
7
Noes
3
Question accordingly agreed to.
