Recycling minister Lord Henley has withstood a grilling over last weeks Waste Review but conceded that the localism agenda could clash with the need to develop waste infrastructure.
In his first appearance since the publication of last weeks Waste Review, Lord Henley fielded questions from waste management professionals at an Associate Parliamentary Sustainable Resource Group event at the House of Commons today (June 21).
The minister told his audience that the policy document was not intended to be a silver bullet for waste and recycling in England.
Following a brief presentation on the resonance of the Review, Lord Henley said that the Review was important in order to build on the good work since 2001.
And, he said it would act as a precursor to a period of closer engagement with the sector on the direction of waste management and recycling in the future.
The Review is not the end, far from it. Over the next weeks and months we will want to be talking to you about the details of the consultations that we set out in the Review, said Lord Henley. If we are going to make these things happen then we need a sense of momentum and I hope we will have a great deal more from us in the near future.
Grilling
Attendees were not shy in making use of the questions and answers session, with Michael Warhurst, waste campaigner at Friends of the Earth, questioning the lack of targets in the document. Dr Warhurst said interim documents had shown an intention to include recycling goals for 2014 and 2020.
However, Lord Henley said that there was no plan to include targets and added that he would not want there to be either.
We have our goals which come from the EU, he said. [Also], I wouldnt want to put in targets, what we want to do is set the direction and the right way we are going and how we want to do things and how we want to make things easier. I dont think it is a question of having targets set by the government.
His comments echoed those of environment secretary Caroline Spelman, who was quick to defend the lack of hard targets in the policy document on the day of its publication (see letsrecycle.com story).
Also, Lord Henley sought to dilute the governments perceived preference for anaerobic digestion (AD) which received prominence on the day of the Waste Review with the publication of the AD Strategy and Action Plan (see letsrecycle.com story).
We clearly are very interested in anaerobic digestion but it is one of the many technologies we are interested in regarding energy from waste. Anaerobic digestion has many favours but we will remain technology neutral and we will look to industry to develop what they think is best, said the minister.
Planning
On the issue of planning which was raised by both the Chartered Institution of Wastes Management and the Environmental Services Association Lord Henley hinted at some potential conflict between the waste sector and the localism agenda.
There are very real tensions between localism and the need to get infrastructure right, he said.
One of the points that has been put to me again and again as I have been to sites around the country, particularly on energy-from-waste, is that there are a large number of companies that want to invest a great deal of money in the UK who are finding it very difficult to get these sites through.
He stressed that weighing national and local need for infrastructure has to be right. However, Lord Henley said: It is going to be very difficult [to balance] and also very difficult to get the right infrastructure built.
Elsewhere during the discussions, Lord Henley confirmed that the targets and fines tied to the Landfill Allowance Trading Scheme would be abandoned following the announcement that the mechanism would be scrapped from 2013 as part of the Waste Review.
Bruce Terrell, director of London-based Community Waste, attacked some of the attendees’ concerns about the lack of money available made available under the Waste Review and called on government to attempt to tackle some areas that didnt require funding.
We heard that the Waste Review was less spectacular than hoped because there was no money but the argument should be made that a lot of the good that could be done by Parliament doesnt need money, he said.
There is work they can do on the end of waste, what percentage of waste is acceptable for export, which dont cost money but do have a real, tangible impact on the industry.
Register for free to comment