Peers attack government waste reduction response

The debate last Friday (December 12), which saw the House agree to a motion to take note of the report, heard of peers' particular 'disappointment' over the government's stance on LATS and Landfill Tax in the response to the report that it published late last month (see letsrecycle.com story).

Lord O'Neill of Clackmannan, chair of the Lords' Science and Technology Committee which published the waste reduction report in August 2008 (see letsrecycle.com story), was critical of the government's “shortsighted” approach to allocating Landfill Tax revenue.

The original report advocated hypothecation or 'ring-fencing' the tax for a particular purpose, and Lord O'Neill claimed that: “The Government's view is that good practice has been established, they have shown the way, and they will now cut back on the budget and get the thing done more cheaply. That is very shortsighted.”

Stating that bodies such as WRAP and Envirowise deserved “continued support”, he said: “We are disappointed at Defra's response.

“We understand that it has had burdens imposed on it due to other difficulties, but I do not think that the waste handling industry or the objectives of trying to secure better treatment of waste should necessarily be the casualty of past foot and mouth foul-ups.”

“We shall talk to officials about some of our recommendations to which they have not given satisfactory answers,” he added.

His sentiments were echoed by Lord Whitty, who also warned that a reduction in spending on bodies such as WRAP “also has a knock-on effect on the quality of data”.

Realistic

Lord O'Neill told the House that the fact that the Committee had come up with a “realistic” set of objectives made it “all the more disappointing that the Government have not been quite as constructive in their response as we would have wished.”

“However, we continue to hope,” he added.

But further criticism of the government's response to the report, which called for a focus on business and commercial waste, came from another member of the Science and Technology Committee, the Earl of Selbourne, John Roundell Palmer.

LATS

The Earl took issue with the impact the LATS system had on councils' willingness to tackle commercial waste and recycling.

Responding to the government's claim that LATS was “working well” and was “a crucial scheme to ensure compliance with the landfill directive”, he told the House that “I accept that the LATS may be crucial, but it is not working well.”

“Surely the first and most obvious thing to be resolved is how local authorities can be encouraged, not disincentivised, to produce a coordinated approach to waste handling through all waste streams, particularly industrial, building and construction waste, which is, after all, the main part of the problem.,” he added.