---

Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2009

My Lords, that is a good try. It is difficult to understand, but as I just indicated the only alternative is enormous. Already, at the stroke of a pen and as the result of one phrase, the noble Lord would double the amount of work relating to this particular regulation if every regulation or order that comes before the Committee which amends orders from the past needs to be considered in those terms. I am afraid that no Government would think that that was the way to go about amending. I sympathise with the difficulty and I enormously applaud the rigorous way in which he sought to overcome those difficulties and identify the real issues as well as the drafting ones. But if he will forgive me, I will ask him to accept the drafting and I will try to deal with the real issues. The noble Lord mentioned the thresholds for anaerobic digestion. The limit was developed in conjunction with the National Farmers’ Union and the biogas industry and is deemed to be an appropriate threshold for small-scale on-farm biodigestion. That is an agreed position with the interests concerned. I was asked why plant tissue waste is included in the inert waste section. The waste type issue will be subject to review and, if deemed necessary, we will amend that at the earliest opportunity. The noble Lord has a point there. We may need to reconsider that. On the issue of plant codes, the references on codes are set out in the list of waste regulations. Again, I agree with the noble Lord. The problem is one of cross-referencing. That is the difficulty. There is nothing more sinister to it than that. The noble Lord asked about the difference between the two concepts of tyres, the different forms of storage and why they had different limits attached. The tonnage allowed depends on the use to which the bales will be put. They are stored in different ways and are intended to be used in different ways. That is why, in certain circumstances, one has to have limits of 50 tonnes and 40 tonnes in the regulations. The noble Lord asked a general question about quantities, and the noble Baroness identified a particular dimension on which, as she rightly indicated, I do not have much experience. For the most part, the quantities have been arrived at following assessment of the risk and discussion with businesses that carry out the activity. We have exemptions from European law, and are much more flexible than it might have directed. One of the advantages of the way we have gone about this is the flexibility, but we have to stipulate maximum quantities under that law, and that is why these figures are there. There is bound to be a certain arbitrariness about that and it is, of course, bound to be a matter of judgment. On access and security, all page 14 does is set out a definition of what is secure for the purposes of interpreting storage conditions. On waste not produced at the plant, which is covered on page 18, to which the noble Lord drew attention, I emphasise that this exemption is to enable water treatment plants to reseed the treatment process. To do that effectively, they need to bring waste in from other plants. The exemption has been developed with the full input of the waste water industry. We have had extended discussions on that. I hope the noble Lord will accept that point. The waste directive will require the registration to be updated. It will be updated as operators reregister every three years. The noble Lord will recognise that three years is in the regulations. I hope I have answered the questions that the Committee raised. The noble Baroness, Lady Barker, and the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, raised broader issues. I need to put them into context. The risk-based approach that we are taking and the environmental principles we have used to determine that operations should or should not be exempt now and in the future have received overwhelming support. I have indicated how narrowly focused these changes are. We believe that the changes to waste exemptions will benefit the industry and regulators and will encourage genuinely low-risk waste recycling and recovery operations. Those who will benefit include a wide range of businesses, particularly the smaller enterprises to which the noble Baroness referred. Our estimate is that these measures will lead to savings of around £255 million over 10 years, which is not a negligible amount. The overwhelming majority of those that are currently exempt from the need for a permit will continue to be exempt, and many others, including some of the sectors mentioned today, will benefit from a new, low-risk exemption that will be free to register. The noble Baroness raised metal recycling. We are aware of the metal recycling industry’s concerns that the revised exemption will be onerous for those who will no longer benefit from it and will need a permit. I am aware of the great contribution made by the metals sector and support it wholeheartedly. We have given a commitment to take measures to encourage legitimate operators to regularise their planning status within the current laws, which they must do not only for their own benefit but to ensure that local authorities reflect the need for metal recycling sites in their waste plans. So that is the advantage of the obligation—the information that local authorities collect. We also support this professional industry, and its competence to operate its sites can be demonstrated in a way that is appropriate for it. Reference has also been made to composting. We have significantly reduced the size, scale and scope of the composting exemption. Unfortunately, many composting sites merit much greater assessment and inspection than is provided under the current exemption. This will rightly lead to commercial-scale operations having to provide some of the same infrastructure and pollution-control measures that other waste treatments are required to meet and reduce the high level of concern surrounding some operations. It will be appreciated that a balance has to be struck between the interests of those who are seeking to increase composting—we all see the value of that—and the fact that there are dangers in local environments from composting that is not regulated, which is why we have put things in a framework. This has been an intensive debate. I am not sure that I was fully equipped to deal with quite the degree of precision with which the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, addressed the regulations, and I congratulate him on the intensity of his scrutiny, but I hope I have done enough to allay his concerns—and, even more, to allay the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran. I commend the regulations to the Committee. Motion agreed.