Waste Management Sites
Debate between John Milne and Lorraine Beavers(2 weeks, 3 days ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
John Milne (Horsham) (LD)
The issue of enforcement is a serious one. An incinerator in south London has breached its air pollution limits almost 1,000 times in 18 months, but nothing has been done by the EA—no court proceedings, no licence suspension, nothing. A similar plant is planned for my constituency. Does the hon. Member agree that the Government must act now to ensure that all operators—be they water companies or waste management companies—are held to account when they break the rules? How am I meant to assure my constituents that they will be safe from health risks?
Lorraine Beavers
I agree.
The problems began following the transfer of ownership from SUEZ to Transwaste Recycling and Aggregates, and the resumption of tipping in January 2024. SUEZ proved that sites like Jameson Road can be operated properly without a detrimental impact on the local community, but across the country more operators are cutting corners and operating outside of the law.
Meanwhile, our enforcement framework has not kept up. It is designed around the assumption that operators will do the right thing, often with local authorities in mind. As we have learned in Fleetwood, we cannot afford to make that assumption any longer. The nature of waste management has changed. Small waste management firms are now operating sites that were previously considered economically unviable. As the Jameson Road debacle suggests, to make such sites profitable, companies are now operating them poorly, breaching the terms to their permits and ignoring planning conditions. Local people are left to bear the brunt of their corner cutting.
The issuing and transferring of environmental permits needs to be more robust. Perhaps a new environmental permit should be issued with each change of ownership. If an economically unviable site has been closed, any prospective operator should surely be asked how they will overcome the financial issues. The way in which operators plan to make a site profitable without cutting corners should be scrutinised, and permits should not be carried over if operators cannot produce credible plans. Instead of the company bearing the burden to run a site properly, the burden has fallen on residents to prove that the operator has no such ability. That demonstrates that the weight of scrutiny in the system is in the wrong place. How does the Minister plan to address that? At present, the regulation is self-evidently ineffective.
As the local Member of Parliament, I meet representatives of the Environment Agency every Friday morning. My team and the wider community have pursued every possible avenue to stop the smell and get the site closed. Over the course of those meetings, I have concluded that one of two things must be true: either the Environment Agency does not have sufficient powers to intervene quickly enough, or it is not using the powers it has with the necessary urgency. Which does the Minister think it is? Either explanation demands Government action.
If the Environment Agency lacks the powers to suspend activity before further harm is caused, Parliament must provide such powers. If existing powers are unusable because of legal tests, internal processes or fears of legal challenge, those barriers must be removed. The agency must also have the resources to enforce the law. The issues at Jameson Road have resulted in the Environment Agency needing to pull experts in from all over the country.