Waste and Emissions Trading Bill [Lords]

Public Bill Committee, 3 April 2003.

Standing Committee B

Waste and Emissions Trading Bill [Lords]

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

I shall start with some housekeeping rules. Although it may not be necessary, I remind hon. Members that the morning sittings start at 8.55 am, and finish at 11.25 am. The afternoon sittings will start at 2.30 pm and will usually finish at 5 o'clock, although they are open-ended. If anyone has complaints about this large and rather grand Room, please direct them to the attendants. Within reason, if hon. Members want to remove articles of clothing, they are most welcome to do so. Lastly, would those who have mobile phones kindly turn them off.

I call Mr. Meacher to move the programming motion.

Michael Meacher (Labour, Oldham West and Royton)

I beg to move,

That—

(1) during proceedings on the Waste and Emissions Trading Bill [Lords], the Standing Committee, in addition to its first sitting on Thursday 3rd April at 8.55 am, shall meet on that day at 2.30 pm and on Tuesday 8th April and Thursday 10th April at 8.55 am and 2.30 pm;

(2) the Committee shall consider the Bill in the following Order: Clauses 1 to 33; New Clauses relating to Part 1; New Schedules relating to Part 1; Clauses 34 and 35; remaining New Clauses; remaining New Schedules; Clauses 36 to 38; and remaining proceedings on the Bill;

(3) proceedings in the Committee on the Bill shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 5.00 pm on Thursday 10th April 2003.

Let me explain the programming motion in a little more detail. We shall sit for only three days—today, and Tuesday and Thursday next week. We shall sit twice on each day, but as you said, Mr. Amess, we shall finish no later than 5 pm on Thursday, 10 April, when the Bill will be reported to the House. On each day, we shall start at 8.55 am, and finish at 11.25 am, which is convenient for me, as I have to answer the first question at parliamentary questions at 11.30 this morning; and we shall resume at 2.30 pm.

For the Committee's convenience, we have decided to separate consideration of the Bill into its main parts. We shall first consider all the waste aspects; we shall start with amendments to existing provisions, followed by new clauses and new schedules. Once we have finished discussing waste, we shall go on to emissions trading; again, we shall start with amendments to existing provisions, and then consider new clauses and new schedules. We shall finish with the general provisions on commencement, extent, short title and any remaining proceedings. I hope that that will be convenient for the Committee.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I do not have a great deal to add, Mr. Amess, apart from welcoming you to the Chair and

saying how delighted we are to be serving under your benevolent leadership.

It is a great pleasure for me to lead for the Opposition. The Minister has an enormous reputation in this field and is widely respected, throughout the House and outside, for his knowledge of these matters. Indeed, as I look around the Room, I see that I am surrounded by expertise. I am impressed, not to say beguiled, by it; but I shall attempt, in my humble way, to match it.

It is appropriate that we give the Bill due consideration, but many of its provisions will receive support from across the Committee. I hope that we can deal with it in a thorough and diligent fashion in the time that has been made available. However, Mr. Amess, I know that you and the Minister both appreciate that if some areas need to be explored further, a certain degree of flexibility in timing will be necessary. Nevertheless, I do not think that this side of the Committee will be the cause of any unnecessary duplication or repetition—although that is a dangerous thing to say at the outset of proceedings on any Bill, as I am sure that all members of the Committee will acknowledge. I therefore support the programming motion. I hope that we can move ahead in a spirit of healthy co-operation, scrutinising the Bill as thoroughly as it deserves.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

I welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Amess, and want to say how pleased I am to have such a colourful and exuberant character overseeing our proceedings. I have little to add, other than that there has been cross-party agreement and a lot of give and take on the programming motion, which we all welcome.

There were originally supposed to be 10 sittings, but our proceedings have been truncated. However, I welcome the fact that the Government said in the Programming Sub-Committee that if we run out of time, they are prepared to return for a further day if necessary.

Question put and agreed to.

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

I remind the Committee that there is a money resolution and a Ways and Means resolution in connection with the Bill, and that copies of the resolutions are available in the Room.

I should also like to remind hon. Members that adequate notice should be given of amendments. As a general rule, my co-Chairman, Mr. Win Griffiths, and I—a third Chairman will stand in temporarily this afternoon—do not intend to call starred amendments, including any starred amendments that might be reached in the afternoon sitting of the Committee.

Clause 1 - Target years

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I beg to move amendment No. 29, in

clause 1, page 1, line 7, leave out 'must' and insert 'may'.

I am delighted to kick off our proceedings.

At first sight, the amendment might seem to weaken the Bill's provisions fundamentally because part 1 arguably sets the tone for our consideration of the Bill

as a whole. In fact, the reason for the amendment is the uncertainty—to put it mildly—about the opportunities to exercise the derogation that the provisions make available to the Government.

The Bill deals with waste. Our record on the amount of biodegradable municipal waste that goes to landfill is lamentable—and among the worst in Europe—although I think that the Minister has said that in Greece the situation is worse, and he might be right. However, we are certainly not near the top of the league table of dealing with waste in an environmentally friendly manner, which is why our targets are stiff. That is acknowledged in all parts of the House, and in debates on the matter the Minister has said that the targets are demanding and challenging.

As we debate whether to put ''may'' instead of ''must'' in subsection (1), the question whether the derogation will be used arises. The matter will be debated again when we come to an amendment on the derogation, but it is important to consider how the Government intend to proceed in respect of the targets. ''Must'' suggests that the Government will not use the power to extend the timetable, whereas ''may'' would perhaps give greater flexibility to do so. That does not suggest in any shape or form that those in the Opposition who care about these matters deeply want to dilute the intent to move ahead. It is vital to make significant progress in dealing with waste, but I wonder whether the targets can be met. Does the Minister wonder the same thing? He has hinted that he is uncertain that the targets can be met, has talked of them as an enormous challenge, and has said how stiff they are. I do not doubt the Minister's resolve to try to meet those targets, but if we do not allow any flexibility or take account of the possible derogation—

David Kidney (Labour, Stafford)

Does exercising the derogation change the target dates?

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

No. The point is that the Bill should give the Government extra flexibility. That would open up to the Government a range of options on how to proceed. I accept that we are under obligations, but we should not tie the hands of the country in that respect more than we have to—[Interruption.] I should like to move on; otherwise we shall be here all day.

David Kidney (Labour, Stafford)

The last thing that I want to do is to be here all day. However, may I pursue one further point: should there not be compulsion? A trading scheme must have limits; otherwise, it cannot work.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

True. However, as the hon. Gentleman has a detailed knowledge of such matters, he will know that trading schemes operate in different ways in different places and he will be familiar with the American model. Investigations have been made into trading schemes, and there have been proposals to allow for varying degrees of flexibility. Suggestions have been made by Labour Members concerning the flexibility of the trading scheme and the way in which targets would be met—he might even have spoken on the matter. It would be wrong to suggest that we are in a straitjacket. It is important that we know that we have targets to meet, and understand the cost of not

meeting them: the potential fines are some £150 million, which is not small beer.

There is a nobler objective. This is not simply about meeting targets or about the fear of fines; it is about a determination to have an integrated waste strategy that is sufficiently flexible for us to be able to implement it. It is no use aiming at targets that we cannot meet or pretending that we shall achieve things that cannot be achieved. We do need an ambitious plan, a strategy and a vision, but we also need to be flexible about how we meet the targets and realise the vision.

The object of the amendment is to probe the Minister as to how he sees the Government's obligations. I hope that the apparently minor semantic difference between ''may'' and ''must'' does that. I shall be interested to hear what the Minister says and, in setting the tone for the debate, I might say that there is no lack of determination on this side of the Committee to do things that are sensible, wise and strategic in order to implement a waste management plan. However, we will accept only targets and objectives that can reasonably be met.

Michael Meacher (Labour, Oldham West and Royton)

This is an interesting first amendment because, as the hon. Gentleman has recognised, it could be perceived as a fundamental weakening of the structure of the Bill. I accept that that is not his intention and I realise that it is a probing amendment, presumably to find out why there is an obligation on the Secretary of State to specify an amount in target years but only a power to do so in non-target years. For the years for which targets are set in the landfill directive, which the United Kingdom must meet, amendment No. 20 changes into a discretionary power the obligation placed by the Bill on the Secretary of State to specify by regulations the amount of biodegradable municipal waste that can be landfilled in each target year by the UK and each of its component countries.

The hon. Gentleman is concerned about whether we can meet those obligations. They are absolute and are subject to infraction proceedings and to sizable fines, to which I am determined that the UK will not become liable. By no means am I suggesting that we might not meet them and that, therefore, we need to have a measure of discretion. The fact is that we do not have a measure of discretion. As I said, the limits have been set down for the first period, which is 2006. A derogation may apply until 2010, if we choose to use it; indeed, I think that we are bound to in the first period. We must achieve a target of no more than 75 per cent. of 1995 landfill levels. That is a very testing target, but it is absolute and it is an obligation. There can be no question of using our discretion or of changing the dates or amounts—we can change neither. The UK must meet its obligations under the landfill directive. The devolved authorities recognise that fact, which neither they nor, indeed, anyone else has challenged. In order to meet those obligations, they have agreed to the division of targets set out in clause 1(1).

I recognise that the hon. Gentleman has simply tabled a probing amendment and that he does not seriously intend to weaken the Bill's structure. I am

absolutely clear about the fact that the obligation must remain an obligation, that the ''must'' must remain and that we cannot insert ''may''. On that basis, I hope that he will withdraw the amendment.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I simply say that the Minister is of course right about the obligations. However, it seems odd—I put it no more strongly than that—that we have ''must'' in clause 1 but ''may'' in clause 2. That said, I do not want to get into a debate about a later amendment, and I am sure that you would not want me to do so, Mr. Amess. However, the Minister touched on the point with reference to non-target years. There is presumably discretion in that respect, and the provision could have been firmed up.

The Government seem to be saying that they inserted ''must'' at the beginning of the Bill to signal clearly that they must meet the targets that have been set outside this place. When it comes to non-target years, however, they are saying that there is precisely the sort of discretion and flexibility that I mentioned. I am therefore a little uncertain, because there seems to be an element of judgment and discretion. The Minister alluded to it, and it would be helpful to have a little more clarity.

Michael Meacher (Labour, Oldham West and Royton)

Yes. The point about ''must'' and the obligation is that they apply to the target years. The targets that apply in those years are the trip wires, although I am not sure whether that is an appropriate metaphor. They are the standard or the objective that we must meet, and there is no getting away from that. However, there is the capacity in non-target years for a measure of discretion, and we shall come to that in a few clauses' time. The allocating authority—in England, that is the Secretary of State—and the disposal authorities will have a measure of discretion over how to deal with the stream in the years leading up to the next target year. It can be greater in the earlier years, although it would be very unwise to allow it be greater in the later years. However, that is a matter for discussion. The important point is that, by the time one reaches the next target year, there must be no dubiety about the UK's capacity to meet its targets. In the non-target years, however, there is a power, as opposed to an obligation, and there is a measure of discretion. The window is fairly small, because the reductions in each year will be so large that there will be little discretion to alter them.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

I am just thinking about the obligation that the Minister has brought on his Department in light of the Labour party's desire for further devolution. Making the Secretary of State responsible by obligation rather than by choice will mean that if the Scottish Parliament or the Welsh Assembly seek further powers to set amounts for biodegradable municipal waste, the Bill will have to be further amended; but if the word ''may'' was used, that would not necessarily be the case.

Michael Meacher (Labour, Oldham West and Royton)

No; that is not the case. The UK—that is all four countries—has an international obligation; the Government signed the landfill

directive in 1998. Under devolution arrangements, the Government retain an override in order to meet international obligations. I see no alternative to that, and it is not disputed by the devolved Administrations. Therefore, the only measure of discretion is in the non-target years—the years in between—and the pace at which we move towards the next target year. When we come to those target years, there can be no question of discretion, of trading forward or of not achieving targets in those years. It is a balance; we are trying to achieve as much devolution as is compatible with achievement of the international obligation. The key point is the amounts in those target years, but there can be absolutely no dubiety about our requirement to meet them, nor about our methods of doing so. I therefore hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the amendment.

Jonathan Sayeed (Conservative, Mid Bedfordshire)

What a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Amess.

I understand why the United Kingdom asked for a derogation. We have historically relied upon landfill to deal with municipal waste, and we must change our ways. We have used landfill to a much greater degree than other countries, and we therefore applied for a derogation. I have no doubt that the Minister is sincere in his wish that we should not be required to use that derogation. However, I am not so convinced that that wish is matched by the Government.

Let us be clear about a few things. We know that there is a 3 per cent. per annum growth in waste, and that there is a 1.5 per cent. per annum increase in the recovery of biodegradable waste. We also know that, even with the four-year derogation, we shall fail to meet the landfill directive's biodegradable municipal waste diversion targets, with a shortfall of almost 4 million tonnes in 2010, and nearly 12 million tonnes in 2020. The Minister has not said how we shall ensure that we meet the targets, even with the four-year derogation. I have no doubt about the Minister's good intentions, but I am not sure that they will be matched by the Government.

Michael Meacher (Labour, Oldham West and Royton)

There is no question about it; they are matched by the Government. I am speaking on behalf of the Government, and as far as I know there is no dispute within Government, the local authorities or the devolved Administrations.

It is a great pleasure that the hon. Gentleman is still with us; I understand and respect the reasons why he now speaks from the Back Benches rather than the Front Bench. As always, he is testing with his carefully prepared comments. On this occasion, however, I am not quite sure of the force of his argument, because we have to choose whether to exercise the derogation. I shall come to that subject again when we debate later clauses.

For the first derogation years 2006–10, we probably have no alternative, although there is more of a question about later years. The hon. Gentleman seems to be saying that even if we exercise that derogation so that the first guillotine—I would rather call it that than a trip wire—comes down in 2010, there is no guarantee that we will meet it. Of course, that absolutely depends

on the figures put down for each of the non-target years leading to the target year 2010. We will obviously choose figures that can deliver the requirement. The test is whether we can meet those figures, but there is no question that the run of totals leading to the amount for 2010 will be such as to meet the target when divided between the four countries. As I say, the problem is to get the change of behaviour by business and households to reduce their commercial and demolition waste drastically. I think that we are the first Government in the world to draw up a trading Bill of this kind with powers of this kind and enforcement of this kind. We are in that position not for a good reason but for a thoroughly bad one: we send so much to landfill. This is an innovative Bill. There is no question about its logistics; it is changing behaviour because it has the powers and mechanisms to do so. The landfill tax escalator is a major enforcer in achieving our targets. Using physical amounts seems to us the best way of ensuring that targets are met.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed) spoke about the uncertainty of meeting the targets, not, as he made clear, because of any lack of determination on the Minister's part, but because of practical considerations. However, given the obligations that we are under and because we do not want anyone in the House or outside it to think that the Conservatives on the Committee want to weaken the Bill, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Norman Baker: I beg to move amendment No. 9, in

clause 1, page 1, line 8, after 'weight', insert 'and volume'.

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 10, in

clause 2, page 2, line 9, after 'weight', insert 'and volume'.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

I start by repeating a point that I made on Second Reading: there is cross-party support for the Bill, which, as the Minister says, is innovative. However, I am disappointed that the Bill simply seeks to implement the landfill directive without taking the opportunity to implement a wider waste strategy. That is all the more disappointing considering the recently published paper from the strategy unit, which was reasonable on the issue, and the fact that we are expecting an announcement in the Budget. The Bill is therefore somewhat threadbare compared with what it could and should say about a proper waste strategy.

The relevance to the amendment of that Second Reading comment is that the Minister and his civil servants have produced a definition of municipal waste by weight. That, I think, is to comply with the landfill directive; perhaps the Minister will tell me if I am wrong. Although the Bill may achieve the targets in the landfill directive, it does not necessarily do everything possible to reduce the waste stream and to maximise recycling. I would like the Government to take the opportunity, on the back of this sensible measure, to reduce waste that cannot be covered by the word ''weight.'' I refer, in particular, to plastics, which are not particularly heavy, so the clause gives

waste disposal authorities little incentive to reduce the amount of plastics sent to landfill sites.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

Would the hon. Gentleman recognise the huge amount of work that my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire has done in desperately trying to convince the Government of the importance of the volume-to-weight ratio?

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

I am happy to recognise that and to give credit where it is due. I am sure that the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire will have his own contribution to make as the Bill progresses.

If volume is not taken into account, the structure that is established by the allocating authority, the waste disposal authority, the collection authorities and the industry, which is geared up to deal with the measure, will simply focus on weight. However, with a little imagination the structure could focus on volume as well. I do not suggest to the Minister that volume should be used as an alternative to weight; I recognise that that would not be sensible and that he must abide by the European directive. What an opportunity we would miss if we did not, in establishing the structure, deal with volume at the same time. If the Minister does not accept the amendment, how will we create incentives to reduce the disposal of plastics to landfill? Or is that not important, in his eyes?

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman—or indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire—has done any modelling in relation to that, but will he tell the Committee what he estimates the trend to be in the disposal of plastic waste? I suspect that he has identified an increasing problem, which my hon. Friend also identified earlier. In that case, the amendment is all the more profound.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

I understand that the volume of plastic waste is increasing; first because of the greater use of plastic and a change from the use of glass bottles to plastic ones; and secondly because there are no strong signals coming from the Government that the matter should be taken seriously. This is the Government's blind spot in relation to the waste stream. If they are not keen to include in the Bill a provision relating to volume, although I think that they should, will the Minister say what alternative steps he is taking to reduce the disposal of plastics to landfill, to ensure that plastics are recycled and, most important, to ensure that a regime is imposed on waste disposal and collection authorities to drive them down that road? Warm words will not achieve the desired end—one which I am sure the Minister and I share.

Jonathan Sayeed (Conservative, Mid Bedfordshire)

Two years ago, I first proposed that we should consider the weight-to-volume ratio. The reason is simple. All the legislation currently coming out of Europe is framed on a weight basis, but the problem is not weight related but volume related. Holes and lorries fill up, so it makes sense to have a system that discourages the production of lighter fractions that take up a lot of room.

When I first suggested the idea, it was argued that a weight-to-volume ratio would be difficult to manage, but that is not the case. In the shipping industry it is used all the time in stuffing containers. The industry uses a ratio of 1 tonne to 1 cu m, and there is a very

good system for marking containers, both by volume and by weight, and registering how they are filled. The ratio is known throughout the industry, so such a system is practically possible. The real problem is that Europe has never used a system based on weight-to-volume ratio for dealing with waste. The Government should have taken the lead in persuading Europe to change the regulations.

What do we know? We know that, on average, the ratio for municipal waste is 3 cu m to 1 tonne. If we are to discourage the use of the lighter fractions, particularly plastics, we need to use a ratio that is less than 3 cu m:1 tonne. I have been proposing that we should use a ratio of 2 cu m:1 tonne, and that people and businesses should be charged on whichever is the greater. In other words, if waste weighs 1 tonne but is 6 cu m in volume, a person would pay not 1 tonnes-worth but 3 tonnes-worth of charges. That would discourage the use of lighter fractions; the current system encourages local authorities to collect the heavier fractions—glass, paper and so on—and ignore the more difficult, lighter, fractions such as plastics. It will also send a significant sign to the packaging industry and to supermarkets about how they should package food and other items.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

My hon. Friend has come to the nub of the argument. He is right in general, but he is particularly accurate when he refers to the impact on producers. One of the criticisms that have been made of the Bill is that it is not far-reaching enough; it is not sufficiently integrated in its approach to waste. The term ''integrated waste strategy'' has been used by my hon. Friend and others, and the impact on producers of dealing with volume seems to be at the heart of the matter. Will he explore that further?

Jonathan Sayeed (Conservative, Mid Bedfordshire)

I thank my hon. Friend—he has taken the advancement of my argument almost out of my mouth. I was going to say that we can change behaviour by having regulations that encourage a form of behaviour that we all wish to see; it is preferable to use carrots rather than sticks.

The core of the argument is that we know that we are producing too much plastic—in packaging in particular, but in other ways also. We would like to reduce the amount of plastic that is sent to landfill, incinerated and recycled. We know that fractions are difficult to deal with because they do not degrade, they send off toxins if they are burned and they are of low value if recycled. It therefore makes sense to have a system that discourages the production of waste plastic.

The best way to do that is to penalise the light fractions, and the best way to do that is to have a system with a weight-to-volume ratio. I believe that the ratio should be 1 tonne:2 cu m, and I should be interested to know whether—although he may not accept this particular amendment—the Minister would be prepared to push for that to be included in all European waste legislation.

Sue Doughty (Liberal Democrat, Guildford)

May I join others in saying how much I am looking forward to the debate, and to working under your chairmanship, Mr. Amess?

I shall speak briefly because my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) has encapsulated many of our views. The issue of plastic bottles illustrates how we feel about waste management as a whole. The Bill is an important jigsaw piece in the conundrum of waste. Sometimes we work as though we do not know what the big picture is; we know the meaning of one piece of work but not of the rest.

I support the views that have been expressed about the volume as well as the weight of plastic, but how do we get the volume down? Councils have to do an enormous amount of work to find suitable ways of crushing bottles. None of them is particularly safe—one would not want one's children to go near the sites—so they are not implemented. Other things can be done to reduce plastic use. Many people drink water out of plastic bottles, which is barmy, given the high quality of our drinking water. We should be working with schools; some have begun to tell pupils to drink water instead of fizzy drinks, which is far better for them. What about the old-fashioned practice of providing a bottle or jug of chilled tap water? We seem to have lost all that.

The Bill does not entirely deal with that matter, nor should it. However, we face the problem of how to reduce the volume of waste that we produce. We should consider other options, such as dealing not only with packaging manufacturers but with behaviour, especially through education. I support the words of my colleagues, but I urge the Minister to consider how we might alter behaviour and steer it in other directions as part of a waste management strategy.

Gregory Barker (Conservative, Bexhill and Battle)

My argument is brief and could almost be made in an intervention.

We throw away about 15 million plastic cups and bottles a day—the figure is staggering and I could not quite believe it when I heard it—the majority of which are disposed in a wholly unhealthy way. What assessment has the Minister made of the economic impact that the Bill will have? What signals does his research tell him will be sent to the market?

Plastics is one of the most problematic areas of recycling, as colleagues and others have hinted, and the economics of recycling are often questioned. The only way to find the solutions to recycling those troublesome plastics is to develop a viable commercial market that will attract the vital capital investment. What assessment have the Minister, the Department of Trade and Industry and the Treasury made about how to prompt the market to make important investment decisions that will help to square the circle? How can capital be attracted to resolve the outstanding economic problems that mean that it is not commercially viable to recycle plastics or to make new products out of them? What hope do we have of making far better progress than simply sending plastics to landfill or incineration?

Michael Meacher (Labour, Oldham West and Royton)

The last point is interesting and I shall come to it.

The amendment has sparked an interesting debate. The two key points are the importance of improving plastics recycling or reducing plastics in the marketplace, and the interesting question from the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire about whether the weight:volume ratio might be reduced so as to apply pressure to reduce the amount of material that goes to landfill. Those were interesting ideas.

The amendment would require the maximum amount of biodegradable municipal waste that goes to landfill in target years and non-target years in each component country of the UK to be specified by weight and by volume. I can see the reasoning behind that: some wastes, notably plastics, are relatively light and can take up a lot of space.

I would make three points, however. First, the landfill directive targets for the reduction in the amount of biodegradable municipal waste that goes to landfill are set by weight. That does not preclude adding another consideration, but volume is not mentioned in that context.

Secondly, on a point that is relevant to our wider debate, plastics do not fall into the category of biodegradable municipal waste. That is the great problem with plastics: they do not biodegrade. However, the landfill directive is essentially about biodegradable municipal waste, so plastics do not count towards the targets.

Jonathan Sayeed (Conservative, Mid Bedfordshire)

The Minister is right: certain plastics do not biodegrade, but he knows that others do. For instance, one problem in supermarkets is the very thin plastic bags made from a type of plastic that will not biodegrade. Previously, the bags were made of heavier duty plastics that do biodegrade. We must effect a change in behaviour. However, I should like to hear the rest of the Minister's remarks.

Michael Meacher (Labour, Oldham West and Royton)

The hon. Gentleman is of course right. As he knows, an interesting debate was recently sparked by the Irish precedent of introducing a plastic bag tax. There are various ways of trying to deal with the problem, which is that far too much plastic from supermarkets litters the highways, finds its way into the hedgerows and ultimately ends up as landfill. As I never cease to say, each year the UK produces 8 billion tonnes of plastic bags and each of us, on average, disposes of 134 of them. The issue is therefore very significant.

As the hon. Gentleman says, another way of dealing with the problem is to use biodegradable plastics, rather than to tax existing non-biodegradable plastic bags. We have studied various ways of resolving the problem; indeed, we are looking for a pilot scheme to take place in Wales shortly, involving one of the supermarkets which is trying to change behaviour in this respect.

Gregory Barker (Conservative, Bexhill and Battle)

Will the Minister give way?

Michael Meacher (Labour, Oldham West and Royton)

I will, but I think that Mr. Amess will not allow us to go too far down this track, because it is taking us rather far from the amendment.

Gregory Barker (Conservative, Bexhill and Battle)

I was simply going to say that the true figure for plastic bags has probably been masked. If people emptied their kitchen drawers and

cupboards, the country's landfill requirement for a given year would probably double.

Michael Meacher (Labour, Oldham West and Royton)

I have no idea, but that could be the case.

The third point about the amendment is that waste tends to be compressed before it becomes landfill, so volume is less of a problem. Landfill gate charges are also calculated by weight. Furthermore, the UK obligation under article 5(2) of the landfill directive, which the Bill is designed to implement, relates to reductions by weight, so we must set the targets by weight.

One always recognises that hon. Members do not have the same facilities as Ministers, but the amendments do not provide a way of measuring volume, although I am not suggesting that we could not find one if we put in enough effort. The requirement to set targets by volume, which the amendments would insert, would therefore be unworkable. That is not intended to be a sneering remark on the part of Ministers, because we could tackle the issue. The point, however, is that it is not a relevant consideration in terms of the landfill directive.

Perhaps I can turn now to the other points that arose. I am very concerned about recycling plastics. The highest priority is to recycle all compost, or biodegradable waste, which consists mainly of paper, card, and kitchen and garden waste. As it biodegrades in landfill sites, it produces greenhouse gases, which is why we focus on the weight, not the volume, of waste. Paper and card make up almost one third of the total, and kitchen waste makes up about one fifth of it, so those are by far the largest fractions. The economics of recycling are currently much more difficult for plastics than for other fractions of the waste stream—therein lies the problem.

I was asked how we are trying to tackle that. The Government and the devolved Administrations have set up the waste and resources action programme to tackle the market barriers to increased recycling. WRAP has identified plastics as a priority in its business plan for 2003–04—the current year. One of WRAP's priorities is to market existing recycled plastic products and to remove discriminatory standards. That is linked to the development of ''buy recycled'' policies and to a research and development programme to develop plastics recycling technology and support composite product development.

One of WRAP's targets is to achieve a 20,000 tonne increase in the mixed plastics processing for industrial products by 2003–04. It intends to award a grant to address the lack of a plastics sorting or processing infrastructure in the UK, which it says should result in an additional 20,000 tonnes per annum of post-consumer plastic bottles being diverted from the waste stream.

Trials are being undertaken on different ways of collecting plastics, notably sorting it prior to collection, collecting it with heavier materials such as glass and then sorting it, and crushing plastic bottles to reduce their volume. As hon. Members have said, plastics recycling is popular. I receive a great number of letters, including some from members of the

Committee, and I find that the message is increasingly being acted on, as local authorities respond to local pressure. I acknowledge that it is a serious issue.

Under the packaging waste directive, we are obliged to set packaging waste reprocessing targets. Last year, our target was 50 per cent., and we just failed to meet it because of the notorious failure by one compliance body. We achieved only 48 per cent. However, the targets for 2006–08 are now under discussion in Brussels, and we expect that the packaging waste target will be set at between 60 and 65 per cent., which would be a big increase in a fairly short period. I mention that because it is linked to material-specific recycling targets; and the one for plastics, which is by far the lowest, is expected to be substantially increased.

The hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker) asked what market signals the Bill was sending out. It is sending out a strong signal. Because it will result in a drastic reduction in the amount of materials, including plastics, going into landfill, there will be a premium on the development of new technologies to find alternative ways to recover, reuse or recycle plastics, and on the onward use of plastic products. That is a major effort, which WRAP is designed to encourage.

Gregory Barker (Conservative, Bexhill and Battle)

I appreciate what the Minister is saying, but people's fundamental concern is that we will displace plastics from landfill to incineration, and therefore bypass the recycling opportunity.

Michael Meacher (Labour, Oldham West and Royton)

That point was raised in a detailed and comprehensive way by my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) on Second Reading, and I am sure that we shall come to it when we debate later clauses. I do not believe that that will happen, however, because there are significant constraints on a large expansion of incineration. The Government do not prohibit or encourage it. We are leaving it to local authorities to decide—and to the market.

We are clearly setting out a strong waste hierarchy, the top element of which is waste reduction and minimisation; in other words, we should not create it in the first place. Secondly, as I never stop saying, if waste is generated, we should recover it, reuse it, recycle it or compost it. Landfill is completely unacceptable except in much smaller quantities.

We are looking for ways to ensure that waste is pushed up the hierarchy beyond incineration. First, new municipal solid waste incinerators require a planning process, and there is a good deal of public hostility to that. Secondly, the Government have commissioned research into the environment and health impacts of all forms of waste management and disposal, including incineration. The Chancellor said in his Budget statement of 2002 that the Government were considering an economic instrument in respect of incineration. No decision has been made, but we are considering whether it would be appropriate to use fiscal measures to encourage the shift of waste up the hierarchy. We do

not want it to shift simply—as the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle said—from landfill to incineration.

We want to ensure that incineration internalises the full environment and health costs, and we do not want the critical mass of waste to move to the next cheapest option after landfill. We want to shift it higher, and we are considering measures that will achieve that. Although there could be an increase in incineration, it will not be large, and it will be very small in comparison with the big increase that will be required by the local authority statutory recycling targets.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

It is interesting that the debate has, properly, broadened. Points emerge from the amendments, which highlight an important aspect of the Bill revealed in the Minister's response. That is based on the Government's assertion that they do not accept the arguments of Conservative and Liberal Democrat members of the Committee because they do not have to; there is no obligation on them to do so. That is important because it is indicative of the fact that the Bill does what it has to do for the Government to meet the targets; at this stage the Bill is not, despite the Minister's commitment and understanding—all the things to which I paid tribute—part of a wider appreciation of the problem of waste management.

I talked about an integrated waste management strategy. The amendments focus on the nature of waste and on the problem of the production of unsuitable materials. The point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire was that we should focus not merely on reuse, recycling and recovery, but on the production end of the problem. This interesting and valuable mini-debate has—in concentrating at length on plastic—drawn us back to considering why we increasingly produce plastic, why that plastic is produced in a form that is not biodegradable and what pressure we should exert on those who create the problem. We must get right the balance between that pressure and the pressure that we will certainly exert on those responsible for collecting and disposing of waste.

That holistic approach, which is essential if we are to deal with the matter, has been brought out by our debate on the amendment. There are doubts about whether the Bill is based on such an approach. The Minister might say that of course it is not, because it is a narrow, small Bill. However, if it is not part of a bigger strategy, we will never get to the bottom of the problem that waste is produced that is difficult to deal with, highly toxic and seems to be increasing. That problem was highlighted at some length by the hon. Member for Southampton, Test on Second Reading.

The other thing that has come out of the debate is the knock-on effect on disposal within the waste hierarchy. A disposal hierarchy that places incineration close to landfill is not acceptable. The Minister is honest and straightforward when he says that he is determined to do something to change its place in the hierarchy, but the problem is its position: if it is just below or above landfill, we have not made the strides necessary to deal with the emissions problems that arise from incineration, which were mentioned earlier and in this debate.

What is worrying about what we have just heard is that it indicates a lack of the holistic approach that I want, and which my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire has called for on several occasions. Such an approach is essential if we are to deal with waste in a proper and responsible manner.

Jonathan Sayeed (Conservative, Mid Bedfordshire)

My hon. Friend made a fundamental point. One of the ways to tell whether management is working properly, which one finds in all management textbooks, is whether managers are dealing with a core problem—the major problem—or whether they are dealing only with the minor ones. We can all agree that when there are a series of problems that need to be solved, the big problems should be dealt with first and then the more minor ones.

The real problem with waste is its volume rather than its weight. However, all the legislation on waste is weight-based. I have no doubt that WRAP does a very good job, but it deals with recovery, reuse and recycling. I also have no doubt that setting material-specific recycling targets makes good sense. However, those targets deal with the event after it has occurred.

The point about a weight:volume ratio, as proposed in the amendment, is not whether it is a perfect or imperfect concept, but whether the concept is accepted by the Government as a useful tool in reducing the production of the waste in the first place.

On Second Reading I said, when referring to the Bill:

''I am sorry to say that it is a testimony to their''—

the Government's—

''policy of serial compliance with EU directives, as and when they start to put the United Kingdom in a difficult, possibly costly or embarrassing position.''—[Official Report, 20 March 2003; Vol. 401, c. 1156.]

Although I supported the Bill, I believe that there has been too little imaginative thinking about how we can deal with the really big problem concerning waste, which is volume-related. That is why I would like the Minister to answer the question that I asked—does he believe that a weight:volume ratio of, for example, 1 tonne to 2 cu m makes sense, and, if he does think so, will he promote that in European legislation?

Michael Meacher (Labour, Oldham West and Royton)

I shall respond to the points made in the last two interventions.

I agree with the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) about the need for an integrated waste management strategy. The Government's strategy is based on that concept, and was set out in ''Waste Strategy 2000.'' That is the reason why the Bill does not set out a whole waste strategy. As I have said repeatedly, we have already done that, and the Bill simply provides for an area in which we needed legislative cover. There is, therefore, no dispute about that matter.

The hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings then said that what we proposed in the Bill was simply what the directive required, and that that determined the mechanisms put in place: the concentration on weight as opposed to volume. We must meet the targets, and that is the purpose of the Bill—I do not pretend otherwise. Those targets are set

by weight, and that is why we must meet the targets and the time scales on a weight-of-waste basis. That does not mean that we are not prepared to look at the interesting points raised by the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire about the weight:volume ratio and the relationship between 1 tonne and 3 cu m of waste, for example, which the hon. Gentleman proposed—presumably illustratively—to reduce to 2.

The hon. Gentleman said that the big problem with waste is volume, but I think that the problem is minimising it, or not creating it in the first place, which is the central requirement. Once waste is created, volume is important but it is not the prime consideration. There is a lot of unnecessary waste; some materials should not end up in the waste stream at all. Changing the mindset of individuals and households and industrial and commercial businesses is a huge challenge and it is difficult to incentivise. However, as I said, we are working on the problem and there are at least half a dozen ways in which we can bring pressure to bear.

With respect to the hon. Gentleman's question whether the Government would consider the utility of a weight:volume ratio, I am happy to say that we would do so, although I will not give a commitment at this stage. No amendment has been tabled on the proposal; the matter arises somewhat tangentially to the amendment before us, which refers to weight and volume, not to a specific relationship between the two, and how that can be engineered in order to change the waste stream going to landfill. I am happy to look at the matter because it is an interesting concept, but I cannot go beyond that. It would be useful in respect of plastics, as the hon. Gentleman says, but I repeat that we are considering tackling the problem in other ways, notably through the material-specific recycling targets—they will apply to plastics and some of the other, more difficult materials—which will be dramatically increased. The measures required to meet those targets may move in the direction that the hon. Gentleman proposed.

I am pleased to say, without commitment, that we will seriously consider the hon. Gentleman's idea. I will write to him when the Department has had a serious look at the proposal.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

I welcome the Minister's agreement to consider the idea. I hope that he will write on the subject to the entire Committee, not merely to one hon. Member.

This has been an interesting debate, which shows that Opposition Members are concerned that the Bill is not a waste Bill but an EU landfill directive implementation Bill, which may be all right as far as it goes, but does not go far enough. The Government have an integrated waste management strategy, which the Minister spoke about, but this is not an integrated waste management Bill. The Minister has achieved much aside from legislation; he regularly pushes, pulls and cajoles, and there have been improvements. However, some measures require legislation and I wonder when the Minister thinks he will get another bite at the cherry and be able to introduce a waste Bill.

There will be a response to the Cabinet Office strategy unit's proposals but no opportunity to implement them if the Government decide that far-reaching measures are required. The next opportunity for a Bill from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will not be for some time; it may not even be in this Parliament.

I have tremendous respect for the Minister, as he knows, and I understand these issues better than most people. This Bill is an opportunity for him and the people who share his beliefs to enact the measures for which he has clamoured for many years. He should use the Bill as a portmanteau vehicle to implement the changes that he believes in, rather than simply accepting the views of civil servants who say, ''You need to have a Bill to implement the EU landfill directive.'' It will be a missed opportunity if that is all that we get.

Throughout the passage of the Bill I and, I suspect, Conservative Members, will argue for widening the measure and including other proposals that are important in dealing with the whole matter of waste. The Bill's long title says ''make provision about waste'', so it is perfectly in order to push that. I hope that the Minister recognises that he can make provision about waste beyond the landfill directive.

The Minister gave three reasons why he was not happy with the amendment. The first was that the EU landfill directive targets are set by weight. That is true—every hon. Member who has spoken fully accepts that the EU directive sets targets by weight. However, as the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire said, there is nothing to stop the introduction of an element such as a ratio that also deals with volume. That would not stop the Government from fulfilling their requirements under EU legislation, and would not weaken the weight requirements that the Minister wants to impose and that I do not oppose. Rather, that would add something and pick up some of the waste stream that the legislation does not deal with, but which the Minister wants to deal with.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

The hon. Gentleman is making an important point. The amendment would not detract from the Government's responsibilities, but would widen the perspective of those concerned with such matters, in particular the Minister, with respect to the strategy mentioned earlier. I do not go as far as the hon. Gentleman and say that the Bill should be widened as much as we would want, since it might not be within our remit to do that. However, the hon. Gentleman might want to invite the Minister to assure us that the Bill will be part of a series of measures that will implement the strategy that we all want.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

I hope that the Minister will assure us of that. However, like other hon. Members, I am aware of the pressures on legislation and the time that the Leader of the House allocates, and I am not very confident that we shall see further waste legislation in the foreseeable future. Nobody would cheer more than me to hear the Minister say that whoever the Leader of the House is these days has assured him on the matter,

and I should be happy to give way to him if he can do so.

In the absence of that intervention, I pursue the second reason why the Minister was not happy with the amendment. He said that plastics were not biodegradable—he was picked up on that point—and so were outside the Bill. Even if plastics were biodegradable, that would not mean that they would have to be outside the Bill. Plastics are waste and the Bill is about waste, so the Minister's argument is not terribly convincing.

Thirdly, the Minister said that the amendment would not work. Clause 2(1) says ''maximum amount by weight''. On its own, that provision does not work. It works only because elsewhere the Bill explains what weight means and how that is incorporated into other measures and the Government's thoughts. On that basis, adding ''and volume'' would work, and I would be happy to promise the Minister that if he accepts the amendment, I shall be sure to incorporate an amendment later in the Bill to ensure that the amendment would work. I am not convinced that we should be much governed by the Minister's strategic argument.

More serious are the environmental consequences that will result from the Government's going down the road that the EU has chosen, which is weight-based. The Government must incorporate targets by weight, but not necessarily exclusively by weight. What are the environmental consequences of that? There could be pressure to reduce the use of heavy materials, in particular glass. One of the market outcomes of the measure might be further movement from glass bottles to plastic bottles. Do we want that? One could argue, for example, that plastic bottles are lighter to transport than glass bottles, which might be a plus. However, we know about the difficulties in recycling or incinerating plastic, and the noxious fumes that are given off. Therefore, I am not convinced that the environment gains if plastic replaces glass, and suspect that what I described might be one of the outcomes.

What signal does the measure give to the packaging industry? The packaging industry recognises that the Government are loading their cart with a measure about weight that does not mention volume. The Minister talked about the packaging directive, which will go some way towards dealing with the plastic situation if the target is raised as he says it will be. I will be pleased if it is. However, that directive deals only with recycling. It does not minimise the production in the first place, and the Minister indicated that he wanted to go down the route of waste minimisation. The packaging directive is therefore no answer to the fundamental problem of the generation of waste in the first place.

When the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire said that the volume of waste was the major problem, the Minister picked him up and said that it was the creation of waste. However, the packaging directive does nothing to deal with that. Fiscal measures need to be implemented to prevent waste generation in the first place, but they are absent.

Jonathan Sayeed (Conservative, Mid Bedfordshire)

I did not want to intervene when the Minister said that I had said that the volume of waste was the fundamental problem, but in fact I did not say that. I cannot remember my exact words, but the record will show that I said that first we have to reduce the production of waste, although if we consider the waste produced, that is on the basis of volume. As I said, I did not want to intervene on the Minister, but as the hon. Member for Lewes repeated that canard, I thought that I had better correct it.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

Well, the record will show not only the hon. Gentleman's original words, but that intervention, so if he is right, what he actually said will appear in the record twice.

Volume is important. It is no use having a Bill designed to deal with waste if it does not deal with volume at the same time. We heard about compacting plastics. I do not know the ins and outs of the pros and cons of that, but if there is an incentive to reduce volume, that will leave more space for landfill. Waste disposal authorities ship lorry loads of waste over ever-increasing distances throughout the country, because the holes in the ground in their areas are filling up. There is an incentive to reduce volume so as to minimise the amount of waste transported on our roads—there is also an environmental gain from that—and to minimise the number of lorries on our roads. I have no problem with the Government's waste management strategy, which is quite good. The trouble is that it is not being implemented in this respect, and some signals that the Bill gives may work counter to the Minister's objective. That is the essential problem.

The Minister talks about the waste hierarchy. Let us dwell on that for a moment. It takes us marginally away from the amendment, Mr. Amess, but as others commented on it, I feel that I should respond briefly. I shall return to the issue in more detail on the incineration amendments. The Minister and his colleagues have created a system that puts landfill firmly at the bottom of the waste hierarchy. However, they have not prioritised measures that prioritise minimisation, reuse, recycling and incineration in that order, and I see no indication that that will turn out as the Government and all of us who sign up to that hierarchy want.

In fact, the Minister said in relation to incineration—I hope that I do not misquote him—that he was happy to leave the matter to local authorities and the market. That is my concern. If he leaves it to them, we will end up with a large number of incinerators up and down the country, as the hon. Member for Southampton, Test forensically demonstrated on Second Reading.

I hope that the Minister will recognise that, whereas he admits that this is in effect an EU landfill directive implementation Bill, it is not only a missed opportunity, but some of the measures taken as part of the Bill could be at least marginally counter-productive. I hope that, to achieve his objective, the Minister will seriously consider introducing into the Bill a measure relating to volume. I feel so strongly about that as a matter of principle that, unless he is prepared to do so, I shall seek to divide the Committee.

Michael Meacher (Labour, Oldham West and Royton)

I have already said—I repeat this for the hon. Gentleman—that I am prepared to consider whether, in one form or another, this issue has a relevant place in the waste strategy. I cannot accept the amendment as it stands, but I am prepared seriously and materially to consider the issue, because I am persuaded by the arguments adduced that we should give it more consideration. It is not required by the EU directive—no one disputes that. However, as an addition to the requirement spelled out in the landfill directive, it may be a relevant concept and perhaps it should be incorporated in some way or another. I am prepared to consider that seriously.

The hon. Gentleman said that he wanted it to be an integrated waste management Bill. I have repeatedly said that it is not. I repeat again that the Bill is intended to give us the legislative power to implement one part of the integrated waste management strategy that is set out in ''Waste Strategy 2000'', which the Government published in May of that year. Rather than simply turning it into a wider Bill, I would ask for examples of omissions—things that are excluded from the White Paper for which legislative powers would be required. I believe that we already have the legislative powers necessary to implement ''Waste Strategy 2000''.

The hon. Gentleman referred to the Government's response to the strategy unit report, which is not yet published for reasons beyond our control—the delay in the Budget. We intend to publish our response at or around the time of the Budget, so it will be published during proceedings on the Bill—if not during the Committee proceedings, certainly in time for Report. The hon. Gentleman will have the opportunity to read it and to discover how extensively and in what ways we have responded. I would welcome responses.

The hon. Gentleman said that we need a wider Bill because wider legislation is needed. However, we already have a landfill tax, and we have suggested a landfill tax escalator to raise it to £35 a tonne. We already have mandatory performance standards, sometimes referred to as statutory recycling targets, for local authorities. My problem—it is a big problem—is getting those carried out on the ground, but we have the necessary power. I am not aware of a lack of legislative capacity. My concern, given the proliferation of agents—the local authorities—who have to meet those requirements, is whether, in more or less every case, we can ensure that they meet those targets. That is the problem. The real issue is whether we have the means of supporting, assisting, cajoling, applying pressure and, in the end, issuing directions to ensure that they meet those targets. We have to ensure that those very tight landfill and recycling targets are met in each of the target years.

The hon. Gentleman spoke of prioritising the higher reaches of the waste hierarchy, which is something that concerns me. In answer to an earlier question from the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle, I set out some of the measures by which we intend to ensure that the great mass of waste is not simply moved up one layer but is pushed higher than that. I

believe that the combination of all those instruments is likely to be effective.

I return to the central point about weight and volume. I agree that if one relies entirely on weight, a switch from glass to plastic would not necessarily be environmentally desirable. In many ways I would argue that it is not. I can also see that, unless there is effective crushing, it can result in more transporting of plastics, which are rather bulky, and I am anxious to avoid that. The hon. Member for Lewes spoke in earlier debates about the proximity principle. I am keen that that should be made effective.

We are on only the second amendment; I do not know how many more we shall achieve in the course of considering the Bill. It has been an excellent debate and I take seriously what has been said. In view of the amount of interest, I shall consider all the issues. I shall not merely send a reply—which would, anyway, be invidious to the hon. Members for Mid-Bedfordshire and for Lewes—so that all Committee members will know that we are responding positively. That is much better than to make a snap decision at this stage, and I hope that it will be acceptable.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I do not want to extend the debate further than necessary. However, I want to pick up a point mentioned by the Minister—the trend issue. We have spoken a lot about the balance between waste that is less or more biodegradable, and that which might be less or more toxic. I intervened on the hon. Member for Lewes about whether there was a growing trend. The Minister will probably have information that the hon. Gentleman and I do not. I shall be interested in his observations. Do the amendments need to be set in the context of a growing problem, particularly in respect of plastics? That might help to inform the Committee and to guide its members as to how they might vote in any Division.

Michael Meacher (Labour, Oldham West and Royton)

I should admit immediately that I do not have the figures to hand. I shall ensure that the hon. Gentleman receives them. I know that, unfortunately, all forms of the waste stream are increasing, most of them faster than the rate of economic growth. That is exactly the opposite of what we need. As a minimum, it should be no more than the rate of economic growth. We have to reduce it so that we decouple the economic growth—an economic good—from the creation of waste—an environmental bad—so that we have, ideally 3 per cent. or more economic growth and, say, minus 1 or 2 per cent. waste arising. That is the aim, but we are a very long way away from achieving it because the manufacturers of packaging waste are still only beginning to reach the point at which they are required to internalise the costs of unnecessary or excessive packaging. They have to pay for the reprocessing to meet the packaging waste targets. The more they can reduce it, the less they have to pay, so they do have an economic incentive. However, I am the first to argue that there is little sign that that has yet bitten hard enough to make a major impact. There is no doubt that the public continue to be deeply offended by the amount of packaging that is produced,

especially that which is plastic. It litters the landscape in a way that all of us abhor, so there is real force to the argument. I hope that the Committee will allow time to consider the matter seriously.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

I have listened carefully to the Minister. He has promised to consider the issues and I believe him, because I know that he is sympathetic. I am in a dilemma as to whether to press the matter to a vote. I do not wish to reject the Minister's offer, but it is an important point of principle for many Committee members; it concerns a key part of the Bill. If we were not to press it, it would be a dereliction of duty. In a way, our pressing the amendment might strengthen the Minister's resolve. For those reasons, I shall press the amendment to a vote, and I hope that other Committee members will support me. In any event, I look forward to hearing the Minister's considered thoughts.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 7, Noes 9.

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

Order. I want to alert the Committee to the fact that as debates have been quite wide ranging, I may be in some difficulty in allowing a clause stand part debate.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

I beg to move amendment No. 30, in

clause 1, page 1, line 8, after 'waste', insert

'municipal solid waste, commercial and industrial waste and construction and demolition waste'.

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 47, in

clause 9, page 7, line 5, after 'waste', insert

'municipal solid waste, commercial and industrial waste and construction and demolition waste'.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

I should like to add my sentiments to those expressed by the hon. Member for Lewes on the previous amendment. The Minister is deeply sympathetic to all of us who feel so strongly about the environment that we want to widen the Bill. He generously said that he would still come back to the Committee on that.

The purpose of the Bill and the first two headings in the list of contents—''Landfill targets'' and ''Landfill allowances scheme''—seem to suggest that it is really about landfill rather than meeting European targets, as the Minister suggested earlier. He also suggested that minimising waste was another objective. I believe that deep in his heart the Minister is genuinely concerned not only about reducing the volume of waste to meet

European targets, but, most important, about making this planet, and this country in particular, a better place for us and for future generations. I therefore seek to widen the Bill by inserting

''municipal solid waste, commercial and industrial waste and construction and demolition waste'',

all of which currently go to landfill.

As the Minister said, the Bill is the first of its kind. I therefore felt that this was a constructive amendment because if it is the first of its kind, those types of landfill cannot be covered in other pieces of legislation. I am also aware of the tightness of the legislative timetable. I therefore feel it incumbent on myself, and on all hon. Members who care passionately about the environment, to try to widen the Bill as far as possible so that we do not miss the opportunity to cut the amount of waste that goes to landfill. I was dismayed that my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings said that we should not be here all day. When it is a subject of such importance I fear that we have to be here all day.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

As my hon. Friend chides me, perhaps I should put my remark in context. I meant on that amendment. I am happy to be here all day on the Bill as a whole.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

I am delighted to hear that. I know that my hon. Friend is as committed as it is possible to be to improving the environment. I am grateful for his support. Earlier we mentioned derogation. The Minister's strong determination to reject any derogation of targets was impressive. He also mentioned the size of the waste target, which is enormous. I was pleased to see his determination, but I was dismayed by the size of the target and the fact that the Bill is not wide enough to help him to achieve it.

Therefore, I hope that the Minister will not feel that this is a wrecking amendment, but will recognise that it has been tabled with the most constructive principles at heart. Hon. Members from all parts of the Room have made passionate speeches about improving the environment. I wished to be elected to try to improve the world in any small way that I could, and I believe that the amendment is a step in the right direction for all of us here today.

My constituents in Worcestershire and Herefordshire face the same dilemmas as we face, because waste management planning in those authorities is open to consultation. I mentioned that on Second Reading, so I shall not repeat the points, but I want to draw the Committee's attention to some of the difficulties faced by those in the countryside.

The authorities in Worcestershire and Herefordshire recognise that a European directive has introduced new regulations for landfill and has set targets to reduce biodegradable waste sent to landfill. They have to decide what to do about it. They realise that waste minimisation will be fundamental to the strategy and to reducing the number of new sites. They are also determined to increase recycling and composting to meet Government targets. Many

households and businesses already contribute towards achieving that. However, the authorities recognise that they have to be realistic and that there will continue to be residual waste and the need to manage through-disposal routes in future years.

The problem is that the authorities have to meet not simply biodegradable targets but targets for municipal solid waste, commercial and industrial waste, and construction and demolition waste. The target for reducing commercial and industrial waste to landfill is 85 per cent. of 1998 levels by 2005. They are looking at waste across the board—wisely, in my opinion. They have to put together a strategy that is separate from our responsibilities: we face only what we see in the Bill, whereas they have to deal with real problems, real landfill, real waste.

Therefore, I believe that the Bill will be greatly improved if we tackle the problems that the authorities in Worcestershire and Herefordshire face as robustly as we can. They have a comprehensive plan. They have given people several choices, because they recognise that, by taking people with them on the crusade to cut the amount going to landfill, they have a better chance of achieving the targets. That is why we must provide them with the necessary legislative structure to take their plan forward.

I hope that the Minister will accept the amendments, which cover different types of landfill waste. If the Bill is really about landfill, I hope that he will accept them, because they will help him to achieve the targets that deep down in his heart of hearts he wants to achieve.

Sue Doughty (Liberal Democrat, Guildford)

This debate shows again that we must broaden our waste management strategy. In the interests of brevity I shall not repeat many of the points made by the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin), but the Government report, ''Waste Not, Want Not'', showed that 68 per cent. of commercial waste goes to landfill, only 28 per cent. is recovered and only 24 per cent. is recycled or composted. Much more needs to be done with commercial waste. As we all agreed earlier, this is our only opportunity to tackle the problem in a waste Bill.

Our main problem is that 78 per cent. of municipal waste and 44 per cent. of industrial waste goes to landfill. The industry has done a great deal to reduce the amount through various other instruments, but there is much more to be done. A tremendous amount of waste is going into landfill. The Bill is about reducing the amount of waste that we send to landfill, but it does not go as far as reducing landfill as such. We will still have all the sites with which we are already suffering, which are a blight on our countryside. Those of us who serve in constituencies around London and in the south-east know that that is a tremendous problem, on which we have endless casework and with which we need to deal.

I welcome the inclusion of the clause. We shall wait to see whether our colleagues the Conservative Members press the amendment to a vote.

Michael Meacher (Labour, Oldham West and Royton)

Perhaps I should start by thanking the hon. Member for Leominster for the gracious way in which he spoke to the amendments. I am beginning

to think that we have here not only a group of experts but a group of highly like-minded persons with a cross-party determination to achieve good environmental results that is truly amazing. The environment manages to bring out the best in all of us, across the parties. I embrace that.

The amendments' objective is considerably to extend the scope of the landfill allowances scheme that the Bill establishes to include not only biodegradable municipal waste but

''municipal solid waste, commercial and industrial waste and construction and demolition waste''.

Amendment No. 30 would require the Secretary of State to specify the maximum amount of each of those waste streams that could be landfilled in each target year. Amendment No. 47 would place a duty on waste disposal authorities not to landfill more of any of those waste streams than the allowances for that year.

I am only too aware of the need to tackle the wider issue of sustainable waste management, so I do not demur at all from the amendments' objective. However, that is not the purpose of the Bill. All those wastes are covered in Waste Strategy 2000, which is the starting point for dealing with those streams. The primary objective of this Bill is to provide the UK with a workable—I would say, innovative—system that will allow it to meet the reduction targets in the landfill directive. I am repeating a position that hon. Members know well, and they will repeat to me, ''That's all very fine but we want more than that''. I can see that those positions will be taken throughout these Committee proceedings.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

The comments that the Minister has just made about what is going through our minds are absolutely right. Does he accept that the amendment would not in any way detract from the purpose of the Bill? It is an extra, rather than a negative, provision.

Michael Meacher (Labour, Oldham West and Royton)

The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the provisions in the amendment are substantive increments over and above the purpose of the Bill. My argument is not that they are wrong or unnecessary, but that they are already encapsulated in a strategy and dealt with by different mechanisms. The hon. Gentleman mentioned some of those, and I shall turn to them in a moment.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

Pursuant to that point, does the Minister accept that if an innovative system is being established for biodegradable municipal waste, it would not be a very large step to use that system to deal with these wider categories of waste?

Michael Meacher (Labour, Oldham West and Royton)

I understand that point, but the hon. Member for Leominster referred to other targets that are part of the waste strategy, which perform a very similar purpose. In Waste Strategy 2000, we announced a target of reducing the amount of commercial and industrial waste sent to landfill to 85 per cent. of 1998 levels by 2005. He mentioned that himself, and he is correct. That target is more modest than the much tougher local authority recycling targets because the level of recycling by commercial and industrial organisations, which the hon. Member

for Guildford (Sue Doughty) mentioned, is much higher. The Bill is designed to ensure that the disposal of household waste begins to meet the much higher targets met by industry and commerce.

Perhaps I should not give the best arguments to those who oppose me in Committee, but we should all recognise and deal plainly and transparently with the fact that this country creates 300 million to 400 million tonnes of waste each year. Most of it is construction and demolition waste. Industrial and commercial waste accounts for about 120 million tonnes. Household waste accounts for 28 million tonnes, which is a relatively small amount. If we are to have leverage on the totality, the capacity to influence other parts of the whole is important.

Relevant measures exist outside the Bill. I am not suggesting that they are unimportant or that we do not need them. I am simply saying that the Bill concentrates on an area in which we have, over a very long time, traditionally, chronically and utterly failed. We must raise the relevant standards and begin to get back into the European mainstream. We must deal with the overwhelmingly weak spot in the waste management system, and that is the purpose of the Bill.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

Two points arise from the Minister's comments. I am sorry to be repetitive, but the first is that we must see the issue in the context of the trend. If the trend mentioned by the Minister in respect of commercial, industrial and demolition waste is worsening, we have a major problem, given that those kinds of waste make up a greater volume of the total. That adds strength to the assertion by my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster that the Bill should take them more into account.

Secondly, there is an issue of joined-up thinking. We acknowledge that the Government's waste strategy deals with the matters before us, and that ''Waste Not, Want Not'' discusses them seriously and studiously. However, if the way in which the Bill deals with household waste is not consistent with the measures in place for dealing with the kinds of waste mentioned in the amendments, there does not really seem to be a strategy. Such an approach is not joined up, is it?

Michael Meacher (Labour, Oldham West and Royton)

I think that it is. I was going to deal with the point shortly, but this is perhaps the appropriate time to raise it. Regrettably, the amount of biodegradable municipal waste is still growing quite rapidly. It is increasing at a rate of 3 or 4 per cent. a year, which means that, on a compound, cumulative basis, it will virtually double in 20 years. That is extremely serious. Provisional, unpublished Environment Agency data, which are based on returns from licensed landfill sites, suggest that the amount of industrial and commercial waste that goes into landfill may have decreased by about 8 per cent. between 1998–99 and 2000–01. That is a provisional figure, although I am sure that it is approximately correct. That 8 per cent. reduction over two years compares with an increase of about 7 per cent. in the household waste stream over the same period. That is why the Government and, indeed, the EU are right to prioritise the issue.

Each country in the UK already has a comprehensive strategy covering all waste streams. As I have said repeatedly, we have Waste Strategy 2000 in England, but the devolved Administrations have similar documents. We are implementing policies to achieve more sustainable waste management across the spectrum. The introduction of the landfill tax has had an effect on the commercial and industrial waste streams and on the construction and demolition waste streams. The Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) Regulations 1997 will also have had an effect on commercial waste. The regulations are not lying dormant; they are dynamic measures that are being progressively and sharply tightened.

A possible increase in the landfill tax escalator was announced in the pre-Budget report in November 2002. I remind hon. Members that the Chancellor said that he proposed to increase it by £1 a year up to 2004 when it will reach £15 a tonne. It is then proposed to raise it in 2005 by £3 and by at least £3 until it reaches £35. In the light of the strategy unit report, the Government have been considering the time scale within which the final tax level would be achieved. The packaging directive is also under review. All the signs from Brussels are that the targets will be increased sharply over the next few years, and that will be agreed towards the end of this year.

The hon. Member for Leominster also referred in his amendment to municipal solid waste. However, I should tell him that a large proportion of that is covered in the Bill under biodegradable municipal waste, as much municipal solid waste is also household waste that is targeted through strategy household waste recycling and composting targets for local authorities. That has been backed up by an increase in funding to local authorities for recycling.

I mention it now and no doubt I shall return to it, but I do think that the Government have made very generous increases in funding the environmental protective and cultural services—[Interruption.]—I am not sure what the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle finds amusing; perhaps it is a Minister saying that the Government have been generous. I am not sure what I am supposed to say, but I think that they have been generous; as is known, I intend to say frankly what I believe. The funding has increased by slightly more than £1.75 billion in the current five-year period, and that is a substantial increase. We also had the £140 million waste recycling and minimisation challenge fund and increases in private finance initiatives from one spending review period to another from £220 million to £335 million. Those are substantial sums. We have put in place not only the measures, but the funding to make them effective.

I have, inevitably, given only a brief outline of the work being done to deliver more sustainable waste management in all waste streams. I entirely accept the need for waste management. However, I merely say that the measures to implement such management are already in place and that they are being tightened and funded. Much of it does not require further legislative change. The Bill, with its focus on biodegradable municipal waste and its innovative approach,

represents a small, although extremely important, part of that delivery for which new primary legislation is necessary. That is the difference.

I hope that the hon. Member for Leominster will accept that I am wholly behind him in his objectives. However, what he seeks to achieve is already being achieved through other measures and funding. I hope that he finds that satisfactory.

Alan Whitehead (Labour, Southampton, Test)

If I may make a helpful intervention, does my right hon. Friend accept that it does appear that the private sector and the public sector respond to financial and other signals in different ways on landfill? His evidence that there has been a change in the approach to landfill by the private sector seems to bear that out. Therefore the fact that the increase in the landfill levy may cause problems for local authorities, because they cannot respond in the same way as the private sector, suggests that it might be appropriate to maintain in the Bill a distinction between municipal and commercial waste.

Michael Meacher (Labour, Oldham West and Royton)

I appreciate that there is a difference between industrial and commercial organisations and local authorities. Local authorities have an obligation to collect waste in their areas. I continually make the point that I strongly believe that local authorities are not there simply to sweep up the waste that has been idly created or dropped by a lazy, slovenly and dirty electorate. I will not mince my words: such behaviour is disgraceful. We are a sloppy nation and we need far tougher measures to deal with such things in the first place so that local authorities do not have to deal with an increasing load of waste.

The Government treat local authorities differently. We have given substantial fiscal incentives and increased the EPCS. We have also provided the challenge fund. As hon. Members will know, the strategy unit recommended that we continue with that, and we are considering that recommendation. We have increased PFI moneys in order to provide local authorities with the plants and equipment that they need to gear themselves up to a different form of waste management: sustainable waste management.

Those things are not provided to industrial and commercial organisations. They are faced simply with a rising landfill tax escalator, without any fiscal incentives. So, in respect of the creation of waste, we already recognise that the situation of local authorities and industrial organisations differs.

Gregory Barker (Conservative, Bexhill and Battle)

The Minister attempted to rebut the Opposition's concerns about the approach to waste not being holistic and integrated by saying that the Bill had a single purpose, because the other powers that the Government require are already on the statute book and he does not see the need for further waste powers. What message does that send to the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock), who is piloting through the House a private Member's Bill on national kerbside collection? Does the Minister intend that message to have an impact on what the hon. Lady is trying to do? Her Bill is currently passing through to Committee.

Michael Meacher (Labour, Oldham West and Royton)

The hon. Gentleman is very solicitous on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for

Lewisham, Deptford and I am sure that she will be hugely appreciative. The purpose of my hon. Friend's Bill is to create a kerbside collection that is as near universal as is compatible with achieving the large increase in recycling that we are demanding from local authorities. Her Bill contains a proposal for a much higher target for local authority recycling, which goes beyond the period set out in the Government's waste strategy, and we are considering that.

My hon. Friend's Bill also contains a proposal to produce mandatory sustainable waste management strategies. That is an important issue and it arose when this Bill was considered in another place. The Government were defeated on an amendment that was agreed there. We are considering our response to that and will be bringing it forward during the course of the consideration of the Bill—that is probably as far as I can take the matter. I am sure that my hon. Friend will be extremely pleased to know that she has the support of the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I just wanted to say a word in the light of the Minister's remarks. He is right that what is emerging from this discussion is that the Government's position is essentially minimalist. He described the Bill as one element of a strategy where we need legislative cover. It is not legislative cover that we need but an overall approach. As I said earlier, I accept that this Bill may not be the Bill to deliver the integrated waste management strategy that I have advocated, the need for which my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster has acknowledged, but it should, at least, fit into that process. It should form part of a jigsaw that delivers such a strategy. If we consider the Bill in isolation, out of the context of those wider considerations, it may be a jigsaw piece that does not fit. It may be a mismatch with the picture that is emerging from the discourse in Committee.

My hon. Friend's amendments are good and right because they give us the opportunity to focus our attention, as well as that of local authorities and the public, on other important elements of the strategy, without impossibly widening the scope of the Bill or damaging our chances of meeting our obligation, to which the Minister has drawn the Committee's attention most forcefully. Yes, of course it is right to say that the amendments, and others that will, no doubt, be tabled in succeeding sittings of the Committee, will not produce a Bill that does everything, but it is vital that our appreciation of these matters is sufficiently broad to produce a complete jigsaw, of which the Bill is one fitting part.

Jonathan Sayeed (Conservative, Mid Bedfordshire)

I had not intended to contribute to this part of the debate, but the Minister said something that prompts me to do so. He described some of the electorate as dirty and slovenly. He was referring to those people who discard their rubbish on the pavements and empty their car ashtrays on the road. One of the problems, however, is that we sometimes make things difficult for people to do what we want them to do. There is not a single rubbish bin outside this Palace, and there has not been for 18 to 20 years, because of the threat of bombs being put in rubbish

bins and killing a lot of people. However, we know that some rubbish bins have been designed so as to enclose a bomb and ensure that the explosion goes upwards, rather than outwards, preventing the bomb from killing people.

It seems lamentable that this Government and previous Governments have not encouraged local authorities to make it easier for people to dispose of their rubbish. It might cost more to produce such bins—clearly, even with new materials, it does—but if we are interested in creating a cleaner environment, we should be promoting them. It is understandable that Westminster and other councils removed bins in the past, but it makes it more difficult for people to act in a clean and unslovenly manner, so I hope that new ones will be reinstated, which protect us as well as collecting rubbish.

Michael Meacher (Labour, Oldham West and Royton)

Well, I hope that Westminster council is listening, because I do not demur at all from the hon. Gentleman's remarks. He makes a fair point; if we want to change people's behaviour, we should facilitate that change, rather than making things difficult for people. Indeed, the Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford is designed to deal with precisely the problem that many local authorities do not currently provide facilities for kerbside collection, which would result in significantly higher levels of local authority recycling.

David Drew (Labour/Co-operative, Stroud)

My right hon. Friend will be aware that the Select Committee on the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is currently considering waste, as he gave evidence to the Committee yesterday. Some weeks ago, members of the Select Committee visited Denmark. One of the things that we learned by going to Denmark was that it deals with commercial waste in a different way to municipal waste. More than anything, on the commercial side, a cultural change has had to be engineered in the way that the construction industry and all manner of other waste producers operate. The danger of the amendment is that it would take some of the pressure off that we could bring to bear on the commercial side of the waste business, which could undermine the Government's overall strategy. Would the Minister care to say something about that?

Michael Meacher (Labour, Oldham West and Royton)

I recognise that that is an issue. We had some discussion about it yesterday, when I had the pleasure of being grilled for two hours by the Select Committee, which certainly drew attention to its recent visit to Denmark. I regret that I was not able to be part of that visit as Denmark is among those European countries that are ahead of us on waste management in many respects. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, we are looking for a change in culture. That is the essential point. The mechanisms and the structures will follow once we can trigger, or stimulate, that change in culture. I would be willing to learn from international experience how that is best done.

I am harassed, if that is the word—it is probably a rather aggressive word—by colleagues who are concerned about burdens on business. That is the

other side of the coin. Everything is a matter of balance. It is easy to slap taxes on people and it has an effect—there is no doubt about that. People go a long way to avoid paying tax, as Ken Livingstone has recently demonstrated. On the other hand, one does not want to do so flippantly, excessively or unreasonably. The difficulty is finding a balance that effects that change in behaviour while imposing minimal economic burdens on businesses that we want to be competitive and provide good value-for-money products.

If the Select Committee has some proposals in its report, which I gather is going to be published soon, about how we can learn from other countries to achieve that change in culture, particularly for business, I would be pleased to take that into account.

Finally, the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings said that the Bill, albeit relatively narrow as I have repeatedly explained, should fit into a wider picture of sustainable waste management. I agree and would insist that it does. Several hon. Members keep saying that the Bill should be wider. I would like to know exactly in what way it should be wider.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

By the introduction of the amendment.

Michael Meacher (Labour, Oldham West and Royton)

The hon. Gentleman should hear me out. Which precise measures are needed that are not already covered? I am insisting that the hon. Gentleman's proposals are already covered by existing measures. If hon. Members think that others are needed beyond that, particularly when they see the Government's response to the strategy unit report, we shall consider them, but the picture is a composite and the Bill supplies a particular element in the jigsaw. Of course, it has to be compatible with, and fit into, the wider picture. On that basis, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not feel the need to press the amendment to a vote.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

I thank the Minister for his kind and constructive comments. Listening to the debate, I was impressed at how helpful everyone has been on the matter I touched on at the beginning. We all have the express desire of improving the Bill and making its provisions as wide-reaching as possible.

Earlier this morning, the Minister gave a clear and determined defence of amendment No. 30, when he insisted that the Secretary of State must specify by regulation the maximum weight of biodegradable municipal waste. If the Secretary of State is happy to take on so much responsibility for one type of waste, I do not understand why she should not take responsibility for the other types of waste, as the amendment requires.

The Minister was kind enough to discuss the amount of other types of landfill waste and, while shooting at his feet, was helpful and constructive. I felt sorry for him when he said that he had been grilled by the Select Committee. The last couple of days have been painful for him. As I was present, I can tell him that he had only a light toasting. However, his presence was welcome and we look forward to seeing him in that Committee again.

We all want the targets that the Government set for the other types of landfill waste to be reached successfully and speedily and there is no reason why the Secretary of State should not specify those targets as the Bill suggests. The landfill tax, which the Minister mentioned, is welcome and constructive, but it escalates over a long period and if fly tipping becomes a problem, the Minister will need to review that escalator and must be free to do so. It is not enough to say that the landfill tax will do everything necessary to create the nirvana that the Committee is working towards.

I have decided to divide the Committee on the amendment for two other reasons. First, in future the Minister can be confident that he will have the support to legislate widely on environmentally sensitive issues knowing that there will be support from both sides of the House, as there has been in the debate. Secondly—I use language that we all understand—all hon. Members hear from constituents that they tried recycling once and were dismayed when they saw the dustmen throw all their carefully sorted rubbish into the same lorry. That is exactly what the measure does, however. It tries to make people separate biodegradable waste and watch as lorries trundle past their house to dump other types of waste into the same hole. I hope that the Minister will accept that analogy and recognise the amendment's positive contribution. Although I am dividing the Committee, I am keen that in future the Minister should be bold and legislate widely.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 6, Noes 9.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I beg to move amendment No. 31, in

clause 1, page 1, line 17, at end add

', taking account of the 4 year derogation,'.

I hope that the proposal can be dealt with more quickly than earlier amendments. We have had a useful, positive and wide-ranging debate—at your discretion, of course, Mr. Amess. However, this matter is more straightforward. Members of the Committee are aware of the targets set by the EU for biodegradable municipal waste and landfill. We are obliged to reduce our percentage of biodegradable waste—municipal waste sent to landfill—by up to 35 per cent by 2016. Hon. Members will also know that those member states that were sending more than 80 per cent. of biodegradable waste to landfill in 1995 qualify for a derogation. We are in a position to take advantage of that four-year derogation and the

amendment presses the Government to explain whether they intend to do so.

We suggest that the derogation is incorporated into the Bill, because it gives the Government the flexibility that I mentioned earlier. We do not think that the Government should be let off the hook, or that the nation should not be taking the matter seriously, but realistically and practically we expect the Government only to set objectives that they can reasonably meet.

The European Union, in its benevolence and wisdom, recognised that some member states would have difficulty in meeting the targets because of the percentages of waste that they send to landfill—there are other states that send a fairly high percentage to landfill although, as I said and the Minister acknowledged, we are among the unhappy leaders in that respect. The amendment seeks to clarify whether the Government are likely to take advantage of the derogation available to them. It is no more complicated than that and does not need to be debated at length. None the less, I shall be interested to hear what the Minister says, as there has been some uncertainty about the Government's position on the matter.

Michael Meacher (Labour, Oldham West and Royton)

I, too, think that this matter can be dealt with fairly quickly and I shall try to answer the question. As the hon. Gentleman rightly says, amendment No. 31 would ensure that the UK could make use of the full four-year derogation that the landfill directive provides for member states that sent more than 80 per cent to landfill in 1995. The hon. Gentleman has, in a way, answered his own question because the amendment is unnecessary. For the reasons that he gave, the UK qualifies for the derogation and it would be consistent with the directive to take advantage of it. We do not need additional legislative provision to enable us to do so.

The target years are defined in clause 23(1) as 2010, and as 2013 and 2020 if we take full account of the derogation, but clause 23(2) provides flexibility. The hon. Gentleman said that the purpose behind tabling the amendment was to establish whether we intended to take advantage of the derogation. We should not automatically rely on the use of the derogation.—[Interruption.] If I may have the hon. Gentleman's attention while I answer his question. As we are now well into 2003, we will certainly not be able to achieve a reduction to no more than 75 per cent. of 1995 levels of landfill by 2006. The use of the derogation in the first period will therefore be inevitable.

I would not wish to foreclose on the automatic use of the derogation for future periods, particularly when we reach 2016 to 2020. Much depends on the progress that we make in meeting the targets as a result of the Bill and the landfill tax escalator. If we manage to make better progress than expected, I can foresee that we might not exercise the right to the derogation in either of the latter periods, particularly the last one. That remains open: we do not have to take the decision now. The Government are the last body that would wish to set targets that they cannot meet. No rational Government would do so. However, the

whole beauty of targets—if I can use that phrase—is that they test and stretch one. They challenge one to do better than one otherwise would. Targets such as getting to no more than 50 per cent. by 2009, as opposed to a derogation to 2013 or to no more than 35 per cent., which is a reduction of two thirds by 2016 as compared with 2020, are pretty demanding considering how far we are moving in the other direction.

We can and will use the derogation if we need to, but I want to sensitise people to the fact that the Government are not simply flopping back on an automatic use of the derogation. We are pressing as hard as we can on all the levers to achieve the biggest and fastest turnaround that we can and that is the right position. I hope that with that explanation the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings knows our policy and is convinced that we already have the powers that the amendment would introduce.

Jonathan Sayeed (Conservative, Mid Bedfordshire)

May I tempt the Minister a little further? He has explained—his explanation was understandable—why he thinks that the use of that derogation will be required in the near future. The Department must have considered the future. At which of the guillotine points does he think that that derogation will have to be used? Where does he think that he has greater flexibility beyond that point?

Michael Meacher (Labour, Oldham West and Royton)

That is implicit in the answer that I have already given. There are three points. I have referred to 2006. We shall have to fall back on 2010, yet even that will be quite tough because it will mean changing the dynamics and effecting a significant downturn in a process in which movement goes ever upwards at an uncomfortably fast pace. That will require a huge change of behaviour, the magnitude and force of which local authorities and business still only partly understand, but there is no question but that we shall probably have to use that full derogation in the first period. We might have begun to achieve that reduction and significantly changed behaviour by 2009. I should not like to make a commitment now and would prefer to leave the question open.

I hope that when we come to the third and final stage there will have been a sufficient change in the dynamic of the process in the other direction and that waste will be decoupled from economic growth, so that we might achieve our aims by 2016. I do not want to exclude that possibility. It would be foolish to make any commitment now. All I can do is lean powerfully on the levers to effect the change and see if it is possible not to use the derogation, but I cannot make a prediction or give a promise.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

Implicit in the Minister's answer is the expectation that waste growth can be controlled. If waste growth gets out of hand, it will be far more difficult to avoid the derogation. What analysis has the Department done to explain waste growth? That is a key matter in both minimising waste and therefore complying with the time scale and avoiding the derogation. Is waste growth caused by rising living standards, which means that people buy more and

throw more away? Does increased packaging cause waste growth, or are people reusing materials less?

Michael Meacher (Labour, Oldham West and Royton)

I am not aware that we have done work on that, but it might have escaped my notice and there could also be academic work on the topic. All the factors to which the hon. Gentleman referred are probably operative. An unfortunate characteristic of increased living standards is more packaging and more elaboration in how products are produced to seduce people into buying more and to keep up the level of economic demand. The capacity to reuse and recover has changed in the past 30 or 40 years. We have increasingly become an obsolescence and throwaway society. We do not make do and mend, as our parents, grandparents or great-grandparents did. In some ways, that is a sign of prosperity, but environmentally it is damaging, so we must ensure that either those habits change or people pay the full internalised costs of the environmental damage. All the elements to which the hon. Gentleman referred are typical and there are probably others.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

The Minister is right to say that this is a cultural matter—a matter of changing people's habits. I suspect that it is also a matter of changing producers' habits and by ''producers'' I mean business in particular. We talked about packaging, including producer-orientated packaging. The danger with our discussions and with the Bill itself is that we focus on disposal rather than on the root cause of the problem, but perhaps that is inevitable given the constraints of the legislation.

I was interested in what the Minister said on the derogation. He has a realistic appreciation of the targets that we have been set and our likely ability to meet them. He is right to say that the early targets will be extremely difficult to meet, at the very least, because this is about cultural change—a fundamental difference. It is not about changing things incrementally or on the margin.

I am not sure that I entirely agree with the Minister about the beauty of targets—that was an interesting phrase. As someone who believes that his political mission is the pursuit of truth and beauty, I think that the more beautiful things are probably those that cannot be measured and targeted. I am rather suspicious of a culture that relies wholly on that which can be put on a graph or tabulated. An aesthetic

appreciation of life is a more glorious thing and certainly a more beautiful one.

Leaving that to one side, the amendment is about

''taking account of the . . . derogation''.

We are not saying that the derogation would necessarily be used, as I think the Minister is aware. We are simply saying, as he has said, that we need to be aware of the opportunity to use it should it become necessary if we feel that the targets have become unrealistic as time goes on.

The amendment was designed to test the Minister's perspective, which seems realistic and reasonable. He seems to be saying—he will correct me if I am wrong—that the Government are aware of the derogation and will use it if they need to, but they do not want to take the pressure off, to assume that we should not drive on, or to give the impression that they will not be firm and committed in trying to achieve those objectives. If that is the Minister's intention, it is pointless to press the amendment to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Chairman, being of the opinion that the principle of the clause and any matters arising thereon had been adequately discussed in the course of debate on the amendments proposed thereto, forthwith put the Question, pursuant to Standing Orders Nos. 68 and 89, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Question agreed to.

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

Order. We now come to clause 2 and amendment No. 32, with which it will be convenient to take amendments Nos. 33 to 35.

Jonathan Sayeed (Conservative, Mid Bedfordshire)

On a point of order, Mr. Amess. It is two minutes—[Hon. Members: ''One minute'']—to the time when the Minister and a number of other hon. Members wish to be on the Floor of the House for questions. Do you think that we might continue the debate on clause 2 later?

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

Order. We are about to hear from the Government Whip.

Further consideration adjourned.—[Mr. Ainger.]

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-four minutes past Eleven o'clock till this day at half-past Two o'clock.

Standing Committee B

Waste and Emissions Trading Bill [Lords]

Anne Begg (Labour, Aberdeen South)

Good afternoon. The Committee will have noticed not only that I have changed sides but that I have also changed political party. I am a late substitution as Chairman, and I will be chairing only this afternoon's sitting.Clause 2 Non-target years

Clause 2 - Non-target years

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I beg to move amendment No. 32, in

clause 2, page 2, line 8, leave out 'may' and insert 'must'.

Anne Begg (Labour, Aberdeen South)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:

No. 33, in

clause 2, page 2, line 15, leave out from 'only' to 'the' in line 16 and insert 'following consultation with'.

No. 34, in

clause 2, page 2, line 17, leave out from 'only' to third 'the' and insert 'following consultation with'.

No. 35, in

clause 2, page 2, line 20, at end add—

'(5) The power under subsection (1) is exercisable following consultation with the relevant local authorities.'.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

May I say how delighted I am, as all right hon. and hon. Members must be, to welcome you, Miss Begg, to the Chair of this exciting Committee? I look forward to further exciting debates this afternoon and thereafter.

The amendment needs to be seen in the context of this morning's first debate, for which you, Miss Begg, were not present. The Committee discussed whether to change the word ''must'' to ''may''. We now want to change the word ''may'' to ''must''. That is principally on the ground of consistency—[Laughter.] I see that the Committee has spotted the logic in my argument.

The Minister knows that we would not want to leave him with a Bill that was imperfect. At the moment, it suggests that the Minister ''may'' specify the maximum amount of waste by weight of biodegradable municipal waste allowed in non-target years. It has already been acknowledged that, because of the obligatory requirements of the EU directive, ''must'' would be a more appropriate word to use at the beginning of the Bill. It is a matter of legitimate debate as to whether we should use the word ''must'' in the non-target years.

The difficulty with using the word ''may'' is that it might wrongly provide flexibility; it could provide variability and make it more difficult for us to meet those targets. The Minister was honest enough to say that it would be difficult to meet those targets, given the proportion of waste currently sent to landfill. We

do not start from a happy position in respect of meeting those stiff targets. As the Minister said on Second Reading, it will be a huge challenge.

The strength of the amendment is that it would encourage the Minister to be rigorous in his requirements—if we are to meet those targets, we must press ahead with vigour. Later in our proceedings, we shall say that it needs to be done with sensitivity, and proper consultation, but that is the subject of later amendments. I do not argue for a prescriptive approach. It must be done with partnership and agreement, and with proper collaboration between the interested parties, but ''must'' seems an appropriate word when specifying the amounts of waste to be sent to landfill in non-target years.

Gregory Barker (Conservative, Bexhill and Battle)

I am greatly looking forward to the Minister speaking in depth about the formula in clause 3. I wonder whether replacing ''may'' with ''must'' would have the additional benefit of simplifying the following clauses, which would save us having to deal with the complications that could arise.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

My hon. Friend is teasing me to display my intimate understanding of those matters in an even fuller form than I had intended. He is right that changing the word will have a material effect on the whole of clause 3; it might be that if we change the word to ''must'', the formula will become redundant. Committee members will have read it and worked it through—I did a few thumbnail sketches on it last night and found that if one presents the formula graphically it is a straight-line graph. I am sure that my hon. Friend will understand that. It will certainly be of less significance if the Minister accepts the amendment. Other hon. Members might like to comment on the matter in the course of their perorations.

However, the essence of the amendment is that if we are to meet the target that the Minister has rightly identified—if we are to press ahead with the speed and vigour that we all desire, without giving the Minister overweening powers—''must'' is a more appropriate word. On that basis, I probe the Minister to discover how he sees his role in relation to meeting the targets in the non-target years and whether he feels that it will be helpful for the Bill to give him greater authority so to do. I shall be interested to hear his response. Perhaps, in the course of it, we can have a full mathematical analysis of the formula with some worked examples.

Jonathan Sayeed (Conservative, Mid Bedfordshire)

I welcome you to the Chair for this sitting, Miss Begg.

In order to determine whether one wishes to support these amendments, it is important to agree what they mean. It is particularly important to tease out whether the Minister believes that they mean what we think they mean. I shall say what I think they mean, so that the Minister can tell me whether he agrees.

I turn first to amendment No. 32. As the Bill stands, during target years, there is total rigidity owing to external commitments. However, during non-target

years there is flexibility and it is within the remit of the Secretary of State to specify the maximum amount of biodegradable municipal waste that can be sent to landfills. If the Secretary of State decides not to use his powers, the default rules specified in clause 3(2) allow the formula to be applied. If he does exert his powers, then he may override the formula.

As I understand the amendment, it would force the Secretary of State by statute to specify the maximum amount of BMW, which would—later in the Bill—render the formula redundant, as there would be no need to use the default rules. Effectively, there would be no need for clause 3.

The argument in favour is that the amendment simplifies the Bill. It removes the complexity of a—straight-line or otherwise—scientific formula, which might be too abstract and inflexible. However, there is also an argument against: it gives the Secretary of State added responsibility and enhanced powers and permits him a degree of flexibility to specify maximum amounts. Effectively, it forces him to use his powers to override the formula and to stipulate, according to the needs of the time, the whole time frame of the Bill's targets.

Amendments Nos. 33 and 34 specify that the Secretary of State's powers are exercisable following consultation with Scotland and Wales. As the Bill stands, the agreement of Scotland and Wales is required, which gives the devolved authorities the power of veto over the Secretary of State's requirements.

I would sum up the arguments in favour as follows. If the Secretary of State is required to consult rather than to seek agreement, that would centralise more power under the control of the Secretary of State and, by definition, the power of England, and would permit the Secretary of State to override the devolved authorities and remove their power of veto. That could be justified by the greater need of England to meet the targets, which are specified externally by the EU and which would require some rigidity. However, there are also arguments against. It would involve the further centralisation of power and a move away from local decision making, and Conservative Members are extremely wary of doing that.

Moving to amendment No. 35, my understanding is that, as the Bill stands, there is no obligation on the Secretary of State to consult local authorities. The amendment would force consultation, but would not give local authorities a power of veto over proposals. The arguments in favour are arguments that are often adduced in similar cases. It would involve local authorities in the decision-making process.

However, the argument against is that some local authorities might consider it to be a somewhat tokenistic gesture—seeking discussion but still retaining the Secretary of State's right to overrule. However, that could be justified by the need to meet external targets, which place responsibility on central Government.

I should be grateful if the Minister would say whether he agrees with my interpretation not only of what the clauses were supposed to mean before

amendment, but what they would mean after amendment.

Michael Meacher (Labour, Oldham West and Royton)

I, too, am glad to see you in the Chair, Miss Begg, for what will be a warm, and even entertaining, afternoon if it is a repeat of this morning's performance.

I am a little puzzled. Having ended the remarkable morning sitting by being taken to task for being so pedestrian and prosaic as to be committed to the beauty of targets, on the grounds put forward by the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) that I should have a more aesthetic view of life and the great unquantifiable goals of love, friendship and altruism, I am now confronted, in the early afternoon, with being asked to explain an algebraic formula. I am not sure whether to be lyrical or mathematical, but I shall try to respond to each count.

Amendment No. 32 would change the discretionary power that the Bill gives the Secretary of State to set targets in non-target years to an obligation. Opposition Members are right to say that the Bill could be simplified in the way that they suggest. However, the amendments would remove the need, in clause 2, for the Secretary of State to reach agreement with the other United Kingdom Administrations on the maximum amounts of biodegradable and municipal waste to be sent to landfill in non-target years and require only that she consult with those Administrations before making the decision. The proposal is that she should consult but they should not be able to exercise a veto.

The problem is that that proposal runs counter to the devolution agenda. I think—I am sure that I am right—that it would be unacceptable to the Administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland simply to be consulted and told that they could not override a provision. They would not regard that as in keeping with the nature of a devolved relationship, in which there is negotiation between equals. They are not equals, but they are more equal than the amendment implies.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I want to clear up that point at the outset. The critical point here is that responsibility for meeting the targets, and any fine imposed, would lie with the UK Government. There is a real worry that, if we are to take the hit and own up to the responsibility for meeting targets, we must retain control over the means by which we meet them. That is the purpose of the amendment.

Michael Meacher (Labour, Oldham West and Royton)

It is perfectly true that in the end it is the Government who are responsible to Brussels for meeting the targets. If we failed to do so and were infracted—if that is the word—we would be subject to a payment, although we would ensure that that financial and legal liability was passed on to the other Administrations. To use a more common phrase, we would not simply pick up the tab, but would expect them to pay in accordance with their responsibility, and that is well understood.

Jonathan Sayeed (Conservative, Mid Bedfordshire)

The Minister says that we would not pick up the tab. However, England keeps picking up the tab for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland through one formula or another. The question is whether they get extra money or not for not doing something that we ask them to—although I might have used too many double negatives and should perhaps express that slightly differently. English taxpayers and ratepayers subsidise Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish taxpayers and ratepayers. I trust that if, for example, Scotland did not undertake a duty that had been imposed and agreed on, more money would not go from English taxpayers to Scotland in order to subsidise that.

Michael Meacher (Labour, Oldham West and Royton)

Although that is certainly the case, there is no suggestion of giving financial aid through a different formula from that which is available in England in order to ensure that those targets be met. I repeat that the Government have made available substantial extra sums to local authorities across the country. That suffices in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Those local authorities are expected to meet the targets with the financial dispensations that have been made.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

Will the Minister give way?

Michael Meacher (Labour, Oldham West and Royton)

I am finding it difficult to keep to the thread of the argument, but of course I will give way.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

Let me help return the Minister to the thread of the argument. When we were talking about target years I asked him whether he felt that the Government's devolutionary spirit would be undermined by the Secretary of State's insisting on compliance during target years, and now it appears that the Secretary of State is happy to be more flexible during non-target years. Does that not undermine the authority of those regional Governments? I do not believe that that is something that the Minister intends to do.

Michael Meacher (Labour, Oldham West and Royton)

No, it certainly is not something that I intend to do, nor is it something that the Government will do. Clause 3 contains the default position, which would prevent that from happening.

The approach of the amendment runs counter to the established framework of devolution and would not be acceptable to the Administrations. Protection of the environment is generally a devolved matter, and it is right that the setting of targets in non-target years should be subject to agreement between the parties. In other words, we are trying to provide as much flexibility as we can, while safeguarding the meeting of the targets in the target years. That is the key point. The negotiations are open and transparent—at least I think that that is right, and there is no question of trying to conceal them. If no agreement is reached in non-target years, as is possible, clause 3 provides the default position, which would provide a gradual reduction between target years.

Amendment No. 35 would require the Secretary of State to consult relevant local authorities before setting targets through regulations in non-target years under the clause. It is difficult to see quite what the intention is. The Secretary of State and the

devolved Administrations will agree the setting of targets in non-target years between them. Local authorities have no locus in that operation. Rather, they have locus in allocating allowances to waste disposal authorities under clause 4, for which it is intended that they be consulted on the basis used for the allocation, as part of the wider consultation on regulations to set up the landfill allowances scheme. Once allowances are made, clause 4 requires the allocating authority to publish a statement setting out the allowances allocated to the authority and the basis of the allocation.

In relation to the position in Scotland and Wales, to proceed by agreement where possible and not by diktat from London is clearly the only approach in a devolution age. The consultation that is referred to in amendment No. 35 is unnecessary for the reasons that I have given, and I hope that, on those grounds, the amendment will not be pressed.

There was some interesting discussion about the exegesis of the mathematical formula. I would not attempt to do any such thing, but I would refer any hon. Member who is interested in exploring it—it is very detailed, although a careful reading makes it clear—to fact sheet No. 5. It is available and I am happy to provide it to any member of the Committee. It sets out in detail, with plenty of graphs, exactly how it operates. The simple principle behind it is that where agreement is not reached, there must be a formula that will ensure that it is reached. That is provided here, and examples are given.

David Drew (Labour/Co-operative, Stroud)

Who interprets the formula? Is it done within the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs or elsewhere?

Michael Meacher (Labour, Oldham West and Royton)

I hope that the formula is self-disclosing if one takes account of the definition of the variables L, N, B and G. They depend on whether the year in question falls directly after a target year or whether there is one or more intervening year between the last target year and the one in question. If one reads the rules and the footnotes that underpin the formula, that should be clear. In the last analysis, if there were a dispute about how it works, it would be for the Department or the Secretary of Secretary of State to determine it.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

Since we are talking about the formula—

Anne Begg (Labour, Aberdeen South)

Order. Before the hon. Gentleman starts, the formula comes up in the next clause. Unless it is relevant to clause 2, hon. Members might like to wait until we debate that clause. Mr. Baker, do you still want to intervene?

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

No; I am suitably chastened.

Michael Meacher (Labour, Oldham West and Royton)

I am, if not suitably chastened, suitably finished. I have answered the points that have been made. I hope that I have explained that our formula is designed to achieve maximum flexibility while ensuring that the targets are met. That is better than simply consulting but saying that there is no veto—in other words, claiming to consult, having already decided. That is not acceptable; the formula is better. I hope that I have explained it and that the

amendment was a probing one, which the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings will withdraw.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

There will be more than enough time to discuss the consultation issues associated with the amendments in the course of our proceedings. At this point, I would signal that it is vital that the whole process be founded in the spirit of partnership between local and national Government. Local government will end up having to do the job, and the variety in local situations, both in terms of the volume and nature of waste and of the structure of local government necessitates proper consultation. Two-tier authorities and unitary authorities are involved, as well as urban and rural authorities, all with their own waste culture. However, I accept that that consultation would be best discussed later. As the Minister suggests, the targets are fixed and the consultation might—as my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed) said—be perceived as purely paying lip service if the local authorities were to be consulted only to be told that the matter had been agreed anyway, as the Minister put it.

In terms of the Scottish experience, it is important to acknowledge that the Minister has made it clear that we shall not find ourselves in that situation. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire rightly feared that the Minister would be in a position in which the UK Government would accept responsibility and, indeed, financial liability, but that would not be passed on to the devolved assemblies. However, the Minister made it clear that that was not the case and that the assemblies would be expected to take, in an appropriate fashion, their share of the responsibility and any financial penalties that might ensue.

On the basis that the Minister has given us assurances on both those points, and given that we shall debate the formula in fine detail in the discussion that we are about to enjoy, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Michael Meacher (Labour, Oldham West and Royton)

I am happy to respond to any questions, but we have explored the fundamental principle and I have nothing further to add. Given that the Committee is anxious to make progress and save time for the more substantive issues, I shall conclude my remarks.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3 - Non-target years: default rules

Michael Meacher (Labour, Oldham West and Royton)

There may well be a wish to discuss further questions about the formula. I hope that that

can be done by reference to fact sheet No. 5. The clause provides default rules for setting the maximum amount of biodegradable municipal waste by weight that may be sent to landfill by the constituent countries of the UK in scheme years that are not target years. The default rules would apply if the Secretary of State did not set a maximum for that year under clause 2 because, for example, she could not secure agreement on the target with the appropriate authority. The formula secures the reductions needed to meet the target in the next directive target year in equal annual steps from the last target year, or the last scheme year when agreement was reached—whichever is the later. That ensures that the reductions required by target years are achievable through progressive reductions in targets for non-target years in the absence of agreement between the parties. Our preference is for such agreement, but if that cannot be achieved, the default formula kicks in.

Gregory Barker (Conservative, Bexhill and Battle)

I am sorry to interrupt the Minister and I may well be ill prepared, but no one seems to have access to fact sheet No. 5; I do not believe that it is supplied on the Table. It would greatly help the debate if we had sight of that fact sheet.

Michael Meacher (Labour, Oldham West and Royton)

I am sure that that is right, because to attempt to explain the measure to this avid listening group without access to the detailed figures is a virtually impossible task.

Anne Begg (Labour, Aberdeen South)

May I suggest that we suspend the Committee, because I think that someone has gone to get fact sheet No. 5? I hope that that will take only a few minutes.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

On a point of order, Miss Begg. Could something as important as fact sheet No. 5 be included in the explanatory notes to the Bill, or is there a formula for explanatory notes that would preclude something as germane as that fact sheet from being included?

Anne Begg (Labour, Aberdeen South)

The Minister in charge and his Department produce the explanatory notes.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

Shall I draw that to the Minister's attention?

Michael Meacher (Labour, Oldham West and Royton)

Do you want me to respond?

Anne Begg (Labour, Aberdeen South)

I have suspended the Committee, so you can do anything that you like.

Sitting suspended.

On resuming—

Anne Begg (Labour, Aberdeen South)

Order. The doorkeeper is distributing fact sheet No. 5, so every Committee member will have a copy. I believe that the technology in the House slowed things down.

Michael Meacher (Labour, Oldham West and Royton)

I have never known such demand for a DEFRA fact sheet; I hope that that is a harbinger of things to come. It is complex and it might take hon. Members a while to get the hang of it. I apologise for the fact that it was not made available with the explanatory notes. We shall ensure that the other six of

the seven fact sheets are made available at the start of the next sitting.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

Will the Minister give way?

Michael Meacher (Labour, Oldham West and Royton)

Obviously, I am not going to get very far.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

I have had a moment or two to look at the formula afresh, without reading fact sheet No. 5. The explanation of the letters is given in subsection (5), G and B being relevant years. I fail to understand why it is G + 1 and B + 1, rather than simply G and B. What is the significance of the one that is added? Can the Minister comment on the implications of removing the one?

Michael Meacher (Labour, Oldham West and Royton)

I am sure that by the time I finish my other remarks an answer will be forthcoming—at least, I hope so. Having made the fact sheet available, I do not think that we should become too involved in the algebra. It is the principle behind it that is the issue. The formula secures the reductions needed to meet the target in the next directive target year in equal annual steps from the last target year—which is why there are two graphs with a straight line at different levels of incline—or the last scheme year when agreement was reached, whichever is the later. That ensures that, in the absence of an agreement between the parties, which we would much prefer, the reductions required by target years are achievable through progressive reductions in targets for non-target years.

Subsection (6) deems the year ending 16 July 2004—that is important because it is the first opportunity when it kicks in—a target year for the purposes of the default rule. That is necessary because the default might be—I would say, will be—needed before the first actual target year, which is 2010. The amount deemed to have been set under clause 1 for the nominal target year of 2004 will be set by regulations, but will be based on the amount sent to landfill in the year ending 31 March 2001. Again, that is necessary to ensure that the formula can be worked through before the first landfill directive target year. That base amount may only be set after consultation with the constituent countries of the UK. That is basically how the formula works. Unless I can offer any further advice—

Alan Whitehead (Labour, Southampton, Test)

Perhaps I can help my right hon. Friend. As far as I can see, where there were no years between the target years, and so G and B are nought, part of the formula would be multiplied or divided by nought, which would make nonsense of the formula. The + 1 is therefore needed.

Michael Meacher (Labour, Oldham West and Royton)

I have always known that it was a stroke of genius to have my hon. Friend on the Committee. That is a brilliant explanation. It sounds plausible to me, and I am prepared to stand by it.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I am grateful to the Minister for making the information available to the Committee. I said to him privately, and it is worth placing this on the record, that I had the wit to work out the graph before I had seen fact sheet No. 5, but I did not have the wit to find fact sheet No. 5. I do not know what that says about me. I understand that it was available in the

Library, and I am grateful for the Minister's generosity in ensuring that we all have it and for making the commitment that we will have all the other necessary fact sheets.

If we pursue the logic of the debate a few moments ago, by which, in effect, we gave priority to ''may'' rather than ''must'' at the beginning of the chapter, we find that it is absolutely essential to have a default formula. The formula presented to us does exactly as the Minister says and provides a guarantee that we will have a reasonable chance of meeting the targets on the basis of a progression. To that extent, it is appropriate. I have little more to add.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

Although I am deeply impressed that my hon. Friend managed to discern that this was a straight-line graph, I am a little worried that as the Committee needed fact sheet No. 5, anyone taking part in the negotiations will also need it. Perhaps it should be part of the explanatory notes, or there should be a more permanent accompaniment than something that is squirreled away in the Library.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

That is a fair point. I do not wish to be facetious, but it is important that the default position is comprehensible, especially to those who have a direct interest in these matters. Frankly, given the confusion that it has caused among the luminaries of the Committee, I hate to think what it might do more widely. My hon. Friend is right; comprehensibility is an important factor, given that the Bill requires a spirit of partnership with several agencies, as I said earlier. The Minister may want to reflect on the need to explain it to people in more detail so that it is more widely accessible. On that note, I conclude my remarks, and I look forward to the Minister perhaps reflecting and commenting on them in the course of his own deliberations.

Michael Meacher (Labour, Oldham West and Royton)

I shall be extremely quick. I do not believe that every negotiator at local authority level needs to grasp the full algebraic beauty of fact sheet No. 5. The issue is simple: we try to reach agreement with the bodies that are responsible for carrying out the aims of the Bill, but in case we cannot do so, there must be an agreed formula by which we can achieve those target productions within the time scale. This formula delivers them. People are free to go through the mathematical detail if they want to, but it is unnecessary to force that on them, and it would not be welcome. In the end, the proposition is simple, even if it looks complicated.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

I shall abandon the mathematical formula, but ask whether the concept of the default rules has been agreed with the Scottish Parliament and the National Assembly for Wales.

Michael Meacher (Labour, Oldham West and Royton)

It has.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4 - Allocation of landfill allowances

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

I beg to move amendment No. 36, in

clause 4, page 3, line 28, after 'authority', insert

'taking into account that there can be no separation of responsibilities between district, or county council,'.

The amendment identifies the different types of authority. I believe that there are at least four types: the allocating authorities and the district, county and unitary authorities. Currently, we are dealing with the allocating authority, which would be an Assembly, such as the National Assembly for Wales, the Scottish Parliament or the Northern Ireland Assembly, when there is one.

The important point is that all the authorities should work together to achieve the landfill targets. I am keen to close the loophole that may allow authorities to play off against one another. Let us say, for example, that a district authority under a county council is responsible for waste collection, while the county council is responsible for waste disposal. I am keen to ensure that if there is any failure, the failing part of that two-tier team is held responsible, but equally that the responsibility is managed internally, rather than by the Government. That is what the amendment is designed to achieve.

That is an important consideration, because there are many different ways of dealing with waste collection. We can consider examples from abroad. Apparently, almost all EU members are introducing a type of landfill tax except for Greece, Portugal and Germany, so even within the EU there are exceptions to the rule. I am keen that we do not allow exceptions to creep in with our Bill. I hope that the amendment is constructive and helpful and that the Minister agrees with me.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

I welcome the opportunity to discuss the relationship between district and county councils or, more accurately, waste collection and waste disposal authorities, because it is terribly important and needs to be discussed in some detail. I must refer to clause 31, because it is inextricably linked with the amendment. In fact, that clause is in a rather odd place in the Bill, but for the purposes of discussion it does not matter where it falls.

My concern is that previous legislation constructed arrangements whereby the responsibility for waste in two-tier local authority areas is divided between county and district councils. Of course, the same does not apply to unitary authorities. Under those arrangements, a patchwork solution has been constructed whereby some county councils perform very well, pulling district councils along behind them, and other, star district councils are let down by the county councils. Each waste collection authority or district council will almost certainly construct a different solution for waste on its own patch.

Like many hon. Members, I have more than one district council in my constituency. Lewes and Wealden both perform very well, but each has a completely different approach to waste collection. One has a traditional dustbin system, and one has a wheelie bin system. One authority has a doorstep collection in different parts; another has a ''bring it along'' system. There is a mixture with regard to how authorities are

delivering, but they all want to achieve the recycling targets.

I am concerned that if we are not careful, the Bill will result in an attempt by county councils to force a uniform system on authorities, particularly district councils, that may not be appropriate to their needs. I do not underestimate the difficulties of finding a solution, and I do not have one, but there are two options. One could abolish waste collection authorities and make one authority responsible for collection and disposal. Many people consider that an appropriate solution. It seemed to work quite well in the unitary authorities, and it is easier than when the responsibility is split.

Alternatively one could have a system in which one authority within the disposal and collection regime is unable either to frustrate the other authority or to behave in such a way that it misses targets and leaves a different authority to pick up the bill. In that system, one could not have a situation that allowed a disposal authority to decide that it wanted to have a uniform approach across its county, telling individual collection authorities that they must change their method of dealing with waste, irrespective of the cost and the consequences for their particular scheme, which they might have carefully nourished and developed specifically for their needs.

Clause 31, which we will deal with in detail later, seems to give disposal authorities excessive powers to control the performance of collection authorities, which will then be at their mercy, irrespective of how well they are performing now. They will simply be told to change because they do not conform with what the waste disposal authority wants. In a sense I was expecting to have some of this discussion on that clause, but the amendment refers to the separation of responsibilities.

How does the Minister see the future relationship between disposal authorities and collection authorities? How would a solution be found if those authorities were in dispute? How will he ensure that one type of authority cannot thwart another type of authority or behave unfairly towards it? What does he envisage the role of collection authorities being in the allocation of landfill allowances? This is a big issue, and we need to get it right or it could derail the Bill.

David Drew (Labour/Co-operative, Stroud)

I am delighted to serve under your chairmanship, Miss Begg. Following on from the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker), I should like to ask the Minister about the planning process, principally through the waste strategy plans that each authority has to put in place. It is a matter for which he does not have responsibility but it is crucial to the way in which the Bill will operate.

I can speak only through my own experience in Gloucestershire, where I gave evidence for the waste plan. The idea was that the six district authorities would work with the county authority to produce an all-singing, all-dancing, cohesive plan, which would have major implications for recycling and for waste disposal in general.

I would have spoken about this on Second Reading if there had been more time, although I alluded to it. Is

it possible to move to a system in which, as the hon. Member for Lewes said, one authority cannot dump, metaphorically and literally, on another? If not, the whole strategy will begin to unravel. I am particularly interested in how we can give every encouragement to two-tier authorities to work together so that targets are not just set, but delivered. We all know that waste does not necessarily remain in the area where it was collected; it moves on. Perhaps the Minister can tell us how we can get that greater degree of cohesion and how, without having to use the stick, we can ensure that instead of just speaking warmly about their waste plans, authorities get their act together and adhere to them.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I want to amplify the arguments of the hon. Members for Lewes and for Stroud (Mr. Drew) and to reaffirm those made by my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin) when he introduced the amendments.

The key point is recognition of the fact that there is great variability in waste culture both between and within local authorities. A county council in a two-tier situation may be good at its job, but some or all of its district councils may not be so good at their jobs. That is a fact of life: it is not a party issue, but is about all parties and none. However, in those circumstances, and where the relationships are not right and proper, it would be difficult to meet targets for which a high level of co-operation is required.

The point made by the hon. Member for Stroud should be emphasised. He said that it is not just that such authorities will not be efficient, but that they may not yet have taken their responsibilities seriously. They may not yet have woken up to the necessity of putting together a coherent plan. I need to be convinced that sufficient discussion is taking place between the relevant authorities in all parts of the country. That will certainly happen in some places where strong relationships already exist. Those areas will have got ahead of the game and will already be having the right sort of discussions in anticipation of the targets and the Bill. However, in many parts of the country that will not be the case.

That issue must be viewed against the background of the variable needs and qualities of different parts of the country. Some areas have a proliferation of a particular type of waste—commercial and industrial waste, for example—whereas other areas have dense populations. My area is sparsely populated and that creates a different kind of problem in terms of waste collection, the distribution of resources and the provision of a public service to a sparse community. There is enormous variation in the means and needs of different areas and that will have an impact on the ability of different areas to meet the targets. To enable them to do so, we must include in the Bill an impetus for the relevant authorities to work together. My hon. Friend the Member for Leominster sought to do that in proposing the amendments.

I will be interested to hear from the Minister his assessment of how far we have gone in encouraging local authorities to operate in that way and what his

model would be for encouraging them to do so in areas where they are not.

Sue Doughty (Liberal Democrat, Guildford)

I welcome you to the Chair, Miss Begg. I am concerned about the idea of consultation. In a perfect world, a district authority or a borough council should be consulting with its county council and, of course, we would all want them to agree. One of the interesting things that the Audit Commission found was that the

''split between collection and disposal authorities appears to be unique in Europe.''

I believe that to be a problem and that is why I support what my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes said. The Audit Commission found that the split led to inefficiencies, and stated

''two-tier authorities, where collection and disposal are split, will find it harder to meet their targets.''

Throughout the country, there are many examples of the collection authorities being, for one reason or another, unhappy with the waste strategy of the disposal authority. The collection authorities may have decided that they want to avoid incineration, particularly if it was going to come their way, and they might adopt a zero-waste strategy or some other waste management strategy that they felt was more sustainable than the one that the county council had proposed. Throughout the country there are authorities where the county and the district are at odds with one another about the most sustainable way of dealing with waste while also trying to achieve targets, and that is a problem.

I do not like that split, but I realise that the Bill is not about that. I would be interested to hear the Minister's comments on the matter, although I appreciate that there is nothing in the Bill to change it. I fear that the proposal in the amendment is not deliverable, because the disposal authority and the collection authority will not always agree, especially where the collection authority has from time to time made its own arrangements because it has probably been able to do it better.

Jonathan Sayeed (Conservative, Mid Bedfordshire)

It is understandable and proper that the allocating authority should look to the waste disposal authority to organise how waste is better processed, but that the waste disposal authority should require the waste collection authority, if it is not the same authority, to produce that waste in a form that allows it to carry out the task that it has been set by the waste allocating authority. Therefore, the relationship between the disposing authority and the collecting authority is fundamental to the working of the Bill and to our ability to achieve the targets that we are statutorily obligated to achieve. As I said on Second Reading, not enough thought has been given to that relationship, which falls into two parts. The first is the power to direct, if necessary, and the second is the power to fund. Then I suppose there is a third part: who is fined when it does not happen?

Gregory Barker (Conservative, Bexhill and Battle)

I totally agree with my hon. Friend. His points are consistent with the evidence given to the Environmental Audit Committee by the Local Authority Recycling Advisory Committee, which said:

''There is not a sound business plan for implementing sustainable waste management in this country, certainly not at a national level and certainly not at a local level because we do not get consistent messages. We are not hearing consistent messages from across various governments departments.''

Jonathan Sayeed (Conservative, Mid Bedfordshire)

That is extremely interesting. I admit that I had not read that piece of evidence, but it goes to the heart of the problem.

There is no size that will fit all. That is clear. What will happen in an urban environment will be different from what happens in a rural environment; what happens in an area of sparse population will differ from what happens in a semi-rural area, where the population density is greater. There is also the history of the way in which people have learned and practised any form of separating their domestic waste.

We can all accept that one size will not fit all. However, someone has to be in charge, and the person in charge will be the disposal authority, which will require different authorities to produce waste in a certain fashion. Provided that everyone is producing the waste in the fashion that is required, even if they are not doing things in the same way, they should be permitted flexibility in the way in which they perform that function.

What is not set out and what local authorities I speak to are unclear about is what happens if they cannot get the collection authority's agreement to produce the waste in the fashion that they require—the two authorities may be politically at odds with one another—in which case the disposal authority can have a fine levied on it. As I understand it, there is no provision to pass that fine on to an errant authority.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

My hon. Friend makes a very strong case, which builds on the question of variety. He understands that a county council may have in its bounds seven or eight districts. They may have different politics and will certainly have different waste profiles. Some may be urban, some may be suburban and some may be rural. The relationship between the two sets of authorities is therefore complex politically and in terms of the waste profiles and cultures of the collection authorities within the disposal authority, which may be a large county council.

Jonathan Sayeed (Conservative, Mid Bedfordshire)

My hon. Friend absolutely makes his point. My constituency includes Bedford borough council, the edge of Luton, which is a unitary authority, authorities in south-west Bedfordshire and a bit of north-east Bedfordshire, and Mid-Bedfordshire district council. Each of them might do things differently, although, in fact, three do things similarly, while two do things very differently. However, they all have one disposal authority, even though they are of different political persuasions.

We are all trying to achieve the same thing: the source separation, recycling and reuse of waste. Neither the Bill nor any regulations of which I am aware will ensure a harmonious relationship between the collection and disposal authority, nor will they ensure that collection is carried out in a way that assists the disposal authority with its job. Given that

that is the case, how will the fining of the disposal authority filter down to the collection authority if it is at fault?

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

Will the hon. Gentleman also reflect on the fact that we could be facing further local government reorganisation? There is a move towards the creation of regions and it is not impossible that councils may be abolished in the near future. I do not think that I am taking things too far and such moves have certainly been suggested. Will he reflect on the problems that would arise between potentially much larger disposal authorities and an even greater number of collection authorities?

Jonathan Sayeed (Conservative, Mid Bedfordshire)

That may be a bit further over the horizon than I wish to look. I will oppose the regions and the diminution of county councils' powers throughout my political life. That is one guarantee that I will give, because I am dead against regionalism—it is a load of rubbish.

Anyway, to get back to a different form of rubbish—waste—the Minister must answer a fundamental question. How does he envisage the relationship between the collecting and disposal authorities in terms of funding and fining?

Paddy Tipping (Labour, Sherwood)

This is an important discussion, which runs through not only the Bill but wider social and economic policy. In effect, we are talking about the distance between those who believe in a centralist approach and those who believe in, dare I say it, new localism.

One discussion today has been about the words ''diverse'', ''different'' and ''complex'' and we all need to perceive that local authorities and their areas are fundamentally different. There will be real differences between collection in urban and rural areas. In high-rise areas, it is tough to have a collection system and, beyond that, a recycling system, while rural areas have their own problems. The key to the debate is how we handle those difficulties.

The essence of the argument is the relationship between the collection authority, which is typically the district council, and the disposal authority, which is the county council. As I said, that discussion runs through the Bill. As the hon. Member for Lewes said, there will be a lively discussion about the matter when we come to clause 31. There will also be a discussion when we come to clause 17, because the Bill was amended in the other place to include a new subsection (5), which means that the waste disposal authority—the county council—can tell the waste collection authority what to do. That is not satisfactory. I am not entirely sure that the amendment that we are discussing is satisfactory.

There will be discussions later when we consider amendments Nos. 20 and 21, which the Minister intends to introduce as a substitute for the Lords amendment relating to clause 17(5). As I understand amendments Nos. 20 and 21, they specify that there should be discussions between the collection authority and the disposal authority and that use should be made of best practice as defined by guidance from the

Secretary of State. There is no one easy solution. The solution for the Committee in the course of its work is to find a form of words to define the relationship that acknowledges that there are tensions between the collection and disposal authorities. We should build on the framework of this skeleton Bill and lay down a set of parameters and guidelines that allows those authorities to work together. That is what we are trying to edge towards now.

Jonathan Sayeed (Conservative, Mid Bedfordshire)

Does the hon. Gentleman agree with my reading of the Bill? It is that the allocating authority allocates allowances to the waste disposal authority, which has the power to direct the waste collection authority about how to separate waste and where to deliver it. Does he think that that is a healthy form of direction? Does he believe that it is likely that the disposal authority will really understand each and every one of the collection authorities? Is this not an occasion when one size will not fit all?

Paddy Tipping (Labour, Sherwood)

I fundamentally agree with the last point, which must be right. On the hon. Gentleman's earlier remarks, the Bill has been altered since its introduction in the other place. Clause 17(5) gives the disposal authority the right of direction. Clearly, that does not appear to be right. If I understand the Government's intentions, having considered the amendments that we will be discussing at a later date, clause 17(5) is to be deleted. Amendments Nos. 20 and 21 will redefine the relationship. They state that the disposal authority must have discussions with the collection authorities and must take into account best practice and guidance from the Secretary of State. That is a positive and healthy way forward. I am not entirely convinced—I may be convinced after some more discussion—that that will resolve and settle the problem, but it is a better way forward than the present provision.

Alan Whitehead (Labour, Southampton, Test)

If people are not already putting their heads in their hands, may I add a further element of potential complication. That is not the relationship between waste disposal authorities and waste collection authorities, but that between waste disposal authorities and waste disposal authorities. The allocating authority is supposed to provide each waste disposal authority with an amount that it can put into landfill. In fact, a number of waste disposal authorities have formed consortiums—there are four in London. There is a consortium of all the Manchester authorities except one, and there are consortiums of the Cleveland and Merseyside authorities. In Hampshire, the former county council that covered a unitary authority area where the unitary authority has become unitary relatively recently has formed a consortium for waste disposal purposes with the unitary authority. Such consortiums have, in many cases, entered into long-term contracts with each other. That poses the question of what the allocations mean to each waste disposal authority. Those authorities will, between them, jointly endeavour to do particular things with their waste. Just as there are distinctions between waste collection authorities and waste disposal authorities in terms of the preferred routes, so there are between waste

disposal authorities where they have formed a consortium.

In some instances, waste disposal authorities specify that they do not wish their waste to be dealt with in certain ways. As part of a consortium, they opt out, for example, of incineration. Where a consortium has part shares in an incinerator but one or two members of the consortium do not choose to send their waste to that incinerator, two things might result. First, it is possible that elements of the consortium will not be able to reach their targets, whereas others will. In that case, does the consortium, as a basket, count in terms of the target? Alternatively, it might be necessary to trade allowances to balance the books between waste disposal authorities. That would be insider trading. I am not sure that it would be a particularly good idea for insider trading to be an integral part of the waste allowances trading mechanism, but there are no doubt ways around the problem.

Michael Meacher (Labour, Oldham West and Royton)

More hon. Members have participated in this debate than in any other. That reflects the fact that this is an integral part of the operation of the system. I do not demur from anything that has been said. It is a difficult system to operate and it depends on willingness to co-operate. We want there to be flexibility between authorities and positive responses to meeting targets. However, one cannot regulate authorities—one cannot force relationships. One can only have a fall-back provision in case the relationship breaks down. As many hon. Members have said, the relationships between some districts and counties are not good—not necessarily where they are represented by different political parties.

Although there are serious problems, it is right to try to nurture the relationship and to structure it in the way that will get the best result. The amendment would require the allocating authorities—the Secretary of State in the case of England and the national Assemblies in the devolved Administrations—when they make their allocations to take into account

''that there can be no separation of responsibilities between district, or county council,''.

That is odd because, as hon. Members know, there is a division in two-tier areas where the waste disposal authority is at county level and the waste collection authority is at district level. The Bill seeks to ensure that the UK meets its targets under the landfill directive by requiring the waste disposal authority to reduce the amount of biodegradable municipal waste sent to landfill. I think that the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire said that that was the right focus in terms of securing the appropriate agent.

The obligations are imposed on the disposal authorities, whether unitary or county, because they are obviously responsible for the final disposal of waste and so for sending waste to landfill. The important thing is that we must have a clear ownership of responsibility if the directive targets are to be met. However, I agree that the waste collection authorities will have to work in strong partnership with the waste disposals authorities if the reduction of waste to landfill is to be achieved in a sustainable way. I think that that there is no division in the Committee on that. I hope that we are all agreed.

The only question is what is the best way to achieve the target. One does not do it by abolishing the collecting authority and having only a single authority. That is not viable. One therefore has to structure that relationship as positively as possible, while putting the focus on the key body, which must be the disposal authority.

Many areas—even a majority—have good partnership arrangements between the different authorities and they manage waste together. That is not always the case, however, and I know of some notorious examples. Some waste collection authorities are by no means working constructively with their waste disposal authorities. We tried to tackle the problem by giving the disposal authorities the power to direct the waste collection authorities on the form in which waste should be delivered. We shall have the opportunity to debate the power of direction when we come to clause 31. I take it, Miss Begg, that it is not your wish that we should have a detailed discussion about it now. However, when we reach the relevant clauses, that can be explored further.

We will also be discussing the provision included in the Bill in another place for statutory joint municipal waste strategies. I have already referred to that. The Government are still considering their view on that, but it is certainly relevant to the issue that we have been discussing this afternoon.

The amendment would not be helpful. I hope that it is a probing amendment. It would not ensure joint working. It does not reflect the reality on the ground, because there is a real division of responsibility that we cannot ignore in that way.

We chose a power of direction rather than other methods of enforcement, such as penalties being passed down, for a number of reasons. First, we want local authorities to work together. We want to accentuate the positive and the threat of financial penalties between authorities is not a good way to do that. We certainly do not expect the power of direction to be used in the first instance. It is the last resort, to be used only if patient negotiation between authorities cannot be made to work. It is a power of enforcement. It can be legally enforceable. For that reason, it should be used only when relations have completely broken down. We certainly do not regard it as the norm, but as a fall-back position.

Gregory Barker (Conservative, Bexhill and Battle)

It is an unequal relationship, however, if one local authority has the power over another. Would the Minister consider a mechanism whereby a collection authority facing a direction has a right of appeal?

Michael Meacher (Labour, Oldham West and Royton)

We shall discuss that when we come to clause 31, but I agree that in giving a legal power of enforcement—a legally enforceable mechanism—there must be a right of appeal against undue restraint or unfair practice. However, I accept that we cannot put an untrammelled power of direction in the hands of one authority, to be used against another.

The second reason that we did not want to use penalties, preferring a power of direction, is that it

would become a fight about who had responsibility and not about joint working. The emphasis is wrong. Thirdly, penalties would drain money out of the system and that is the last thing that we want to do. If anything, we need more money in the system and financial penalties would have a perverse and unintended effect. That is why we have chosen this fall-back method of fostering good relations between collection and disposal authorities. I hope, with that explanation, that the amendment will be withdrawn.

Jonathan Sayeed (Conservative, Mid Bedfordshire)

I shall be fairly brief. I agree with the Minister that we do not want to drain the system of resources, and we certainly do not want to pay them to lawyers. The idea of paying lawyers from one authority to fight the lawyers of another authority does not seem to be any good for anyone—except lawyers. The Minister said that, if I may paraphrase him, he wants to nurture good relationships between authorities, and that is a very worthy aim. However, authorities will disagree and their disagreements will be fairly fundamental, and legislation that does not allow for that is faulty.

The Minister suggested that the best method was the power of direction, but I give him an example: close to an election a waste disposal authority, pressurised by European legislation that forbids it to send its waste to landfill, determines that it will dispose of its waste by building a big incinerator in the area of the waste collection authority. Does anyone believe that a waste collection authority will abide by the directions of a waste disposal authority that require it to produce its waste to go into an incinerator in its own area? I imagine that that is very unlikely. Legislation that cannot allow for conflict is faulty. The Minister talks about having an appeals process that allows one to appeal against undue restraint or unfair practice, but in the example that I have just given, a collection authority would profoundly contest a direction that was so much against its interests. Unless legislation can deal with such possibilities it runs the risk of going badly wrong in future.

Michael Meacher (Labour, Oldham West and Royton)

I shall try to respond to that. I repeat that the aim must be to try to establish a good working relationship. The hon. Gentleman has posited a situation in which the collection authorities abide by the direction—this is when relations have broken down, I presume—only to find that what they have duly collected in accordance with the direction imposed on them is then sent to an incinerator in their own area. If an incinerator already existed on a site, presumably the waste disposal authority would have been engaging in the practice for some time. It would not be a new situation created by the Bill. The hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell), who, if I remember correctly, had question 19 on the Order Paper today, was going to raise that issue with me. I can assure him that I was well prepared.

I do not think that that will be generated by the Bill. Even where that happens and there are strong objections, there are ways in which authorities could be required to look at the matter again. I return to the example, with which I am now familiar, of Essex. There was a proposal there to build new incinerators

but there was such public controversy that consultants were appointed to examine all the implications. I understand that in the light of that, the proposal is now being reconsidered and the role of incineration is now more open to public discussion and debate.

I do not think that one can structure everything entirely by statute. I am one of those who think that that can do little more than provide the framework. In the end, it is a matter of using all the other levers that exist in a democratic society for dealing with objections. I still think that it is right to have this balanced relationship. I am sure that it will work co-operatively in the great majority of cases. If not, there should be a power of direction, but that has to be exercised reasonably. We will discuss that further under clause 31. On that basis, I hope that the hon. Member for Leominster will find it acceptable to withdraw the amendment and keep to the proposal set out by the Government.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

I thank all members of the Committee who have spoken, because the purpose of the amendment was to draw out from the Government ideas on the difficult situation that we are approaching. To my delight, some extremely wise, helpful and sensible points have been made—perhaps rather better than I could have made them.

I hope that the Minister has taken on board the points made by not only Labour Members but Opposition Members. I hope that lessons from people's comments are learned in time. If we continue at this rocket-like pace, the Minister will have plenty of time to consider all the points made. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

On a point of order, Miss Begg. I waited for a convenient time to raise this point of order rather than interrupt the flow of the Committee's work, but when we had our interesting discussion about fact sheet No. 5, it occurred to me to question whether we had had sight of the regulatory impact assessment. I noticed that that was not detailed in the explanatory notes, which I know is the custom in such matters. I have also discovered that the assessment is not on the departmental website, which is also the normal practice. I expect that that will concern Members across the Committee. I wonder whether I might query that through you, Miss Begg. It might simply be an oversight, but a word of explanation would be helpful.

Anne Begg (Labour, Aberdeen South)

I understand that the regulatory impact assessment has now been circulated to Members. Perhaps the Minister can answer the other specific points.

Michael Meacher (Labour, Oldham West and Royton)

Yes, I am pleased to respond. I hope that—

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I now have the regulatory impact assessment in my hand.

Michael Meacher (Labour, Oldham West and Royton)

Good. That has happened only this moment. I apologise that it was not made available earlier. I do not know whether it is on the departmental website. If it is not, I will ensure that it

is placed there. Again, I say in all sincerity that I am very keen for all hon. Members on the Committee to have access to the same data that I have to explain the Bill. I apologise that that document was not made available earlier.

Clause 5 - Alteration of allocations under section 4

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I beg to move amendment No. 37, in

clause 5, page 4, line 4, after 'may', insert

'with the agreement of the relevant waste disposal authorities'.

I have been trying to acquaint myself with the regulatory impact assessment before speaking to the amendment. As that is a rather long document, you will understand my slight hesitation, Miss Begg, before rising to my feet.

In a sense, the amendment follows from previous discussions. The point has been well made in the Committee that much of the Government's work on the Bill will be dependent upon a collaborative and co-operative partnership arrangement with the relevant authorities. We talked at length in the helpful discussion on the previous amendment, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster, about the relationship between collection and disposal authorities. We also touched on the relationship between disposal authorities and Government, which the amendment draws into sharp focus. It refers to agreement with the relevant waste disposal authorities in respect of clause 5. It is vital that we understand how dependent we are on co-operation in the change of culture, which the Minister so appositely described, to achieve the ambitious targets in the proposal.

As we said earlier, we are anxious for maximum co-operation, consultation and agreement with the relevant parties. In that respect, it is important to recognise that there will be real concerns about the new targets. There will certainly be worries about the financial aspects and I hope that we will have time to explore such matters more fully later in the Bill when we discuss its trading and financial implications and some of the resource issues.

The Bill must reassure the disposal authorities, and through them the collection authorities, and all the parties who are critical to the proper working of the arrangement, that we are interested in their views and want their agreement. We want to consult them and to work with them to achieve the targets, and the amendment goes some way to achieving what we want in the right kind of spirit. I hope that the Minister will not demur too much from what we want to achieve and that he will accept the amendment on that basis.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

I shall be brief. I ask the Minister to reflect on subsection (1) and to say why the Government believe that the allocating authority that has the power to make an allocation under subsection (4) should have the power at any time to alter the allocation. The proposal seems to give a draconian power to take such decisions, which will have a knock-on effect on disposal authorities and others. We want to have time to plan for and to accommodate such a measure. That is not in any way to resist the right of

the allocating authority to alter the allocation, but merely to say that there should be some planning. The amendment provides that if such an alteration were to be made, there should be an agreement or a consultation process so that the disposal authority has the opportunity to explain the implications to the allocating authority, and to ensure that such knowledge is taken into account in taking what may be a far-reaching, forward decision.

Michael Meacher (Labour, Oldham West and Royton)

I have much sympathy with the amendment and I will try to explain the circumstances in which we believe it is right to keep open the power to alter the allowances, although I expect them to be few. The amendment relates to the alteration of landfill allowances and would force allocating authorities to secure the agreement of the relevant waste disposal authority before making changes to any allocation that had already been made.

We do not want to discourage local authorities from making long-term plans because they have concerns about possible changes to their allocations. That is not what we intend—quite the opposite. Clause 5(3) makes it clear that allowances cannot be withdrawn once they have been utilised. It is important that that is made explicit.

Although I cannot speak for the other allocating authorities, I assure the Committee that it is our intention in England to issue each waste disposal authority with its allocation of allowances for each year up to 2020 at the beginning of the scheme. Therefore all waste disposal authorities will know what their allowances are from the first year of the scheme, through to 2020—the final year, if we take advantage of the full derogation in the directive. If we do not, that is one example when we may make use of this provision. I can give an assurance that that will happen only after proper consultation.

The hon. Member for Lewes pressed me for other examples where this power might be used. One example where it might be necessary to alter the allowances set from the beginning of the scheme would be if the European Community made changes to the targets within the landfill directive. That is extremely unlikely; but any legislative body has the right and the power to alter its own legislation. However, in the case of the EU it is dependent upon the agreement, with qualified majority voting of the member states. I think that that is an extremely unlikely eventuality, although the possibility is not totally negligible.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

The Minister has made a good point about the unlikely nature of those eventualities. He has also acknowledged my concern about the uncertainty of the disposal authorities, and the effect that that might have on their willingness to make the plans. If that tone could be repeated in some form of published guidance to local authorities, some of that uncertainty might be dissipated.

Michael Meacher (Labour, Oldham West and Royton)

I am happy to accept that. It is important that we enable waste disposal authorities to understand, in preparing their long-term plans—which

we are keen that they do—that as long as they meet the targets, and are not going to exceed the amount sent to landfill beyond their allocations, their position will be as secure as we can possibly make it. It is not set in stone, and we would have to draft the guidance carefully to suggest that it is possible to envisage circumstances in which some change might be required, but we regard those as exceptional. That should not deter authorities from the main purpose, which is to build a carefully prepared long-term plan.

Alan Whitehead (Labour, Southampton, Test)

May I press my right hon. Friend, given his welcome intention to provide waste disposal authorities with their allocations at the beginning of the scheme over a long period? That is important for stability, forward planning and knowledge of what is to come. However, I have mentioned that a number of waste disposal authorities are already, at the start of the scheme, in consortiums. They already have long-term plans—in many instances they are halfway through their operation. They have perhaps made a contract for 25 years. They are effectively operating as one waste disposal authority. Is it my right hon. Friend's intention to make the allocations favourable towards those consortiums, so that they can make sense of those allocations in the light of their joint operations? They should not reach the situation, which I accept is probably hypothetical, whereby there is either insider trading as a result of the allocations, or fisticuffs between members of consortiums who were previously in harmony with one another.

Michael Meacher (Labour, Oldham West and Royton)

My hon. Friend raises a genuine issue, and I apologise for not responding to him in the previous debate. I shall try to do so now.

Allowances are allocated to individual waste disposal authorities. However, as my hon. Friend said, some consortiums of local authorities have agreed to work together, and have embarked on a process of mutual operation that will run for many years. That is certainly the situation in Manchester, which is part of the area that I represent. If they want to work together, there is nothing to stop them agreeing to transfer allowances between them. I prefer to use the phrase ''internal trading'' rather than ''insider trading'', which has different connotations. Internal trading between them is perfectly permitted under the Bill, as long as it is not on the basis of money. I shall return to that issue later. As long as the targets are met, the objective is to make it compatible with existing arrangements, not to stymie existing arrangements that operate perfectly well.

If the targets in the directive were changed, we would need the ability to alter all waste disposal authorities' targets. It would be an enormous, if not virtually impossible task, to achieve that by agreement, which is what the amendment suggests.

That would put the UK at risk of not meeting its obligations, and therefore of incurring European Court of Justice fines, which I am sure those who tabled the amendment want to avoid.

I assure the Committee that alterations to allocations in England will be made only in exceptional circumstances.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Michael Meacher (Labour, Oldham West and Royton)

I was just about to reach my peroration, but I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

That is why I intervened when I did: I wanted to make another point before the Minister finished his peroration.

The clause talks about an authority making an allocation, which necessarily relates to one part of the United Kingdom rather than all of it. The Secretary of State is not involved in this particular case. The Minister explained that a change might be necessary because of changes in EU legislation, yet there seems to be no provision to ensure that if one authority changes its allocation, the other authorities have to follow suit. Does the Minister envisage a situation in which there may be a change in England, but not in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland?

Michael Meacher (Labour, Oldham West and Royton)

It is possible to envisage such a circumstance, although what would cause such an unlikely change in England is likely also to apply to Scotland and Wales. However, I would not like to say point blank that there could be no such circumstances. I repeat that we are talking about circumstances that are very unlikely to arise. Governments often have to keep options open that they do not expect to use. I sometimes cannot see more than a week ahead, if that. Goodness only knows where we shall be in 20 years' time. We should have the flexibility, while giving every assurance to local authorities that we have no intention of messing around with their long-term plans or of intervening in any other way. I say that to the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings, who made a very fair point. The power is a power of last resort in case circumstances arise over which we have no control. We should make that clear.

Jonathan Sayeed (Conservative, Mid Bedfordshire)

I am glad to hear the Minister give my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings that assurance, because as the principal duty for implementing the landfill directive is imposed on the UK Government, as the fines will be for not implementing it, it does not make much sense to give waste disposal authorities a power of veto over what the UK Government can or cannot do. I have one question for the Minister: what is the position of a waste disposal authority that crosses a transnational boundary, for instance, between Scotland and England, and England and Wales? In the case of the England and Wales borders, although I am not sure about the Scottish borders, I thought that there were at least one or two cases where a disposal authority went over a transnational border. If that is the case, it could lead to conflict on such an occasion.

Michael Meacher (Labour, Oldham West and Royton)

I am very glad that I have just been advised that there is no option for straddling because I agree that, if it were allowed, it might cause one or other devolved Administration, or England, to miss out in exceptional circumstances. Therefore it is not permitted. On that basis—reaching for my peroration for a third time, so it will fall very flat—I hope that the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings

will feel satisfied that he has secured the purpose of his amendment and will not press it to a vote.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

The Minister has given an assurance that he has taken on board the argument, which found support around the Committee, that the guidance issued to local authorities should provide the assurance that we request. He has also taken on board the argument that the guidance should repeat the notion that the provisions relate to exceptional circumstances—I accept his argument that the wording would have to be carefully considered—as it were, a long-stop provision in the Bill, given circumstances that cannot reasonably be foreseen at the moment. Given those assurances, I am happy to withdraw my amendment so that the Minister will not be forced to extend his oratorical powers any further and think of yet a fourth peroration.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 5 agreed to.

Clause 6 - Borrowing and banking of landfill allowances

Sue Doughty (Liberal Democrat, Guildford)

I beg to move amendment No. 1, in

clause 6, page 4, line 17, leave out 'by regulations', and insert 'not'.

Anne Begg (Labour, Aberdeen South)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 2, in

clause 6, page 4, leave out from line 20 to line 11 on page 5.

Sue Doughty (Liberal Democrat, Guildford)

This seems to me to be one of the key areas of the Bill, which, as we discussed on Second Reading, is designed to do several things. It is possible to meet targets or to trade them, but within that, there is flexibility to allow local authorities to catch up, albeit by spending money. The ability to trade within the year gives them flexibility. However, the clause will allow them to carry over allowances to the next year by banking them, and that concerns me. It seems to be a risky strategy, if we are trying to reduce, year on year, the amount of waste that we send to landfill, because it would seem possible to keep sending waste to landfill and then suddenly reduce the amount sent to landfill some time afterwards. It would seem a bit reckless to defer all the good work that I was doing in any area, because I had borrowed my allowances for subsequent years, and then suddenly had to catch up at the last minute because I had no allowances left.

We need to forward plan. The Minister helpfully said that disposal authorities will know what the targets are for the 20 years of the scheme. That would seem to provide a good opportunity for business planning. I accept that we are talking about a small part of the whole waste management strategy, which we discussed extensively this morning, but those who are trying to develop their waste management strategies—the disposal authorities and the waste management business, which is contracted to execute waste management strategy on behalf of the authorities—need to get on with their planning. It would appear that if one is allowed to borrow allowances for a subsequent year, one might delay investment in the necessary technologies. I should have thought that the Government might be trying, in the Bill, to send the message, ''We must stop sending waste

to landfill. We know what our targets are, so, using those allowances, we must plan wisely for the future.'' Even with the statutory recycling targets, if municipal waste grows by 3 per cent. a year, one could find that, by borrowing allocations from subsequent years, one was sending the same amount of waste to landfill in 2008 as in 2003. To me, that is contrary to the sense of the Bill. We want to reduce landfill as soon as possible by trading within those years. Trading within the year would allow that to happen, but borrowing from subsequent years would and could defer it if we did not have a prudent disposal authority, which would stack up trouble for authorities in future years. That is why we have proposed changes: we do not want that to happen.

Jonathan Sayeed (Conservative, Mid Bedfordshire)

The concepts in the amendments are ones that I brought up on Second Reading, and I know that they were mentioned by the hon. Member for Lewes in his speech. The amendments would remove the power to borrow and bank allowances.

As the Bill stands, a waste disposal authority could borrow additional capacity to landfill from the landfill allowances of subsequent years, except target years. That may mean that decisions and investment in technologies necessary to enable the UK to comply with the landfill directive are deferred. Even with statutory recycling targets, if municipal waste continues to grow at 3 per cent. per annum, a waste disposal authority could, by borrowing allowances from subsequent years, feasibly landfill in 2008 quantities of biodegradable municipal waste similar to those that it landfilled in 2003.

Perversely, borrowing could significantly reduce the incentive for local authorities to trade. I therefore ask the Minister to respond the argument that the banking of permits may act as a disincentive for waste disposal authorities to improve continuously, year on year, and to invest in the required new and long-term infrastructure. We do not want to build into the Bill a culture of disincentives and short-termism.

Michael Meacher (Labour, Oldham West and Royton)

I entirely agree with both hon. Members who have spoken; it is certainly important that we do not allow the flexibility written into the Bill to be abused. I hope that I shall be able to persuade them and the rest of the Committee that that will not be the case. There are several safeguards that I believe will adequately prevent abuse. The Bill enables us to provide a measure of flexibility that we think desirable, so long as it cannot be abused.

The amendments relate to the banking and borrowing of allowances and would prevent allocating authorities from permitting allowances to be used in scheme years other than the one for which they were allocated. On Second Reading, I emphasised that the Bill was the first of its kind in Europe, possibly in the world. I also admitted that that was probably for the wrong reasons, and not because of our great innovation. What is unique about the Bill is that it sets up the framework not only for the system of landfill allowances—which is very important—but for the

method of trading those allowance between waste disposal authorities.

The trading system as a whole is designed to ensure that waste disposal authorities can reduce the amount of biodegradable municipal waste going to landfill in a manner suitable to them, while ensuring that the UK still fulfils its obligation for target years. The system, if one looks at it holistically, will give waste disposal authorities flexibility and ensure cost-effectiveness throughout the UK. It is quite ambitious; it is certainly innovative; and I believe that it can work.

We refer to the inter-year use of allowances—between years as opposed to within a year, to which the amendment refers—as either banking or borrowing. Banking allows waste disposal authorities to keep allowances that have not been used in one year for use in later years. That rewards good performance in waste management. Where a waste disposal authority has put in place good basic systems, it might already be diverting a high proportion of waste from landfill. With a banking system, it can save allowances in early years and either trade them or use them in later years when targets get tighter and it is waiting for new initiatives to come on stream.

Borrowing, which might be more of a problem for some hon. Members, means that waste disposal authorities will be able to bring forward the use of allowances that have been allocated for future years. I understand the arguments and the risks. Borrowing will be possible in England because the aim is, as I have said, for allowances to be distributed for all scheme years at the beginning of the scheme. The objective of that flexibility is to encourage responsible waste management planning by giving waste disposal authorities time to invest in new facilities. We are in the early stages of what will be a steep incline as we increase the system's capacity to facilitate recycling. That will happen only if there are significant increases in investment in plant and infrastructure, which is what the national recycling waste management fund is all about.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

The problem is that the borrowing system that the Minister envisages needs to be seen in relation to the accelerating targets. If authorities borrow early and their targets get stiffer and stiffer, as they surely will, they might find themselves in considerable difficulty in the medium and long term. If there were a flat-line target, and they were expected to perform in a roughly equivalent way year on year, it would not be so much of a problem. My anxiety is caused by the combination of tough, accelerating targets and the potential for early borrowing against allowances.

Michael Meacher (Labour, Oldham West and Royton)

I hope that the problem will be avoided by the publication of allowances for each of the next 20 years. The allocating authorities have informed the waste disposal authorities what those figures will be each year. Clearly, they have to be planned for, but there is no reason why we should have to tighten them. If we do a lot better in the early years, it is possible that they could be loosened a little towards the end. There is no question of tightening them so long as we know where we have to get to in each of the target years, particularly 2016 and 2020.

Although I do not have the figure to hand, I know that the target will be no more than 35 per cent. of 1995 levels. Once we have allocated the responsibility for meeting that to each waste disposal authority, there will be no reason for altering the framework.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

I am sorry to be unduly pessimistic, but we are giving waste disposal authorities and waste collection authorities a huge responsibility—the Minister recognises that these are stiff targets—when they have previously had no targets for avoiding landfill and increasing recycling. Suddenly, a regime is being imposed on them, and their response will be to borrow allocations until they sort out what they are doing. They will be faced with difficult decisions about incinerators and so on, and they will borrow and borrow on the never-never. When we come to 2007, many authorities will run out of borrowing time and will not meet their targets. I am sorry if that sounds pessimistic, but I fear that it will happen. What will the Government do in 2007 if that is the case?

Michael Meacher (Labour, Oldham West and Royton)

They will take account of the factors of which I am about to tell the Committee. Fortunately, that intervention came just before the point in my speech at which I am to set out the safeguards that will prevent us from getting into that position. The regulations that permit borrowing may place limits on the use that waste disposal authorities can make of borrowing from future years—we have the capacity to regulate that. Let me make it clear that banking and borrowing will not be a way for waste disposal authorities to evade their responsibilities.

The Bill puts in place a number of measures to ensure that the system cannot be abused. Most importantly, banking and borrowing across or into target years is will not be permitted. That removes the potential danger of a waste disposal authority using up all its allowances in the first three years of the scheme, and possibly causing the UK to fail to meet interim targets. Such an authority would certainly be liable for penalties in future years.

There are other safeguards. For example, regulations may provide for limits on the number of allowances that may be used inter-year, or specify conditions that have to be met. Ultimately—as some politicians like to say, this is the killer point—each waste disposal authority will know that if it landfills more than its allowance because it has borrowed and utilised it in previous years, it will be liable to a financial penalty and to a supplementary penalty where that failure contributes to the UK as a whole missing its landfill directive targets. That collection of safeguards is more than adequate to prevent abuse of the flexibility.

The amendments would scrap the part of the trading scheme that allows inter-year use of allowances. That would be a wasted opportunity as regards the UK showing that it pursues policies at the forefront of sustainable waste management which combine the maximum flexibility with ensuring that the landfill directive targets are achieved. Moreover, meeting the targets would be a much more painful process if there were no

flexibility to allow investment to be made; that takes some years to come on stream. The situation would be much more difficult for individual waste disposal authorities and, indeed, the UK as a whole. Again, we have tried to get right the balance between providing as much flexibility as we can, and ensuring that that cannot be abused and that the country as a whole can meet its targets.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I want to make a short contribution, because the Minister has put his finger on the two sides of the debate. There is a concern, which I have expressed, that not all authorities will act responsibly. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire spoke about the risk of short-termism if authorities do not see their way to employing the strategic planning for which we all hope. That is complicated by the fact that some local authorities have a more strategic view of life than others. We know that from our experience of local government and our study of how local authorities currently deal with waste.

The Minister is right to say that the safeguards will limit that problem and, furthermore, to make the key point that people start from a different baseline. There is an enormous variety not only in the profile of disposal and collection authorities, but in their performance, and that is why we need the flexibility to which the Minister referred. It will allow some to borrow and some to bank. Some will be ahead of the game; some will be well behind it, and they will need to invest heavily early on to meet the medium and long-term targets. The Minister set out a balanced case for the pros and cons of the system. There are risks and pitfalls, but on balance the necessary flexibility may be more significant than the risk.

Michael Meacher (Labour, Oldham West and Royton)

This is truly a remarkable Committee. I am pleased to hear the leading Opposition spokesman defending my case with greater eloquence, persistence and comprehensiveness than I could have done. He is absolutely right, and as they say, I rest my case.

Sue Doughty (Liberal Democrat, Guildford)

This short debate has been interesting, but I do not think that we are entirely convinced. As I think the Minister accepted, we have a real worry about local government borrowing against the future without the certainty that what they hope will happen will come about, especially given the possibility of a change of Administration or strategic direction. People may borrow at one stage, saying, ''We know where we are,'' but there may be a couple of elections further down the line and everything may change completely, so we are hostages to fortune.

The Minister described the penalties and great threats that may be imposed. I hope that he would make it clear to local authorities that those threats were serious and not negotiable; that might offset some of our fears. We shall put our trust in the Minister to ensure that those penalties are well known and understood, and to make it clear what will happen to local government if the rules are

transgressed. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Further consideration adjourned.—[Mr. Ainger.]

Adjourned accordingly at fourteen minutes to Five o'clock till Tuesday 8 April at five minutes to Nine o'clock.