Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Bill

Public Bill Committee, 1 February 2005.

Standing Committee G

Clause 102 - Statutory nuisance: lighting

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

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

No. 58, in clause 102, page 75, line 16, at end insert—

'(j) premises or apparatus used for the provision of electronic communication services.'.

No. 104, in clause 102, page 75, line 16, at end insert—

'(k) a playing field, playing pitch or other outdoor facility used wholly or mainly for sport.'.

No. 117, in clause 102, page 75, line 16, at end insert,

'; that is necessary to meet statutory requirements relating to national security or public safety, provided that reasonable and practicable steps have been taken to minimise light emissions to the minimum necessary to meet those requirements.'.

No. 105, in clause 102, page 75, line 37, at end insert—

'''playing field'' has the meaning given in Article 3 of the Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) (Amendment) Order 1996;''playing pitch'' means a delineated area which, together with any run-off area, is 0.4 hectares or more, and which is used for sport;'.

No. 106, in clause 102, page 75, line 49, at end insert—

'''sport'' is designated as any sporting activity which appears on the list maintained by the National Sports Councils of activities recognised by them, as applicable to Schedule 18 to the Finance Act 2002;'.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

May I welcome you back to the Committee, Mr. Forth.

On Thursday the Minister made what he was hoping would be a helpful intervention, which gives me the opportunity to respond in like manner. There is some concern about how the original clause will be amended. The Minister said:

''It is merely that a local authority would be able to treat as a statutory nuisance those particular cases that qualify as a common law nuisance or are prejudicial to health.'' [Official Report, Standing Committee G, 27 January 2005; c. 314.]

He will be aware that there is concern that under subsection (4) there are some extensive, wide exceptions to that form of statutory nuisance that many would like brought within the remit of the clause, including in airports, harbours, railways and transport facilities generally. He may also be aware that another form of statutory nuisance—general farming practices—is causing great concern. A typical example of that would include, in the view of the National Farmers Union, situations in which a local authority deems that a nuisance is being caused by agricultural activities or farm buildings near a residential area. A case in point would be harvesting at night in good weather in July and August, which are the most intensive times of the year for arable farmers, when they often have a very small window of opportunity. There are a number of instances of statutory nuisance that could fall within the original clause.

In amendments Nos. 104 and 105, we seek to address the matter of an all-weather, all-year-round pitch that is heavily dependent—[Interruption.]

Alun Michael (Labour/Co-operative, Cardiff South and Penarth)

I am most grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way, because I was waiting for her to come to the next sentence of the paragraph in Hansard from which she quoted. I said:

''I ask her not to suggest that the clause would have an impact on sports facilities—generally, it would not.'' [Official Report, Standing Committee G, 27 January 2005; c. 314.]

That was specific.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I am most grateful for that. I read that and heard it on the day, and now I hear again what the Minister says. However, the Government, perhaps inadvertently, have set up a hornet's nest and the air is buzzing with concern. In my area, we are fortunate enough to have a limited number of all-weather pitches and sports facilities. In a rural area where transport facilities are not that great and public transport is not as widely available as in urban areas, we are even more dependent on local community football and sports facilities.

I know about and support the Government's campaign to promote fitness and fight rising levels of obesity. The Minister must be aware that approximately 7 million adults and 5 million children participate weekly in football alone. That is not just limited to Sunday morning football. In fact, week-night five-a-side football is growing rapidly as a form of exercise for a vast number of people and that facility may inadvertently be limited by the drift of the clause.

Alun Michael (Labour/Co-operative, Cardiff South and Penarth)

The hon. Lady says that the air is buzzing with concern. It would be more accurate to say that it is buzzing with misinformation. I have made sure that officials have spoken to organisations such as the Football Association to make sure that they understand that those concerns are misplaced. I hope that she will not add to the mischief and concern by misrepresenting the situation and the impact of the clause.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I put it to the Minister that his Department did not consult the Football Association, the England and Wales Cricket Board, the Rugby Football Union, the Lawn Tennis Association or other relevant trade associations, or the Central Council of Physical Recreation when formulating and drafting this Bill.

Paddy Tipping (Labour, Sherwood)

Will the hon. Lady check her facts? My understanding is that the Department met the FA just last week, and the meeting was satisfactory. The issues were explored, and reassurances were given.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

That makes my point; if the Department met the FA for the first time last week, even though the Bill is in its Committee stage, that speaks for itself.

Alun Michael (Labour/Co-operative, Cardiff South and Penarth)

No, it does not speak for itself. I do wish that the hon. Lady would stop misrepresenting the situation—inadvertently, I am sure. The fact is that the FA wrote a letter to Members of Parliament, and I immediately acted to make sure that officials met the FA to correct the misapprehensions. I offered to meet the FA personally, should it have any concerns following that meeting. Of course, we consulted the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and Sport England on the measures. The reason why the concerns have not been addressed in meetings is that the bodies will not be affected in the way that the hon. Lady suggests.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

If the Minister is going down that path, can he give the Committee a categoric assurance that the clause will not be interpreted by local authorities or the courts as applying to sports facilities and playing fields? In the spirit of good intentions and co-operation, will the Minister see fit to support amendments Nos. 104 and 105, and will he write into the Bill something to say that such sports facilities and playing fields will not be damaged and affected in the way that they fear? All the bodies to which I referred sought early consultation with the Minister. Perhaps this misunderstanding, as he calls it, would not have arisen if that consultation had taken place at the earliest possible stage.

What possible reason could there be for not writing such an assurance into the Bill? Why rely on departmental guidance that has no statutory basis, is not enforceable and may well lead to an interventionist local authority or housing association targeting sports facilities under the provisions, even though the Minister says that that is not his Department's intention? Surely this is exactly the role that primary legislation should play. It may be for your convenience and that of the Committee, Mr. Forth, if I say now that I wish to press amendments Nos. 104 and 105 to the vote.

Sue Doughty (Liberal Democrat, Guildford)

Will you advise me, Mr. Forth? Are we dealing with amendment No. 57 or the whole string of amendments?

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

We are dealing with the group.

Sue Doughty (Liberal Democrat, Guildford)

Thank you for your guidance, Mr. Forth.

Certainly, we support anything that would mitigate a new source of street lighting, which is an enormous cause of nuisance. It pollutes the night sky and creates red glow. Increasingly, good design is reducing that problem.

I referred on Second Reading to my visit to Gatwick airport, which has started to consider the light that it emits. That was a very positive experience because, although in areas such as car parks adequate lighting was needed for people's safety, there was no need for 500,000 neon bulbs across the whole of the airport. Phasing those out and bringing in renewable energy that gave out softer lighting and reduced light pollution was extremely welcome.

We have real problems with light pollution. The National Society for Clean Air and the Campaign to Protect Rural England both support measures to ensure that the places exempted still have to make a reasonable effort to limit light pollution. We need the energy efficiency; a ridiculous amount of energy is burned up by excessive lighting. Artificial lighting is a nuisance, and that needs to be said. However, we ought to make sure that when a statutory undertaking emits a large amount of light, there are codes of practice that it has to adhere to. The list of exemptions could have the perverse effect of implying that the issue does not matter for organisations such as airports or ports and that they can emit however much light they like. The Minister is shaking his head; I look forward to hearing his argument.

We welcome the measures being taken by the Government on light pollution, because it is such a nuisance. We are losing our night skies. In some ways, there do not seem to be the same grounds for exemption for organisations such as airports and ports; they do not have to conform as ordinary citizens have to in managing what they do.

During the Second Reading debate, we talked about freight depots and ports. Poole ferry terminal is visible from 30 miles out into the English channel; the light can even be seen from below the horizon. Why is that necessary? There are areas in which there are considerations of national security and public safety, and they are legitimate concerns. People recognise that security is of paramount importance. However, the Campaign to Protect Rural England has been asking how we can work with the Government. The Campaign for Dark Skies says that we need to recognise that light pollution is taking place.

The clause is important. What would happen in the case of existing sites—trading estates, for example? I used to live near a mini trading estate, with a wood yard and a couple of other things, that was dark at night. This week I have suddenly found that there is a Renault garage close to my home. It blares light across an area of semi-rural countryside that formerly did not even have street lights. What will happen to existing legislation? Will the Bill give more opportunity for councils to take note of residents' complaints? The residents understood that the Renault garage was coming, but not that there would be a ridiculous amount of light through the evening and from midnight until dawn.

Alun Michael (Labour/Co-operative, Cardiff South and Penarth)

It is clear that, yet again, I have to steer a careful course between Scylla and Charybdis—I refer to the hon. Members for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) and for Guildford (Sue Doughty). Between them, they ask me to do more and less. Both requests are, as I hope to persuade the Committee, based on misapprehensions. The exceptions in clause 102(4) refer specifically to areas where safety is a paramount priority for transport, and where movement and safety are at a premium. The two other examples in the list are lighthouses and prisons, and I am sure that the safety considerations necessary for them are obvious to all. We do not want the Bill to be used in such circumstances; the Bill has a very clear focus on local circumstances. The hon. Member for Guildford referred to existing legislation. I will come to that in a moment, because there is a need to consider the interface between the proposals before us and the existing legislation. It may be helpful if I start by setting out the scope of this measure—what it does and does not do.

The clause does not provide local authorities with new general powers to control artificial lighting. Rather, local authorities will be given the ability to treat as a statutory nuisance particular instances of artificial lighting that qualify as a common law nuisance or are prejudicial to health. These terms have been used for many years, and there is extensive case law on their meaning. The need to achieve a reasonable balance between the interests of individuals who are adversely affected by an activity and the need to carry on that activity is integral to the law on statutory nuisance. For artificial lighting, local authorities will need to balance the nuisance caused by particular lights against the need for adequate lighting on, for example, security or safety grounds.

The law on statutory nuisance also contains a specific defence of having used ''best practical means''—I shall refer back to those three words—to prevent or suppress the effects of certain statutory nuisances, particularly those arising on trade, business and industrial premises. Clause 103 deals with the availability of this defence for both artificial lighting and nuisance insects. This provision, in effect, permits an activity that might be otherwise be unreasonable to continue where those who are responsible for it have used the best means available to them to prevent it, or to reduce its impact.

Paddy Tipping (Labour, Sherwood)

In the case of floodlit sports facilities, is my hon. Friend telling us that if the sports club is using the ''best practical means'' and the latest technology, then there is no threat whatever? Will he repeat his assurance that he is prepared to meet the FA, and make the position absolutely clear to them? I am sure that there is some mischief-making going on here.

Alun Michael (Labour/Co-operative, Cardiff South and Penarth)

I share my hon. Friend's concern. I was coming to the situation of sports facilities, which is precisely as he has set out. In the light of these points, I do not think that this clause poses any threat to the floodlighting of sports facilities, and in my view amendments Nos. 104, 105 and 106 are unnecessary.

I have indicated, both last week and again today, that I am aware of the Football Association's concerns on this point. My officials had a useful meeting with the FA last week. The FA said that they were most concerned about the effect restrictions on artificial lighting might have on the provision of new floodlit facilities. The planning process for such facilities, however, already takes full account of the impact of artificial lighting, and enabling local authorities to treat artificial lighting as a statutory nuisance will have no implications for the planning process for new facilities.

Let me underline once more the fact that passing this Bill in its current form, which will enable local authorities to treat artificial lighting as a statutory nuisance, will have no implications for the planning processes for new facilities.

While there is a theoretical possibility that a local authority might try to challenge existing floodlighting on the basis that it was a statutory nuisance, in reality this would be highly unlikely. There is a strong public interest in encouraging community football and sports facilities, and any adverse effects of floodlighting on individuals living near a sports ground will need to be balanced against the interests of all those who use that ground. That is already the situation. In most, if not all, cases I would expect the provider of the floodlighting to be able to make use of the ''best practical means'' defence. It is difficult to envisage that those operating a sports ground would deliberately, for example, aim their floodlights at a particular row of properties. That would be the sort of perversity that anybody would want to see dealt with firmly.

In any event, we will make it clear in the guidance that we do not expect floodlit playing fields and other sports facilities to fall foul of the provision in practice.

Paddy Tipping (Labour, Sherwood)

Is my right hon. Friend willing to discuss the practice guidance with interested bodies? Will he ask his officials to do that?

Alun Michael (Labour/Co-operative, Cardiff South and Penarth)

Yes, I can give a cast-iron assurance on that point. I have already said that guidance will be a matter for consultation, but we do not see any problem with it. The target is not that perceived by the hon. Member for Vale of York. There might be occasions when badly sited lights cause unnecessary hardship to those in the vicinity, but in such cases we would expect the problem to be resolved through discussion between the local authority and those responsible for the lighting.

As for new facilities, I was talking to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Sport and Tourism last week, before we received the letter from the FA. He referred to the way in which technology has moved on. It allows much better targeting of light in new facilities, so that there is not much impact on those in the area and the best possible quality of lighting is provided for those who take part in sporting activities.

For many years before entering Parliament, I spent much time as a youth worker and a councillor, improving and increasing the facilities available in my area, so I am not without knowledge of the discussions that are necessary to provide such facilities. More generally, the guidance will make it clear that the provisions on artificial lighting should be introduced in a reasonable and proportionate way and that every effort must be made to resolve problems by negotiation, with enforcement action taken only as a last resort.

Many of the same arguments apply to amendment No. 58. Like many other industrial facilities, premises or apparatus used for the provision of electronic communication services clearly need adequate lighting for operation and security purposes. The law on statutory nuisance recognised the need for industry to be able to carry out its usual functions, and that is further protected by the defence of ''best practical means''. I shall return to those three important words. For those reasons, it is not necessary to single out communication services for particular protection.

Amendment No. 57, which would extend the provision to apply public nuisance legislation specifically to street lights on public highways, is in a different category. Local authorities are responsible for street lighting and for applying the law on statutory nuisance. Rather than giving local authorities the theoretical ability to issue abatement notices on themselves, it is better to deal with light pollution from street lighting by other means. Modern lighting design can already provide street lighting that does not waste energy and directs light only where it is wanted. That is used increasingly when lighting is replaced and is common for new lighting schemes.

The Government made £300 million available in private finance initiative credits in 2003-04 to help local authorities in England—those outside London—to modernise their street lighting. In London, a further £85 million in PFI credits will be available for street lighting over the next three years. That is additional to support provided through the revenue support grant.

Amendment No. 117 would create ambiguity, which would complicate the provision. For example, what is the minimum amount of light necessary to meet statutory requirements? Most of the exemptions are for transport facilities and are necessary because we need to put it beyond doubt or further qualification that artificial lighting used at the premises does not qualify as statutory nuisance. Moving vehicles represent a danger to health and safety. Movements are often complex in the sort of facilities referred to under the clause, and lighting outside and at night must be used. Ports and airports have international obligations that require the provision of adequate lighting for safety and security. Moreover, transport tends to operate at all hours and requires essential maintenance at night to ensure that vehicles and the infrastructure are operational during the day.

I appreciate some of the points made by the hon. Member for Guildford about the way in which some transport facilities operate, but those matters are best dealt with elsewhere rather than in the neighbourhood considerations under the Bill.

Sue Doughty (Liberal Democrat, Guildford)

I am listening carefully to the Minister. He said that such matters are best dealt with elsewhere. How does he suggest they can be dealt with?

Alun Michael (Labour/Co-operative, Cardiff South and Penarth)

I was about to make the point anticipated by the hon. Lady. The exemptions mean that, for transport facilities, the status quo will apply. Although they will not be subject to the statutory nuisance regime, and so subject to regulation by local authorities under this heading, it will not prevent individuals from taking private nuisance actions in cases in which they feel that artificial lighting is causing them a severe problem. A private action can, for example, be taken by a person whose land adjoins a transport facility from which artificial lighting is

''unduly interfering with that person's comfortable or convenient enjoyment of his own land.''

We often legislate in respect of transport facilities—such as the arrangements that are dealt with in the exceptions—but it is not appropriate to go into the complexities of the arrangements for ports, airports and other transport facilities in this Bill. That is why the measure, which is intended to deal with the local nuisance that was strongly highlighted by our consultation, should be appropriately targeted. The guidance will make the application clear.

In response to the comments of the hon. Member for Vale of York, sometimes it is not appropriate for things to be clarified in the Bill because of the law of unintended consequences. The exceptions that are listed are clear and comprehensive. That is the correct way in which to deal with the matter in the Bill, and I hope that the amendment will be withdrawn.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I heard the Minister's response with great interest. One issue that we did not discuss, and which might have to be covered at a later stage, is that of nuisance lighting from Christmas tree decorations. That can lead to the very type of vexatious and malicious complaint to which the Minister referred. The official Opposition do not think that it is good enough simply to say that the issue is best dealt with by other means or elsewhere. It is right and proper to state in the Bill exactly how the provisions will apply to utility companies such as British Telecom, to railways and to individuals who might feel that they have cause for complaint. For all that I am a non-practising advocate, I believe that it is much better for all concerned that the Bill speak for itself. As little as possible should be left to interpretation and guidance.

The Minister is moving in the right direction, but it is not satisfactory that he is leaving the matter to guidance, given that, regrettably, there was not the early and lengthy consultation that many of us would have liked. At a later stage, we will seek clarification on agricultural and horticultural practices. I think that the Minister will agree that they have not been subject to a plethora of complaints. Bearing in mind that we have seen so much success as a result of grants from the Football Foundation—areas such as Poppleton in Vale of York have benefited from football pitches and in other ways—it is incumbent on the Committee to make the Bill as clear as possible.

Alun Michael (Labour/Co-operative, Cardiff South and Penarth)

The hon. Lady strays into new territory when she refers to Christmas decorations. Perhaps I ought to respond briefly to that point, because it is important to understand the way in which that would be dealt with. If the local authority is satisfied that a statutory light nuisance exists, it will have to issue an abatement order. That will require that nuisance to be abated, prohibited or restricted, and can require that works and steps be undertaken to achieve those ends within a time scale. Christmas lights could be covered in that way, although it is unlikely given their temporary nature.

Again, it is a question of striking a balance between enjoyment given and nuisance created. As in many such instances, judgment has to be used if we are to succeed in protecting the public against a genuine nuisance while avoiding excessive restrictions. That is what is meant by the best possible means. That point also applies to agricultural and horticultural activities: are they undertaken in a way that ignores the interests of those affected—are those responsible being cavalier about the impact on others or even deliberate in those actions—or are the best possible means being used? If it is the latter, agricultural and horticultural activities will be able to continue without impact from this or previous legislation.

Sue Doughty (Liberal Democrat, Guildford)

Referring back to our amendment and having listened to the Minister, I seek some clarity. We have no disagreement about the need for safety on industrial and commercial premises and in transport and so on, or about the fact that such places operate 24 hours a day. He referred to the opportunity to take a private action, but with a large installation such as an airport or a ferry terminal, the nuisance may be the totality of the light from sites such as Poole ferry terminal, which has been mentioned.

The cause of the problem can be lights on tall columns, which should be directed more to the area that they are supposed to illuminate but in fact cast light unnecessarily far and wide. Of course one wants safety—that is not disputed—but some areas in a airport, such as sheds, do not need large amounts of light. I have already mentioned car parks. We have some voluntary agreements, but I am still concerned about how we mitigate the unnecessary light coming from those installations. Although I am minded not to press the amendment, I would do so only following some reassurance from the Minister that everything possible is being done to minimise the pollution from those large installations.

Alun Michael (Labour/Co-operative, Cardiff South and Penarth)

The hon. Lady puts her point reasonably, but in a way she also answers it. As she says, big transport installations such as ports and airports are not just about the direct light nuisance but about the volume of the activity. However, as she also said—I think that this is another point of agreement—the economic value of those activities, their importance to the infrastructure of the nation and the safety considerations that she acknowledged mean that they are not the intended target in a Bill that concerns local neighbourhood nuisance and the direct impact that I spoke of earlier.

There are issues to be addressed; she is right about that. It is one of the Government's concerns to see technical improvements and the minimisation of the impact of large installations, but that is way beyond what it is possible for us to deal with in this Bill. In the spirit in which the hon. Lady made her comments, I acknowledge that there are issues to be dealt with, but her amendment is not the way to address them.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 3, Noes 8.

Clause 104 - Contaminated land: appeals against remediation notices

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

We are told that the clause is intended to improve the process of contaminated land appeals. Under section 78L of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, as amended by the Environment Act 1995, appeals against remediation notices under the contaminated land regime are heard by magistrates, except for special sites for which appeals are heard by the Secretary of State. This measure will effectively amend section 78L so that appeals will be made to the Secretary of State, bringing the regime more in line with other environmental regimes.

I seek clarification on a number of issues. I understand that in the original ''Clean Neighbourhoods'' consultation, although respondents were mostly supportive of the measure, a number of them objected. Most of those objecting took the view that appeals were best taken by local magistrates, and that centralising the appeals procedure could slow down the process. There were also concerns about moving decision making away from the local level, as it is generally recognised that local magistrates have a better understanding of local situations.

Alun Michael (Labour/Co-operative, Cardiff South and Penarth)

May I assist the hon. Lady? My reaction on first reading this proposition was similar to hers. However, I then discovered that there has only ever been one appeal. Therefore, the expertise of local magistrates would be rather limited in this area of activity.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

That is most helpful. We would not wish to open the floodgates for further appeals. I seek clarification of why the Minister thinks that the Secretary of State would be better placed. The history of the contaminated land and the remediation order would be better known to local people and the local magistrates. Only where a notice had been served by a local authority under section 78L of the Environmental Protection Act 1990—a good Act, which I commend to the Minister's Department—are appeals heard by inspectors appointed for that purpose. Those inspectors make the decision or send the case to the Secretary of State to decide upon.

Presumably the inspectors will by definition not be local and will be drafted in for their expertise in the subject matter rather than the local area. Given the number of sites that may be used for alternative purposes in future, the problem will become an increasing issue.

I am interested to know what representations were made during consultation and what regard the Minister has paid to those representations.

The Minister said that there had been only one appeal to date under section 78L of the 1990 Act. What is the level of appeal to the Secretary of State in matters to which the new procedure already applies?

How will the inspectors be qualified and trained? Is there a ready pool available, or will the inspectors be newly created? If so, will that impose an additional burden of cost, presumably to borne by the Department rather than local authorities, and will it lead to more bureaucratic procedures? At the moment there is a straightforward recourse to the magistrates court. If every owner of contaminated land appeals to the Secretary of State, how long will it take for those appeals to be heard and for the land to be cleaned up? We are particularly wedded to the 1990 Act, as it was passed on our watch and we believe that it has served extremely well.

How does the clause relate to the duty of care under earlier provisions in the Bill, particularly those in which the Government have requested that the duty of care should be actively promoted in the business community and that there should be a general recognition, albeit quite low, of what that duty is?

Subsection (7) relates to the Secretary of State and the National Assembly for Wales. Will there be a separate pool of inspectors to cover Wales or will one pool cover England and Wales? What is the situation in Scotland? It would be nice to think that the provisions in Scotland and Northern Ireland were broadly similar to those in England and Wales.

Mark Simmonds (Conservative, Boston and Skegness)

I have one specific question for the Minister. If the appeals procedure is used so minimally—indeed, only once, as the Minister said—why does the current system of appeal to the magistrates court need to be changed to bring in the Secretary of State?

Alun Michael (Labour/Co-operative, Cardiff South and Penarth)

I should like to say, not on the basis of prejudice but on the basis of my practical experience as a magistrate over many years and as chair of a city's planning committee, that my natural instinct is to let the magistrates get on with things and keep the planning inspectorate out of them. I can assure the hon. Lady that the clause has been scrutinised from that standpoint.

The hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Mr. Simmonds) asked a specific question, which perhaps I can answer. We believe that there are likely to be more appeals in the future, but still not many. This is a backstop provision, as I will explain in my response. It is sensible for the backstop provision to be the same for appeals against a decision by the Environment Agency as by a local authority. A degree of consistency is introduced to the arrangements.

At the moment, provision is for appeals to go either to the magistrates or to the Secretary of State, depending on which regulator serves the notice—the Environment Agency to the Secretary of State, the local authority to the magistrates. What we are proposing is that the cases all go to the Secretary of State, which is more appropriate given their complex legal and technical nature. That should allow for consistency in decision making. The rarity of the cases makes it more appropriate for the Secretary of State and, normally, an inspector to deal with these issues.

As a general point, where there is a remediation notice, the owners of land are often keen quickly to deal with the remediation so that there is no blight on the land and they can get on with whatever development they envisaged. Again, therefore, the appeal process will not be needed in many circumstances, but, for a small minority, needs to be there.

The hon. Member for Vale of York asked about the National Assembly for Wales. The National Assembly is able to draw on the same pool of expertise that is available to the Secretary of State in dealing with appeals across England and Wales. That expertise crosses a variety of recent legislation.

The clause removes the inconsistency of having two avenues of appeal, for remediation notices under part 2A, where they are served by the local authority or by the Environment Agency.

Appeals are so unusual and technical that magistrates would simply not build up a sufficient body of expertise. From my own experience, magistrates quickly develop an expertise, for instance in road traffic offences. In some circumstances, magistrates get specific training to deal with, say, children's issues, young offenders or licensing issues. When appeals are such a rarity, there is frankly nobody on the bench who is going to have the expertise to deal with the issues consistently. I think that the case, against my normal instincts, has been made.

As I indicated, there has only been one remediation notice appeal to the courts and none to the Secretary of State. As authorities progressively identify sites needing action—the emphasis on the use of brownfield sites may assist the process—there may be more appeals. However, they are still likely to be infrequent. Part 2A of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 is designed to encourage remediation through agreement and negotiation—a strong point in its favour—without needing formally to enforce action. Of 70 cases of contaminated land identified up to October 2004, only three required a remediation notice; 25 instead resulted in a remediation statement setting out the agreed approach.

Mark Simmonds (Conservative, Boston and Skegness)

The Minister mentioned a couple of times that he anticipates an increase in the number of appeals once this clause is operable. Has the Department assessed how many appeals there might be? Has there been any discussion of increased resource allocation? The Minister is right to insist that speed is important, so that such land is not blighted.

Alun Michael (Labour/Co-operative, Cardiff South and Penarth)

The hon. Gentleman is wrong in one aspect. I am suggesting not that the clause will result in an increase in the number of cases or appeals, but that the increased pressure on local authorities to use brownfield sites may lead to more concerns about the need for remediation and therefore orders and appeals. That may not even happen. The one case may continue to be the unique experience, but I am sure that all members of the Committee agree that sites that have been used for other purposes in the past should be recycled, rather than new land being taken up. I was referring to that pressure as possibly leading to a minimal increase in appeals, but we are convinced—obviously, this has been discussed with the inspectorate—that the capacity and the will exists to deal with appeals as quickly as possible.

I hope that it is not necessary for me to go through the details of the one case that went to appeal, because it can hardly be regarded as typical when it is unique. With that explanation, I hope that the Committee will be happy to allow the clause to stand part of the Bill.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I heard with great interest what the Minister said. My hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness highlighted a significant factor, which I referred to in my introductory remarks on the clause. We are told on page 69 of the Department's regulatory impact assessment that there will be a cost transfer from magistrates courts to the relevant Department. However, the Minister has not informed us of what the costs will be—whether they will be significant—or of how long it will take to hear a case.

Alun Michael (Labour/Co-operative, Cardiff South and Penarth)

The hon. Lady might like some information on the complexity of the site that was subject to an appeal, but I shall write to her, rather than running through it now. The case was about remediation in relation to the production of gases and so on, and it shows the highly technical nature of a situation in which a dispute is likely to arise.

The transfer of resources will be minimal. That is normally dealt with by technical experts in the two Departments affected. As far as I am aware, there is no controversy over ensuring that a transfer is achieved.

I share the hon. Lady's view that we should seek a brisker approach to decision making on the part of the inspectorate. Indeed, the Government and the inspectorate have sought to improve matters. As I said at the beginning, my instinct is to leave things to the magistrate, but it is not sensible to leave the current set of circumstances in place. Consistency, so that both regulators—the local authority and the Environment Agency—are dealt with in the same way, is the best way forward.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 104 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 105 - Offences relating to pollution etc: penalties on conviction

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I want to query the basis for the change in this regard. When will the provisions of the Pollution Prevention and Control Act 1999 come into effect in full? Are they in application now, or are they due to come into effect at a later date? We would prefer most of the provisions to have been agreed in the Bill rather than for regulations to be made ''under section 2''.

On the annotated version of the 1999 Act, the House of Lords Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation recorded its view. It said that

''the Committee would not wish this bill to be regarded as a precedent for the future. It remains important that the purposes and ambit of legislation, together with any important governing criteria, should be clearly specified within the primary legislation and not simply left to the exercise of delegated powers.''

How narrow will the regulations be drafted under subsection (1)? When will the provisions of the 1999 Act come into effect in full? Am I right in understanding that the maximum fine will be increased from £20,000 to £50,000? Is that also admitting for a first offence, where it might be less? Will there be a scale? How does the Minister imagine subsection (1)(b) will be interpreted?

Alun Michael (Labour/Co-operative, Cardiff South and Penarth)

The provisions are already in force; the Pollution Prevention and Control (England and Wales) Regulations 2000 have been agreed by the processes of the House.

I am not certain that I correctly understand the hon. Lady's point. The reference to regulations is a reference to the Pollution Prevention and Control Act 1999 and makes it clear to which provisions the increase of penalties applies and does not apply. I think that that is straightforward, but if I have misunderstood and there is a more complicated technical point to which she seeks an answer, I will be happy to follow it up with her after the sitting.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 105 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 106 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 4 - Minor and consequential amendments

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I seek guidance from the Minister about how the provisions relating to the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003, specifically those on graffiti and fly-posting, will be interpreted.

It might be opportune to inform the Committee that it would appear that the Liberal Democrats are in favour of fly-posting and do not wish such posters to be removed. According to a ''Focus'' leaflet that was recently circulated in Romsey, they think it is terrible that fly-posters that are illegally advertising charitable events should be torn down. It said:

''All of these would be torn down''.

It invites support and seems to be a classic case of the Liberal Democrats saying one thing in one part of the country and something different in another.

Sue Doughty (Liberal Democrat, Guildford)

I find it slightly rich that those on the Conservative Benches, where there is opposition to the whole Bill, feel able to make any comment about those who support it.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

It gets better, because I can quote from the ''Focus'' leaflet. It said:

''We know that strictly speaking it is illegal, but we believe that most signs are temporary and do not obstruct the pavement or highway and provide a valuable community service. Tell us what you think, send back the slip.''

That brought a rare smile to the Minister's face. We will pursue the matter.

Sue Doughty (Liberal Democrat, Guildford)

The hon. Lady has dealt with the issue by saying that the leaflet was inviting opinion. It said:

''Tell us what you think''.

It did not say, ''Do it right or wrong''. It invited opinion and, coming from a party that likes to consult people, I think that that is a reasonable question.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

Order. I am now going to tell the Committee what I think, and that is that we should move on briskly to consider schedule 4.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

A rare moment of agreement between the Government and the official Opposition has occurred.

Might I draw the Minister's attention to concerns that were raised, particularly by Network Rail, about the Government's guidance on the Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003 with regard to fly posting and graffiti? It was clear and was welcomed by both parties. Network Rail is particularly concerned that that guidance, with the amendments that the Minister is seeking to introduce in paragraphs 12 to 19 of schedule 4 and the regulations that were referred to in other parts of the Bill, might detract from the very clear guidance that has been given in other regards. It affects not only Network Rail; we have had representations from London Underground, Metronet and other transport operators.

Paragraph 14 states that a fixed penalty will apply. As was mentioned earlier, graffiti is often no sooner removed than it is replaced. It is an ongoing activity that all transport operators take extremely seriously. I am sure that it does not apply to trains alone; buses in London and other urban centres can have great difficulties as well. Will the Minister take the opportunity to explain how the guidance issued under the 2003 Act sits, and will he confirm that this schedule will not contradict it?

Can the Minister clarify how he expects new subsection (4A) inserted by paragraph 3, which concerns the imposition on waste disposal authorities of a duty to make payments, to operate? What burdens will it place on the waste disposal authorities and what representation and expressions of concern has he received from those authorities in that regard?

Paragraph 4 refers to a waste disposal contractor. The Minister will be aware that there have been successful moves, particularly by unitary authorities such as City of York, but also jointly, for example with Yorkshire county council, to contract out to a waste disposal company. Those arrangements are not uniform across the country. There are provisions in the Bill that would make it impossible to contract out to tender—I think that the Government wish to keep that within local authority control. I hope that, where there have been positive developments, the Government will not seek to eradicate them. They have been to the benefit of taxpayers as well as of local authorities. With these short remarks, I invite the Minister to clarify the issue.

Alun Michael (Labour/Co-operative, Cardiff South and Penarth)

May I make something clear? The hon. Lady seemed take comfort in my quiet smile of appreciation as I listened to the exchanges between her and the hon. Member for Guildford as though my smile somehow indicated agreement between Government and Opposition. It was more a result of my observation of the private grief between the Opposition parties. It was also a result of my amusement, because it is clear that both hon. Ladies and, indeed, their parties should be paid-up members of opportunists anonymous.

The hon. Lady made a series of detailed points, which relate back to the clauses and to the principles that we have sought to apply. For instance, on the removal of the obligation to contract out local authority services, we are seeking to remove a specific requirement so that authorities can achieve best value. We are seeking a more flexible arrangement that allows them to target their activities and ensure that they get the best value from their council tax payers' money. The consequentials do not take us back to that principle, which is very clear and which I outlined when we dealt with the earlier clauses.

Essentially, as the heading suggests, these are minor and consequential amendments; they do not raise points of principle. Their purpose is to ensure that legislation is consistent and that any changes that the Bill introduces are consistent with the generality of the law. I do not believe that there is a problem with the guidance under the Anti-Social Behaviour Act, but I shall certainly look at the issue in the light of the hon. Lady's comments—especially if she wants to raise specific points, rather than make a general plea that we achieve consistency, which we would, of course, seek to do.

On the hon. Lady's point about graffiti, there is always a problem where there is an inclination for the activity to be repeated as soon as cleaning has taken place. Again, however, the broken windows theory applies: quick action to deal with the nuisance and protect the environment helps to eradicate the activity and reduce the likelihood of it being repeated. However, it is also important to have proper penalties in place. In that way, there will be both a carrot and a stick—environmental improvement and, where appropriate, prosecution and punishment.

These are minor and consequential amendments, which play their role in implementing the principles that we debated at length in relation to what I might call the parent clauses.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

It may help if I write to the Minister on the issue, because it is quite substantial. I have pages and pages from, among others, Network Rail, which believes that the costs and the time involved in implementing the schedule and the earlier provisions will be substantial.

Alun Michael (Labour/Co-operative, Cardiff South and Penarth)

I would be happy to have some bedtime reading of the sort that the hon. Lady describes and to respond to her after the Committee if that would help.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

It would be very beneficial if I could take up the Minister's kind offer, although I do not want to come between him and his sleep. That shows that he has been listening and is aware of these concerns. If I write to him in detail and he feels that something merits consideration on Report, perhaps the Government, rather than the Opposition, could introduce a proposal.

Alun Michael (Labour/Co-operative, Cardiff South and Penarth)

Obviously, I could not commit myself without having seen the points that the hon. Lady wants to raise, but I shall certainly take seriously anything that she sends to me.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I hear what the Minister says, and I shall take up his kind offer.

Question put and agreed to.

Schedule 4 agreed to.

Clause 107 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 5 - Repeals

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

This is a small point, but I notice from page 94 that the whole of the Dogs (Fouling of Land) Act 1996, and substantial sections of the Dogs Act 1906, the Dogs (Amendment) Act 1928 and the Local Government Act 1988 are to be repealed. I should be interested to know what discussions the Minister has had recently with the groups representing the interests of dogs and dog wardens to discuss the proposals to repeal the provisions. Those groups raised concerns about the extent of the repeals and would have appreciated having the Minister's ear at the earliest opportunity. Has he had a meeting with those groups, particularly the National Dog Warden Association, between the consultation paper being published and the Bill coming into Committee?

Alun Michael (Labour/Co-operative, Cardiff South and Penarth)

I had a very satisfactory meeting with the Kennel Club and the Dogs Trust, which covered those considerations, to which I referred in Committee when we considered the relevant clauses of the Bill. I am not sure what point the hon. Lady is making. One or two other organisations have written in subsequently, probably as a result of publication of the views expressed to Members of Parliament by the Kennel Club and the Dogs Trust. I have written to a few organisations giving them similar advice and assurances. As I said, we were able to respond positively to all the points raised by the Kennel Club and the Dogs Trust, which will be dealt with in regulations and guidance rather than in the Bill.

We will come shortly to the one outstanding issue that those organisations were concerned about: the transfer of resources in order to transfer the arrangements and responsibilities between the police and the local authority

I also referred in an earlier sitting to the only other meeting I have had: a discussion at the margins of a meeting about policing in Cardiff about how the police deal with stray animals, with particular reference to some of the complications that arise for the police in satisfying the present requirements, which reinforce the sense of the changes we propose. I hope that my reply is sufficiently detailed for the hon. Lady.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

It is, indeed, helpful. The record will show that, regrettably, the Minister was not able to meet the National Dog Warden Association.

Alun Michael (Labour/Co-operative, Cardiff South and Penarth)

I am not in the habit of meeting organisations that have not asked for a meeting unless there are clearly concerns such as those that arose on the matter we discussed earlier and were put in writing by the Football Association. I have had no request for a meeting from the National Dog Warden Association.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

My point is that the repeals of existing Acts under parts 5 and 6 are substantial and transfer not just resources but responsibilities from the police. The National Dog Warden Association will be charged with policing stray dogs following the repeals. The Minister might look favourably on a request to meet representatives of that association before Report.

Question put and agreed to.

Schedule 5 agreed to.

Clause 108 - Commencement

Alun Michael (Labour/Co-operative, Cardiff South and Penarth)

I beg to move amendment No. 120, in clause 108, page 78, line 43, at end insert—

'(da) section 68 and Part 6 of Schedule 5;'.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 121, in clause 108, page 79, leave out line 22.

Alun Michael (Labour/Co-operative, Cardiff South and Penarth)

I referred to the amendments a few minutes ago because they change the proposed commencement arrangements for clause 68 on stray dogs. Instead of coming into force two months after the adoption of the Bill, it will be commenced by order of the Secretary of State. The reason for the change is very simple: it is the assurance that I gave to the Committee.

When we discussed clause 68, I gave an assurance that sole responsibility for stray dogs would not be transferred to local authorities without an appropriate transfer of resources. I also indicated that discussions on the amount to be transferred are in progress. Although I do not expect there to be any problems or delays, it would be wise to cater for the remote possibility that they might occur. The amendments would enable us to ensure that local authorities do not take on sole responsibility for stray dogs until the necessary funding has been transferred. Commencement will be by order of the Secretary of State, rather than the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales, because responsibility for police matters has not been devolved. In this case, the Secretary of State is the correct designation. I need not delay the Committee any longer. As the amendment delivers the assurance that I gave, I am sure that it will be commended on all sides.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

May I commend the Minister's openness and helpfulness? He gave the Committee an assurance, and responded to our real concerns that the transfer of resources would not take place. He was good enough to tell us that the discussions were ongoing. When he moved the amendments, I understood him to say that police matters had not been devolved. Can he clarify whether he means that they have not been devolved as of today, or that they are not being devolved under the provisions of the Bill?

Alun Michael (Labour/Co-operative, Cardiff South and Penarth)

Police responsibilities are not being devolved. There are local authority responsibilities that lie with the Secretary of State in England, or with the National Assembly for Wales, and police responsibilities have not been devolved. That is why the commencement powers lie with the Secretary of State—in this case, the Home Secretary.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

That is very helpful. Without pressing him too far on the point, which is obviously pertinent to clause 109, can the Minister give an indication of what he thinks the pertinent start date under clause 68 will be? When does he believe that the Secretary of State will be able to bring forward orders in that regard?

Alun Michael (Labour/Co-operative, Cardiff South and Penarth)

Very simply, those are conversations between two Departments—the Home Office and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister—to which I am not party. However, everybody agrees about the principle of transferring the responsibilities and therefore the resources. I do not expect a long delay. Perhaps the amendment that I moved this morning was not necessary, but it merely makes it certain that the undertaking that I gave earlier would apply, and that, if there were any delay, the provision would not automatically be enforced before the resources were available.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 121, in clause 108, page 79, leave out line 22.—[Mr. Michael.]

Clause 108, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 109 - Money

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

The Minister referred to clause 68 and its transfer of resources. Throughout the Bill, there have been significant transfers of responsibility—albeit discretionary in most cases—raising real concerns about how local authorities and the Environment Agency, as appropriate, will be asked to implement their discretionary responsibilities under the Bill. We heard that the hypothecation—for want of a better term—of fixed penalty notices will help to defray some of the costs. We also know that this year, and presumably in subsequent years, if there were no change of Government at the general election, the Government would continue to impose a 5 per cent. cap on any increase in local authority council tax charges in any one year.

Without going through them significantly, there are going to be substantial costs under each part of the provision. We heard from the Home Office at departmental questions yesterday that there is a minimum 30 per cent. non-payment rate of fixed penalty notices.

There is a raft of new offences to which fixed penalty notices will apply: free literature, nuisance vehicles, noisy licensed premises, nomination of a key-holder to deal with audible intruder alarms and interfering notices. Penalty notices will be increased for some existing offences: abandoned vehicles, street litter control notices, the duty of care in relation to waste disposal, waste left out in the street and dog control offences. According to the Government's own projections, if 50 per cent. of fixed penalty notices were paid—if the name and address was given and they were paid on time—nationally it would yield £3,248,750.

For the first year or two, that is quite a high return, but it does not take into account the cost of the planning inspectors whom the Department will have to employ and the training of officials to hand out fixed penalty notices and inform the public. I therefore have severe doubts about approving clause 109: the Government's sums do not add up. These tremendously costly provisions will hugely increase the burden on resources if each and every one of the responsibilities—albeit discretionary—provided under each part of the Bill are to be paid for.

I do not believe that local authorities—Westminster city council at the top end or Hamilton district council or rural parish councils at the bottom end—will be in a position to apply the Bill's provisions. I therefore want to be satisfied that this money provision will allow for a transfer of resources not just for stray dogs but for the vexed question of abandoned vehicles.

A debate on hazardous waste will be held tomorrow in Westminster Hall that I am sure Committee members will wish to attend. Local authorities and the Environment Agency are being asked to apply a raft of EU directives independently of the Bill. With the greatest will in the world, I do not believe that local authorities will be able to meet the discretionary responsibilities in the Bill.

Alun Michael (Labour/Co-operative, Cardiff South and Penarth)

We all knew before the hon. Lady made that curious speech that the Conservatives are against cleaning up the local environment and that they do not care what happens in rural areas. They do not even seem to know that several of the issues with which the Bill deals are of great concern in rural areas. I promise the hon. Lady that at every opportunity we will hang the Conservatives' reasoned amendment around the neck of her and her candidates in every part of the country.

The clause refers specifically to money needed to deal with the provisions of the Bill. The hon. Lady does not seem to have addressed the question of what she thinks should be substituted for the clause. Does she think that expenditure incurred by the Secretary of State under the Bill should be plucked out of thin air? Does she think that increases attributable to the Bill in the sums payable should not come out of

''money so provided under any other Act''?

Frankly, the hon. Lady makes a fool of herself by the attempt to turn this simple clause dealing with expenditure into a platform for an attack on the principles of the Bill itself. The Bill arises out of extensive consultation and has considerable support from local authorities across the country. It is clear why it has their support: in the long run it will save money, reduce bureaucracy and help local authorities to be more effective. It will help them and us to deliver the improved neighbourhoods that we all want to see in our constituencies.

The hon. Lady again refers to Westminster city council, which seems to be the only source of local government information available to her. It is a rather curious choice since, judging by the correspondence, Westminster city council does not seem to be terribly concerned about any of the provisions, other than those on chewing gum, which it has misunderstood. I counsel her against accepting advice from the only quarter that seems to be available to her.

I believe that town and parish councils are able to judge whether to use the provisions that enable them to improve the quality of the environment in their local area. Let us trust parish and town councils to work in co-operation with the principal authorities to implement the Bill's intentions: ensure that people can safely and securely enjoy cleaner, safer and greener neighbourhoods.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

The Minister is on weak ground. We have identified two areas—there are others—on which there has been insufficient or no consultation: the National Dog Warden Association and sports facilities. We have established that the dog interest groups were invited only when the Bill was in Committee.

Alun Michael (Labour/Co-operative, Cardiff South and Penarth)

I invited them because it was clear when they wrote to MPs that they were under a considerable misapprehension about the terms of the Bill and its implications. I have reported on generously meeting the groups to remove those misapprehensions, so it is rather odd of the hon. Lady to say that I have not met everybody with whom—it is a limited group—she seems to have had some contact.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

Order. I do not think that we should revisit the issue of consultation—on whatever matter. We are discussing clause 109 stand part. The clause is specifically about money and the payment of money provided by Parliament.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

It is clear that no money will be provided by Parliament to enable the provisions of the Bill to be met. The Minister says that there were various misapprehensions. That was because there was no explanation of what the provisions would be. I yield to no one in our desire to want to clean up the environment. We have consistently been doing that. The Conservative record speaks for itself—18 years in government. It was Mrs. Thatcher who first established that we were only custodians of the environment for future generations. It was the Conservative party that introduced the flagship Environmental Protection Act 1990, which this Government continue to tinker with.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

Order. I, in turn, yield to nobody in my admiration for Lady Thatcher, but I do not think that she should play any part in this Committee's deliberations—at least not today.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I am also a huge admirer of what town and parish councils seek to achieve. They have onerous responsibilities, which this Government have imposed upon them. Indeed, my own parish council in the Vale of York has resigned en masse as a result, and I believe it is going to be placed in a very difficult situation. The Minister says that we should trust local authorities' judgment in implementing the Bill. Without the resources being made available by Parliament or transferred from other bodies as appropriate, they will simply be unable to do so.

We stand by our reasoned amendment, and will take every opportunity to waft it in the face of our parliamentary opponents at the forthcoming election, which may come sooner than we think. We shall be prepared for it.

Alun Michael (Labour/Co-operative, Cardiff South and Penarth)

I am not sure that I need a long response to that fresh Second Reading contribution, as the hon. Lady tries to rescue herself from her comments denigrating parish and town councils. I do need, however, to rebut the generality of her remarks.

The previous Conservative Government had an awful record on local government, and on giving local government the capacity to do its job. Many of us saw the suffering created at a local level by that Government. I am not going to make any comment about Mrs. Thatcher. I simply do not share the views either of the hon. Lady or any other member of this Committee who holds Mrs. Thatcher in such high regard. To each his or her views. The fact is that this good Bill will enable local authorities to work efficiently and effectively in partnership with central and local government—a partnership that we have been at pains to reconstruct after the damage of the locust years to which the hon. Lady referred.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 109 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 110 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 111 - Short title

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I beg to move amendment No.1, in clause 111, page 80, line 3, leave out 'Clean Neighbourhoods and' and insert 'Cleaner and Safer'.

Many of us on this side of the Committee, and on other Benches in other quarters, represent areas where one could not point to a specific neighbourhood. That is reflected, in the crime protection field, for example, in the fact that we do not have just neighbourhood watches but farm watches as well. There are many rural areas where it is quite difficult to talk about neighbourhoods as such. In some parts of the Bill, the emphasis is perhaps too much on urban problems and does not sufficiently look at issues such as abandoned vehicles. These vehicles are not just left in residential areas—which can intensely irritating to the residents—but can be dumped in rural areas, quite illegally and without the knowledge or permission of the landowner or farmer.

In this probing amendment, I seek an assurance from the Minister that it is not his intention to have a partial bias, throughout the main thrust of the provisions of this Bill, on urban areas—as the ''clean neighbourhoods'' title could suggest. ''Cleaner and Safer Neighbourhoods and Environment Bill'' is a step in the right direction, but perhaps the neatest of all would be the short, catchy title of the environment Bill. The Minister will be aware, however, through comments we have consistently made both on Second Reading and on closer scrutiny in Committee, that we are aware that there are particular problems with the farming community. We considered, for example, the situation of artificial lighting very briefly, and any malicious charges that could be made against farmers in that regard. We would like there to be a more comprehensive and joined-up approach in the Bill that recognises that the countryside is part of the wider environment and that farmers, landowners and country dwellers are custodians and should not be unnecessarily hounded by the Government.

We want some background on why the term ''clean neighbourhoods'' features so strategically and prominently in the title, as it did throughout the consultation process. I represent a more deeply rural area. One hesitates to mention the hunt, but in case that is an indication of how rural an area is, I point out that the Vale of York enjoys nine separate hunts on its terrain. As I mentioned, we have neighbourhood watches. We also have a network of farm watches with which the police and other antisocial behaviour partners try to tackle antisocial behaviour. Farmers and landowners will, we believe, remain victims of many of the practices that the Bill seeks to address.

Paddy Tipping (Labour, Sherwood)

Does the hon. Lady share my recollection that both the National Farmers Union and the Country Land and Business Association support the Bill?

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

They support parts of the Bill, but they have written extensively to us to express their real concerns about other parts of it. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has received a briefing, although perhaps not with quite so much detail as our one, that will guide him on that. Given his background and concern for the countryside, I am sure that he will share my hesitation in condoning something as limited as clean neighbourhoods, in recognition of the fact that, in many parts of my constituency, it is impossible to point to a neighbourhood as such, because there is only one house or hamlet. I welcome his comments.

I hope that the Minister will understand why we would have preferred greater recognition of the particular problems of antisocial behaviour in the countryside. We fear that those problems will be compounded by provisions coming through in other Bills, such as those allowing later licensing for drinks. We are reliably informed that the local police are concerned that antisocial behaviour may move later into the night in market towns and that, therefore, when antisocial behaviour occurs in the middle of the night in deeply rural areas that will not be classified as neighbourhoods, the police will be unable to visit and detain.

Alun Michael (Labour/Co-operative, Cardiff South and Penarth)

When I first saw the amendment, I thought with some delight that the Conservative party had finally woken up and was trying to recognise the Government slogan ''cleaner, safer, greener'', with which we want to create a decent environment for everybody in every part of the country. It is a pity that the hon. Lady left greener out, or she would have been trying to write the whole of our excellent, cross-departmental campaigning slogan into the title of the Bill. She might then have had problems with the House authorities, because the short title of a Bill must meet certain requirements. It does not reflect the contents of a Bill as a whole but must give an accurate indication of what the Bill is about. The long title is the description of the contents of a Bill as a whole.

However, the amendment was not about that. It was an attempt by the hon. Member for Vale of York to redeem herself for the crass mistake that was made in the reasoned amendment on Second Reading, when the Conservative party appeared not to understand that the provisions of the Bill apply to rural communities and have been considered by the Government in regard to rural communities as much as to urban communities. She would have been better off simply apologising to those who live in rural areas. Despite the fact that she represents a very rural constituency, she does not seem to know this, so perhaps I ought to break it to her that rural areas do have neighbourhoods. There are many small towns with neighbourhoods in them. There are about 8,700 villages in England. If one takes into account the community council areas in Wales, the number increases to about 10,000. Some of them cover more than one neighbourhood, so the numbers in rural areas are considerable.

The hon. Member for Vale of York should accept that this Government have recognised the needs of rural people consistently, carefully and in partnership with them in recent years. The rural White Paper in 2000 set out a programme for partnership with rural communities. A tremendous amount of work has also been done since the establishment of the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. During the foot and mouth outbreak, for example, we enabled rural communities to recover from the impact of the disease, which affected not only farmers but, in many cases, the whole community. In the light of the announcement made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in July, we are transforming the landscape of support: we are devolving responsibility for finance to the regional development agencies, and integrating the way in which we approach the needs of the countryside such as biodiversity, the landscape and access.

In that context, there is every indication of a vibrant rural economy, and of satisfaction with services that is very often greater than satisfaction with services provided in urban communities, which shows the effectiveness of the 180 Labour MPs who represent rural and semi-rural constituencies.

The hon. Lady referred in passing to farm watch, which is an approach that I promoted as a Home Office Minister but is not relevant to the Bill. The neighbourhood watch approach and more specialised approaches such as farm watch are particularly appropriate in rural areas. The Bill sets out a partnership approach between the local authority and the police, which includes within its ambit the way in which we deal with problems in local neighbourhoods, such as graffiti, fly-tipping, fly-posting and litter, and will be an effective measure for ensuring that we make progress on providing cleaner and safer neighbourhoods.

The hon. Lady's preferred title of the environment Bill, if it had passed the requirements of the House, would have been too wide and too general. People might have expected the Bill to deal with issues that fall way outside the ambit of its long title. They might have asked why it did not deal, for example, with global warming. The answer is that we believe that the priority should be to reflect what we hear from our constituents. Indeed, that was what was reflected in the 18 speeches by Labour Back Benchers on Second Reading, but not in the two rather pathetic speeches that were made from the Conservative Back Benches. In fairness, I should say that the Liberal Democrats scored nil in the number of speeches that they made from their Back Benches.

As I said, we reflected the concerns that affect people's everyday lives in their neighbourhoods and communities. That is why the Bill's short title is the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Bill. It does, of course, include other items to which the long title refers. I do not believe that there has ever been a short title that completely reflected all the contents, unless it was a very short Bill. Certainly most complex Bills have a short title that is not perfect but which gives some indication of what the Bill is about. This Bill is about creating clean neighbourhoods. When I described clause 1, I said that achieving a clean neighbourhood contributes to creating a safer one. I have passionately believed that for many years, and I am delighted that the Government have supported the measures in the Bill to enable that comprehensive approach to the problems of local communities.

I reject the hon. Lady's amendment. I am flattered that she has chosen an approach outlined by the Government so that she could select a couple of words for the amendment, but the title that we have given the Bill is appropriate, and it should stand.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I hope that the Minister is not too flattered. It was rather by default that I was not able to use the wording that I wished.

I wish to tease out one more point from the Minister. He may recall the law of unintended consequences in relation to the first Bill I scrutinised as a Back Bencher, the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000. The provisions that were drafted on common land, about which I have had informal discussions with the Minister, have led to enormous good news for the landowner, but bad news for people who thought that they could legally park their cars on common land. Those people now face a substantial bill from landowners, who had not realised that the provision existed to allow them to charge for access to their land.

Since the last election, the farming community in the Vale of York has been decimated. The Government have presided over its greatest demise, in the sense that foot and mouth disease came late to the Vale of York, after the general election, leading to substantial hardship. A number of farmers are now going out of animal production. The Minister will not get the surprise or the welcome he expects. He thinks he will go to the country in the general election on a platform of championing the countryside. His party has presided over the greatest collapse in farm incomes.

Sue Doughty (Liberal Democrat, Guildford)

On a point of order, Mr. Forth. Are we listening to an election speech? There are a lot of clauses to get through and a considerable amount of time seems to have been wasted. Many of us want to deal with important clauses, yet it would appear that the time of the Committee is being taken up by election speeches.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

I appreciate the assistance that the hon. Lady seeks to give. I am keeping a close eye on what is being said on both sides, and I now expect the hon. Member for Vale of York to conclude her remarks.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I was simply responding to the rather fulsome remarks made by the Minister. I draw his attention to the fact that the charge against him in our reasoned amendment on Second Reading was that the Bill and the whole consultation—in so far as there was a full consultation, with which I further take issue—focused predominantly on urban issues while neglecting rural areas. That is a theme to which we shall have ample opportunity to return.

I hear what the Minister says about neighbourhoods, and it was not our intention to have a lengthy debate on what constitutes a neighbourhood. I pay tribute to the work of farm watches and of farmers in general in combating antisocial behaviour throughout the country. The amendment was intended as a probing one, and nothing more than that. I heard what was said with great interest, as will many in the farming community and rural areas throughout the country. It is not my intention to press the matter to a vote and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 111 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause 1 - Illegal deposit or disposal of waste (power of arrest)

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

This new clause is perhaps one of the clauses to which the hon. Member for Guildford referred in her remarks a moment ago. If the Government are serious about many of the provisions in the Bill, they must include the power of citizen's arrest by officials from local authorities, particularly the Environment Agency. We saw in earlier provisions that there will be a power to seize a vehicle that is used to perpetrate offences under the Bill, such as the dumping of waste or of large deposits. We want to take that one stage further. Although it is deemed appropriate to take the vehicle off the road and seize it so that that vehicle cannot be used to perpetrate such offences in the future, that would be a very hollow means of dealing with this particularly regrettable and growing form of environmental crime. We know that it is growing: we have the end-of-life directive, there is the fact that hazardous and non-hazardous waste cannot now be co-disposed, and we know that, as of today, there are insufficient sites licensed to take hazardous waste. We have seen a growing mountain of fridges and fridge-freezers under the waste electrical and electronic equipment directive—or the WEEE directive, as it is abbreviated,. We have seen other white goods, such as microwaves and television sets, increasingly being dumped—again, on privately owned land in country areas.

We believe that it is simply insufficient to remove or seize the vehicle. We would like to empower environmental health officers from local authorities, or indeed environmental officers, to make a citizen's arrest in that regard. It would thus be an arrestable offence of fly-tipping. Without the provisions in our new clause 1, the Bill will simply not have any teeth. We believe that it is quite appropriate that a person authorised by the Environment Agency can exercise the powers, specified under the Environment Act 1995, that they

''shall have like powers to those of a constable to arrest any person depositing or disposing of waste in contravention of subsection (1)''.

I would also hope that that power would be available either if the person were caught in the act or perhaps caught on camera. If it could be shown physically that it was that person, that could be taken as proof. We believe it is the most positive contribution that the Bill could make and would give it real teeth.

I hope that the Minister will look favourably on our new clause. We believe the present arrangements are unsatisfactory: I have had regular meetings with ENCAMS in my own region and with the Environment Agency. We have made representations and had positive and sympathetic replies from ENCAMS and the Environment Agency nationally. Our conclusion is that the provision is completely insufficient, as the Bill stands, to seize only the vehicle. The perpetrator or perpetrators of these environmental offences must be seized.

Alun Michael (Labour/Co-operative, Cardiff South and Penarth)

Has the hon. Lady not spotted that the offences have already been made arrestable under the Bill?

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

My understanding, although I hear what the Minister says, is that an officer of the Environment Agency or, indeed, an environmental health officer is not entitled to make the arrest. Therefore, the Minister is missing the point. We believe that it is those people—those who can be described as persons authorised under the Act in our new clause—who are being asked to apply the provisions of the Bill up and down the country. Therefore I ask the Minister to grasp our point: if we are asking environmental health officers—or, more appropriately, officers of the Environment Agency—to police the Bill, we must give them the powers. They must be able not only to seize the vehicle, but to arrest and apprehend the person who is fly-tipping. That is the only way to stop that very crude development in its tracks.

Sue Doughty (Liberal Democrat, Guildford)

On the face of it, one might have quite a bit of sympathy with the new clause. We share concerns about increasing fly-tipping as a result of the end of co-disposal of hazardous waste and the impact of the various Acts. Although we do not disagree with the reasons behind these Acts, we have concerns about the availability of places to take such waste. Earlier, we raised concerns that there is already insufficient funding going into the Environment Agency for detection of such crimes or for securing convictions.

We spoke to the Environment Agency to get its views about the clause, because on the face of it we had some sympathy with it. We asked the agency how it would feel about having the powers of arrest in those circumstances and it did not agree with the proposal. The crimes in question are serious, with a lot of money at stake, and not the sort of thing that a non-uniformed Environment Agency officer would want to walk in on. The agency told us that it would be more appropriate for uniformed police to deal with such serious criminals. On that basis, we cannot support the new clause.

Alun Michael (Labour/Co-operative, Cardiff South and Penarth)

I am grateful for the comments of the hon. Member for Guildford, which acted as a clear rebuttal of the new clause, which has been tabled without sensible thought as to the consequences.

The first part of the new clause seeks to make the offence of illegal waste disposal arrestable. That is unnecessary because it is already achieved elsewhere in the Bill. Clause 41 introduces a new maximum penalty of imprisonment for up to five years for illegal waste disposal, which will therefore become an arrestable offence under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.

The second part of the new clause seeks to give an Environment Agency officer the same powers of arrest for illegal waste disposal as those of a constable. I agree with the hon. Member for Guildford that it is neither appropriate nor necessary for the Environment Agency to be given such powers. I can confirm that the Environment Agency does not want its officers to have that power. The agency has natural concerns over the personal safety of its officers, who are not trained or equipped to arrest people, especially those who might resist an arrest, and it does not have any facilities to detain those who are arrested. Those are important practical considerations that militate against the proposal.

Even worse is the opportunism behind the new clause, which totally contradicts the remarks that the hon. Member for Vale of York has made in this Committee. When we discussed crime reduction partnerships, she said that

''residual authority should remain with the police. I would prefer them to be uniformed police. The Minister must accept that, although a large number of community support officers have been appointed, they do not have the same qualifications, training and powers of arrest as fully qualified and licensed police officers.''—[Official Report, Standing Committee G, 18 January 2004; c. 11.]

Well, on this occasion I agree with what the hon. Lady said then, although I do not agree that it was appropriate to the clause that she was addressing at the time.

Does the hon. Lady not understand the mass of inconsistencies in what she is saying? Her remarks are certainly true when applied to Environment Agency officers, although not in relation to minor offences, but to serious ones. It is even more important that we ensure that the most appropriate body has powers of arrest for fly-tipping, which in this case is the police, who are fully trained in arrest and dealing with any potential complications. We know the complications that can arise, very often in rural areas—we are talking about an urban and rural issue—when circumstances are identified and there is a need to nip things in the bud.

The Environment Agency and local authorities can request police assistance at any time—in my experience they work well in action—and, in the vast majority of cases, they have no difficulties in receiving police support when it is needed. I hope very much that the hon. Lady will withdraw the new clause.

Debate adjourned.—[Peter Bradley.]

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

Standing Committee G

New Clause 1 - Illegal deposit or disposal of waste(power of arrest)

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

May I welcome you, Mr. Forth, and the rest of the Committee back to our proceedings?

I listened carefully to what the Minister was saying, and I must say that he lost me at one point. He said that he was agreeing with me, but on a different point to the one on which I wished him to agree, and he disagreed with me when I wished him to agree.

I hope that the Committee has followed the arguments that we crafted on the new clause. I do not accept that the Minister's argument on clause 33 that making the offence subject to a maximum penalty of imprisonment for up to five years is sufficient to deal with our arguments. The whole point is that a police officer would have to effect the arrest.

We listened carefully to submissions from local authorities and the Environment Agency, and I believe that they would be empowered and that the provisions of the Bill would be strengthened if their officers were authorised to make even a citizen's arrest when appropriate. However, I am mindful of the fact that we have discussed that, and that the Minister has, at least in some regard, recognised our concerns.

Alun Michael (Labour/Co-operative, Cardiff South and Penarth)

I do not quite understand the hon. Lady's point about the citizen's arrest, because that does not require special legislation to authorise arrest by specific officers of an organisation. As I said earlier, the Environment Agency has advised against giving those powers.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I hear what the Minister says. We understood the reverse from the Environment Agency; we understood that it argued for the powers and that it thought that it was not sufficient to make the illegal deposit or disposal of waste an arrestable offence.

The Minister did not respond on whether evidence taken by camera would be sufficient on some of the sites where we know for a fact that fly-tipping takes place. Will he be good enough to respond on that point? If no police officer was present at the time, would it be sufficient under clause 33, to which he referred, if there was clear evidence on camera associating that person with the offence?

Alun Michael (Labour/Co-operative, Cardiff South and Penarth)

First, may I respond on the dissonance between the hon. Lady's remarks here and elsewhere on the Bill? It seems rather odd to suggest, as she did earlier, that it is not appropriate for a trained officer of a local authority to undertake the giving of fixed penalty notices for very minor offences, but then to say that the power of arrest should be given to officers of the Environment Agency for what the hon. Member for Guildford (Sue Doughty) pointed out can be very serious and difficult circumstances. I do not think that that is appropriate.

On the point of evidence by camera, that would be dealt with by the normal rules on what evidence is admissible. I do not think that the issue is relevant to the new clause on the grounds that a camera cannot arrest anybody.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I was not suggesting for a moment that the camera would arrest anybody. My question is about what would happen if a police officer was not there to make the arrest, and the environment officer, under clause 33, is not deemed to be the appropriate person to make an arrest. If the person was arrested at a later stage, could camera evidence be used to convict the person of the offence?

Alun Michael (Labour/Co-operative, Cardiff South and Penarth)

Yes, I see the point that the hon. Lady is making, but it is a different point to that covered by the new clause. Clearly, if there was camera evidence in addition to the evidence of an official of the Environment Agency or any other witnesses, that would be relevant to how an offence might be prosecuted and to the need for police officers to arrest an individual. The evidence from a camera would be relevant, but I am struggling to understand how it relates to the new clause. However, such evidence could, of course, reinforce the ability of a professional witness, such as an employee of the Environment Agency, to provide evidence to the police for them to undertake an arrest or to the appropriate authorities for them to undertake a prosecution.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

The Minister has been extremely helpful. He will recall, and the record will prove it, that I queried specifically what training would be given. He said that a trained officer would be authorised to give fixed penalty notices. I referred to the concerns that were expressed by, among others, the Law Society of England, which said that the Bill did not show that sufficient training would be given. However, given the Minister's comments, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 3 - Fixed penalty notices: guidelines for local authorities and the police

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The new clause follows on from our previous discussions. It is a probing mechanism to elicit from the Minister the precise duties of police officers when carrying out their functions. When we discussed new clause 1, he referred to our debate about whether the officers should be uniformed. He rejected our proposal because he considered that only a police officer should have powers of arrest. New clause 3 explores, in the issuing of fixed penalty notices and guidelines to local authorities and the police, how far that relationship will be set out in the guidelines. To what extent does the Minister imagine that the police will maintain residual responsibility for the issuing of fixed penalty notices?

Obviously, the penalties in some cases in connection with fixed penalty notices are serious and carry significant fines if they are not met. We are mindful of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has said several times in Committee that discussions about the transfer of resources are ongoing. When there are shared responsibilities in connection with the powers conferred on local authorities under the Bill, will he specify to what extent the guidelines will be completely comprehensive when setting out the delineation of those shared responsibilities? It is extremely important that such matters are referred to in the Bill. I await his clarification.

Alun Michael (Labour/Co-operative, Cardiff South and Penarth)

I can be brief and give the assurance that the hon. Lady wants. We intend to consult all interested parties on the guidance that will be produced under the Bill. It is not necessary to legislate for such matters because that is the position. Indeed, I have already given that assurance in respect of specific clauses. It is worth pointing out that the Bill contains only limited new duties for local authorities and none for the police. In general, the type of work that will be undertaken is well understood and the guidance will reflect existing patterns.

The hon. Lady returned to shared responsibilities for dogs, which will change to responsibilities being put on the shoulders of the local authority. With the transfer of resources that will follow, that shift of responsibilities is currently under discussion. Otherwise, when there are powers for the police or local authorities to act, there will clearly be relevant circumstances. I am sure that members of the Committee will recall that parking fines, for example, have moved over time from being something that was only done by the police to being undertaken by other employees of police authorities and local authority employees. Over time that has become understood as the official way of dealing with that. However, often in such circumstances, if the legislation allows, a police officer can act. In other words, it generally does not take the time of a trained police officer to undertake such activity, but he or she can act if the circumstances warrant it, as they do from time to time.

As I have indicated, such matters will be dealt with. I invite the hon. Lady to withdraw the motion.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

Clearly, the purpose of tabling and debating new clause 3 was to say that we would prefer it, in all such instances, if the specific circumstances that would warrant a police officer acting were set out in the Bill.

The Government have had considerable time and have already consulted widely on this matter through the clean neighbourhoods and environment consultation. It is hugely disappointing and complacent that the Minister has seen fit to continue as he has done. We may wish to return to this matter later but, for the moment, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 6 - Charges for the collection of household waste

Paddy Tipping (Labour, Sherwood)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 9—Incentive schemes for collection of householder waste—

'(1) The Environmental Protection Act 1990 is amended as follows.

(2) For section 45, subsection (3), substitute—

''(3) No charge shall be made for the collection of household waste except in cases that are—

(a) prescribed in regulations made by the Secretary of State; and in any of those cases—

(i) the duty to arrange for the collection of the waste shall not arise until a person who controls the waste requests the authority to collect it; and

(ii) the authority may recover a reasonable charge for the collection of the waste from the person who made the request; or

(b) under the provision of subsection (3A) below.

(3A) The Secretary of State may authorise a waste collection authority to operate in all or any part of their area an incentive based household waste collection scheme, a proposal for which has been submitted to the Secretary of State, to reward householders who separate their waste for recycling and who minimise their residual waste.

(3B) Before any authorisation may be given under subsection (3B) above, the Secretary of State must be satisfied that a proposed scheme—

(a) has identified and addressed the particular needs of low income households;

(b) has identified the needs of households with particular problems reducing residual waste;

(c) will only operate in areas with adequate provisions of recycling collections;

(d) will only operate in areas with either composting collections or a home composting scheme; and

(e) has adequate measures to address potential increases in fly-tipping.''

(3) In section 51, at end of subsection (2), insert—

''(2A) Where the Secretary of State has authorised a scheme under section 45(3A) above, that authorisation may include specific exemptions to subsection (2)(c) above in all or part of the area of that authority.'.

Paddy Tipping (Labour, Sherwood)

New clause 6 provides the Committee with the opportunity to talk about how we charge for the disposal of domestic household waste. Typically, at the moment, we charge through the council tax, but new clauses 6 and 9 allow the discussion of alternative methods of charging for the disposal of such waste, which is variously called directive, variable or incentive charging.

The new clause is straightforward. Existing legislation does not permit such an approach. Indeed, section 45 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 forbids local authorities from taking such an approach. New clause 6 takes away that prohibition and gives the Secretary of State a permissive power to bring forward schemes to allow direct charging. New clause 9, in the name hon. Member for Guildford, does the same thing, but rather than giving a permissive power, it gives indications of how that might be done. I would characterise the situation as my taking, on this occasion, the more liberal, permissive approach and the Liberal Democrats being more restrictive than permissive. It is nice to get one up.

There have been widespread discussions about direct charging, and I would be grateful if, during our debate, the Minister could bring us up to date with the discussions that I know are taking place between his Department, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and the Treasury.

There is widespread support for the proposal to move towards direct charging. Let me quote from the Prime Minister's strategy unit's report, ''Waste not, Want not'', in 2002:

''Local authorities that wish to take forward household incentive schemes to help reduce waste volumes and increase recycling should be allowed to do so.''

The Minister will be aware that prominent, distinguished members of the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs are present. My hon. Friends the Members for Bedford (Mr. Hall) and for Stroud (Mr. Drew) and myself were involved in report, called ''The Future of Waste Management'', which was published by that Committee in May 2003. It said:

''We regret that the Government have not yet decided whether to allow local authorities to introduce household incentive schemes.''

There is already a body of evidence available to draw on, and local authorities are best placed to judge what it suitable for their areas. The report added:

''We are strongly in favour of local authorities being given the ability to introduce incentive schemes if they so wish.''

As well as the scheme finding support from the strategy unit and the Select Committee, local authorities are in favour of experimenting and piloting an approach to direct charging. In a letter, the Local Government Association stated that it is

''in favour of councils being given the power to introduce incentive schemes. We would not support the introduction of a duty in this respect, but we would welcome local authorities being given the freedom to introduce incentive schemes if they wished to do so.

This reflects the LGA's underlying position on freedoms and flexibilities for councils, and proposes councils should have a power—rather than a duty—to charge.''

There is a growing body of opinion in favour of direct charging in this country. We can set that against examples in Europe, particularly in the Netherlands, to a lesser extent in France, and more recently in Ireland, where direct charging has been introduced. The Socialist Environment and Resources Association, a body that my right hon. Friend knows well, undertook a study in the United States in 2000 in which 6,000 communities used direct charging.

It is now possible to draw some lessons from that body of evidence and experience. Experience shows that there are advantages to incentive charging. Most importantly, it makes local residents and householders aware of the costs and consequences of waste disposal. At the moment they are not, because the costs are hidden in the council tax.

Patrick Hall (Labour, Bedford)

I am very interested in what my hon. Friend is saying, and he is talking now about evidence from elsewhere—largely from the continent—about how incentive charging works. Is there any evidence that charging individual residents leads to an increase in fly-tipping? That point may crop up and be made by those who oppose such charging.

Paddy Tipping (Labour, Sherwood)

There is widespread research on the subject. I am delighted that we are discussing the new clause in the context of this Bill, which is very much about fly-tipping. We have had long discussions about fly-tipping, and it is important to change the culture surrounding it. The evidence from the United States and mainland Europe suggests that although the introduction of direct charging led to short-term problems, in the medium term when new standards were set and new levels of behaviour were expected, there was no increase in fly-tipping. We can resolve the problem of fly-tipping and encourage people by making them aware of the cost of waste disposal.

We can also reduce the amount of waste produced. All the evidence suggests that if people are responsible for the volume and weight of the material in their dustbin, they will be more careful and will reduce the amount of waste. In Ireland, there is a big financial incentive from direct charging. The waste bills of people from Monaghan have reduced; they saw that they would save money and so changed their behaviour. The amount of waste has reduced, the amount they are paying has reduced, and the amount that the council is paying for waste disposal has reduced. It sounds to me like a win, win, win situation.

Another win is that people are more careful about what they buy. Some of us—not me frequently—will have bought small bottles of perfume in large packaging. If people are responsible for paying for its disposal, they will buy less packaging. The large supermarkets, particularly Tesco, are undertaking some interesting work on packaging. I am very much of the opinion that an approach that measures the amount of waste—makes the disposal directly at waste cost—is going to reduce waste across the piece.

Finally—I have an exciting life—I went to Bradford recently, to have a look at their dustbin lorry. The dustbin lorry can weigh the amount of waste in the bin, can tag the bin and knows where the waste is coming from—each particular household. A picture of waste disposal in Bradford can be built up.

Increasingly, we need to be more aware of where waste is being produced and how we dispose of it. That is a big issue for local authorities, because of the landfill tax. We need better data and methodology. Such an approach would give us that. The result in Sweden, Holland, Germany, Ireland and, more locally, the Isle of Man has been waste reduction. In Germany, Denmark and Ireland recycling through direct charging has risen by 90 per cent. There is a lot going for that approach.

I am pleased that the Committee will have a chance to debate direct charging. Both new clause 6 and new clause 9 give very permissive powers to the Secretary of State. Should a scheme come forward later, the Secretary of State is given considerable flexibility to take such an approach. On new clause 9, I was interested that the hon. Member for Guildford spelt out some of the criteria that the Secretary of State might like to consider in bringing forward such a scheme. For example, is it possible to design regulations that take into account household size or the ability of people to pay?

Finally, when the Minister comes to reply, could he update the Committee about what is happening in the real world, outside this place, with waste disposal? A lot of local councils are piloting such an approach, which seems to show a willingness to go in that direction.

Perhaps he could also tell us what has happened since December 2004, when the Government announced £5 million for local authorities to provide incentives for households to recycle waste. The money is available and local authorities are in a position to bid for it, giving the clear indication that, despite—or perhaps as a result of—the discussion that is going on between Departments, there is a feeling in Whitehall that we should look at the approach seriously.

I am pleased that we have discussed this issue once again. Last time I moved a similar clause in Committee, I was told that it would not be long before we went down this road. I believe firmly that we will. The Minister, I suspect, will tell us not today, but I look forward to the next Parliament. I look forward to the manifestos of the individual political parties. If I was looking in my crystal ball, I would see not waste, but a more sustainable way of waste disposal through direct charging.

Sue Doughty (Liberal Democrat, Guildford)

I very much welcome the remarks made by the hon. Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping), who set out the case very clearly and constructively. The Liberal Democrats, too, have been following the debate after the publication of the strategy unit's waste development report, because much can be done. We have talked about charging, which does not necessarily mean a bill through the door. It can mean discounts and vouchers, and the opportunity to partake of council services using those vouchers. There is a whole range of schemes, but the clause does not define the sorts of charges or discounts that should be created. It is very much a matter for the local authority to decide what works in its area.

The whole purpose of the schemes is to encourage local authorities with good waste management strategies to take them one stage further to reduce the amount of waste going to landfill, which we all agree must be reduced in one way or another. The best way to do that is by encouraging and persuading, rather than by what is being done under the current system. The report ''Waste not, Want not'' suggested that, by 2006, 30 per cent. of collection authorities would have tried incentive-based schemes to reduce their waste. With 11 months to go, however, that is simply not happening. We have not yet reached the point at which local authorities can move to the freedom of direct charging, which I suspect is because of current legislation and Treasury rules, although again I would welcome the opportunity for local authorities to consider it if they believed it to be the right thing for their waste strategy.

The Government need to work with waste disposal authorities to implement a range of pilot schemes. The new clause very much assumes that pilot schemes will be advanced, that the Government will want to review them, encourage them and promote best practice. In a parliamentary question on 10 March 2004, the Liberal Democrats asked whether that could happen now. The Minister for the Environment and Agri-environment replied:

''Amendments to sections 45 and 51 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 would be required''.—[Official Report, House of Commons, 10 March 2004; Vol. 418, c. 1546W.]

We therefore tabled an extra paragraph to allow for that.

We want a variety of schemes to be implemented. We want to know how we can make progress with the best schemes and to see how we can deal with the scourge of landfill and the whole problem of waste. I quite accept the point made by the hon. Member for Sherwood that waste reduction, improvements to packaging and all the other strategies about which we talk so often in our debates are a part of the strategy for reducing waste.

The new clause is an interim solution in that it allows pilot schemes to be carried out. Eventually, it would probably allow the Minister to say that further legislation was required in the light of those pilot schemes.

Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.

On resuming—

Sue Doughty (Liberal Democrat, Guildford)

I was discussing why it is important for local authorities to be able to undertake pilots in this area, and why the clause enables those pilots to take place. We must get some clear measurements, so we know where we are going with variable waste charging, and how we might make improvements. It is strange that other countries seem to be able to get substantial decreases in landfill but we are not taking the opportunity to get those decreases for ourselves.

There are ''what if'' questions. What if fly-tipping increases? We need to get some hard information, so we know what is happening, and what steps can be taken to decrease fly-tipping. We also need to know whether the measurements are volume or weight based. We have had debates on that before; local authorities sometimes get worried because volume measures of waste disposal would help them—particularly in dealing with plastics—but weight is generally the way that we measure waste at present. What if the costs are too great? Much of the research by Eunomia and others suggests that costs tend to neutralise as landfill tax increases; it is not a great cost on local authorities because if they can reduce landfill tax charges, that in itself will pay for the scheme.

Section 76 of the Local Government Act 2003 should in theory allow councils to give local council tax discounts, but it has not yet been used. One council wanted to use it to give council tax discounts to pensioners, but it had many problems with a legal quagmire. We must explore the problems associated with section 76.

David Ruffley (Conservative, Bury St Edmunds)

Does the hon. Lady agree with me that it was a far-sighted, radical—and Conservative—county council that initiated the proposal to help pensioners' council tax payments?

Sue Doughty (Liberal Democrat, Guildford)

I would like to agree with the hon. Gentleman, but I should say straight away that I am not an expert on the 2003 Act. I have been referring to it only in the context of this legislation. I cannot quite give him the satisfaction that he seeks, but I hope that he is following the argument about how the legislation would play a part in terms of council tax discounts in waste management. The fact is that that facility has not been used by councils: it seems to have led to a legal quagmire and has not been implemented.

We should like to know where the Minister believes that waste collection authorities are planning to use powers for council tax discounts, related to the amount of waste that households produce and how much recycled composting they carry out. Does he really think that councils can use existing legislation, or do we need our new clause if we are to avoid getting bogged down in legal problems? The Department does not seem to have issued guidance for collection authorities suggesting how existing legislation can be used. Is it going to do so?

The Minister was asked, in a parliamentary question in March, about the matter and he said:

''In its response to the Strategy Unit Report Waste Not Want Not, the Government undertook to carry out further work before a decision is taken on whether to enable local authorities to introduce pilot direct and variable charging schemes for collection and disposal of household waste. In cooperation with the Local Government Association and other stakeholders, and drawing on international experience, work is being undertaken to consider the practicalities of operating such schemes and how potential disadvantages could be overcome. The Government will consider the results of this work during 2004.''—[Official Report, 1 March 2004; Vol. 418, c. 1632W.]

We had all that consideration, but in response to another question asking for a statement on work investigating the possibility of direct and variable charging schemes, he said:

''The Department's work on variable household charging and household incentives for waste recycling and reduction is based on the body of existing, publicly available, research, supplemented by investigation into specific examples of such activity.''—[Official Report, 27 January 2005; Vol. 430, c. 458W.]

That is not satisfactory. It looks as if nothing is being done. Is anything happening? Other countries are able to get on with this, but we are not receiving enough encouragement from the Government. If they and the Minister are not going to accept our new clause, we should like to know what he will do to develop the issue. The hon. Member for Sherwood has hinted that he hopes that there is more in the pipeline, and if we cannot have it now, we might have it tomorrow. I hope that the Minister will be able to encourage us. Will his manifesto say that there are clear plans, perhaps not yet, but in the future? We need to know what direction the Government are taking.

There is tremendous potential for waste reduction and increases in recycling using the techniques that I have described. We know that such schemes work: over 1 million households in Europe are already using pay-by-weight systems. We know from research undertaken by the hon. Member for Sherwood, and other research conducted by Eunomia, that households can decrease their quantity of waste by up to 40 per cent. in weight. It promotes the separation of recyclable and compostable materials. We all want that and we need it to happen, and as we are moving towards more stringent European requirements, the Government need it to happen.

There are many good cases justifying our new clause. I want councils to have the opportunity of trying out different schemes and reporting back to the Government so that we can reconsider the matter. If the Minister will not accept the new clause, we should like to know what he plans to do.

David Drew (Labour/Co-operative, Stroud)

I rise briefly to support my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood, but first I welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Forth. I think that this is the first time that I have spoken under your chairmanship and I am delighted to do so, especially as I followed you at the Industry and Parliament Trust event this lunchtime.

I shall make only a few quick points, because the excellent speeches from my hon. Friend and from the hon. Member for Guildford have said it all. I hope that the Government can give us an idea of the possible time scale for at least the introduction of some pilot schemes. If we do not consider the proposed approach at least worthy of experimentation, I do not understand how we shall address some of the exciting new ideas on recycling, composting and reclamation.

Reclamation is often left out of these discussions, but the reclamation industry could be one of the major industries in this country, because we have so many old buildings and facilities of which we could make much more use. That industry could punch well above the weight that it is currently punching at, but that will not happen unless people are actively encouraged to think of how they can dispose of things in positive ways, rather than, as they currently do, just sticking them in the dustbin and hoping that they get taken away or, at best, taking them to the tip and hoping that they get put in a hole in the ground. I hope that the Government realise that my hon. Friend's proposal is an idea whose time has come. As he said, the Select Committee sought at least an assurance that there would be a time scale.

The proposal underpins the point about fiscal incentives. If we are to change people's mindsets and the culture on waste, we must do something significant. As on climate change, we keep warning people and saying that things must change, but we must recognise that there will be some pain as well as pleasure. People have grown accustomed to creating more waste year by year, but we all know that that cannot continue.

The hope is that variable charging as a regime would concentrate the mind. To begin with, it would have to be implemented through pilot schemes. There would have to be incentives and allowances for those who could not afford to pay, whether they were lower-income families or pensioners, but, as my hon. Friend said, that is not beyond the wit of those who would have to think through the regulations. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will indicate that the Government are listening and keen to take this proposal forward, if not now, within the foreseeable future, and that we might be able to append at least some ideology to the Bill, if not practical ways of implementing the idea.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

This has been a fascinating debate, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Sherwood on raising the issue of direct charging. It has been considered on a number of occasions, but perhaps this is the first formal opportunity that we have had to discuss it. I echo what my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley) said in an intervention: many of the best proposals in this regard have come from Conservative councils. I think that the Minister will confirm that, according to the last available figures, the 10 best-performing councils for recycling were Conservative-controlled. I am sure that he would wish to record his personal congratulations to those councils on properly promoting the strategy of the Government and, indeed, the Conservatives of encouraging recycling as and when appropriate.

I shall raise a number of concerns with the Minister. In particular, what would be the administrative burden on the householder and the local authority? Surely we should start from the premise that most householders—and probably most businesses—believe that they pay, via their council tax or business rate, towards the cost of collection and removal of their refuse. This would be an additional burden.

The Minister will be aware that in certain circumstances the householder will, like us, be away from home. Many of us are, of necessity, away from our constituency homes and at the House of Commons during the week. Where recycling is provided for by the council, but the refuse collectors fail to observe common courtesies and minimum security measures such as replacing the box from which the compost, waste paper, plastic or glass has been removed, that should be a defence should the Minister go down the path of claiming that minimum security has been breached.

I recall from my time in the European Parliament, Mr. Forth, as you will from yours, that in Belgium they used different coloured plastic bags for the various types of waste that were being disposed of. There was no risk of the householder's security being breached, because everything, including the waste container, was removed. However, the issue is of concern to me and many of my constituents. The one charge that could be made against the Government in relation to their introduction of variable charging is that it could be perceived to be an additional tax. How would the Minister rebut that charge, bearing in mind that most households probably consider that they are already paying handsomely for refuse collection?

Sue Doughty (Liberal Democrat, Guildford)

Is the hon. Lady aware that Blaby district council, under the Tories, was the first council to introduce a form of variable charging? It made householders pay according to bin capacity above a certain volume. That is already happening in some counties.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

That is obviously a matter for the councils. My question was to the Minister, in order to establish whether he has made up his mind about Government policy on what seems to have been an omission from the Bill.

Can the Minister say what the implications are for businesses of different sizes? Should waste be measured by weight or by volume, and what conclusion has he reached about it? The figures that I have seen on the experience in Sweden and Denmark suggest that variable charging works, while those of the Library show that Scandinavian countries are moving away from recycling—in Denmark some 58 per cent. of household waste is disposed of by incineration. Can the Minister comment?

Alun Michael (Labour/Co-operative, Cardiff South and Penarth)

My hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood has introduced an interesting debate on a fascinating topic. It is a pity that the Minister for the Environment and Agri-environment cannot be here today, because he has a passion and an enthusiasm for alternative ways of doing things, and has taken a great interest in the subject.

The problem is that this is a complex topic. It is fraught with possibilities of unintended consequences. For that reason, I am pleased that both my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood and the hon. Member for Guildford have referred to pilot projects, and learning the lessons by trying things out. In this sort of territory, unintended consequences can be avoided if things are tried out.

The problem with variable charging is that while it can encourage different behaviour, sometimes that behaviour is benevolent and sometimes it is problematic. For instance, it can result in the dumping of rubbish rather than in an increase in recycling. I appreciate that the latter is the intention of the proponents of the new clauses. It can also have high administrative costs unless it is extremely well designed. Therefore, we would have to be very sure that the negative consequences would not follow. It is also true to say that there is the potential, as the hon. Member for Guildford said, for the expansion of composting. However, that cannot be done overnight. There are complications in relation to the types of waste that can be composted, so arrangements need to be in place at local authority level to cover various different circumstances and to cope with industrial and commercial as well as domestic waste.

I appreciate that those who have moved the new clauses want to see an increase in recycling and a reduction in waste. Of the two, new clause 9 is slightly more Stalinist and more centralist than that of my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood, because it would limit the use of the power to incentive schemes authorised by the Secretary of State, the principal incentive being, presumably, the minimisation or avoidance of charges. The provision in new clause 9 appears to duplicate powers in section 2 of the Local Government Act 2000, and to extend those powers to enable charging as part of an incentive scheme.

Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.

On resuming—

Alun Michael (Labour/Co-operative, Cardiff South and Penarth)

I was indicating that the provision in new clause 9 appears to duplicate the well-being powers in section 2 of the Local Government Act 2000 and extend those powers to enable charging to take place as part of an incentive scheme. Within such schemes, the new clause would also allow a charge for the deposit of household waste at some or all civic amenity sites in an area. There seemed to be a suggestion that the existing legislation was not being used, but I understand that the well-being powers in the 2000 Act are being used.

It is correct to say that council tax discounts could be given, although I am not aware that they have been, in practice. We are keen to try that. A short time ago, my hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment and Agri-environment announced that £5 million would be made available for pilot scheme work, which will give us the opportunity to experiment in that way. That goes with the grain of the introductory comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood and, indeed, with the references made to pilot projects by the hon. Member for Guildford.

David Ruffley (Conservative, Bury St Edmunds)

Will the Minister elucidate on the following point? Kent county council adopted the principle of giving discounts to certain council tax payers, although those discounts did not relate specifically to recycling. However, on counsel's advice, that was ruled illegal. The Minister's advice appears not to apply in the case of recycling; the burden of his comments was that, in relation to recycling, such discounts were legal and could be applied, but were not being used?

Alun Michael (Labour/Co-operative, Cardiff South and Penarth)

I cannot comment on the case of Kent county council, because I do not know what specific proposal was made. The hon. Gentleman indicated that the proposal was not in relation to recycling. To make a judgment about counsel's opinion, one has to understand the question being asked. Very often, if the question is asked in one way the answer is no, but if it is asked in a different way, the answer can be yes. If the hon. Gentleman would like to write to me with the precise circumstances, I will be happy to respond to him, but I do not think that that situation relates to the new clause.

It is difficult to know whether the Conservatives are in favour or against certain propositions. From the comments made by the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh), it would seem that it would be okay, or at least tolerable, if Conservative councillors introduced variable charging, whereas, for the sake of balance and neutrality, if that had been done by a Liberal Democrat council, the hon. Lady would have complained and whinged about it.

Sue Doughty (Liberal Democrat, Guildford)

The Minister may be interested to know that we understand that Conservative members on the Local Government Association were in favour of such schemes.

Alun Michael (Labour/Co-operative, Cardiff South and Penarth)

Yes. In the LGA in recent times I have found a degree of willingness to think outside the box and to discuss issues broadly and constructively across political demarcation lines. I chair the rural central-local partnership, and that is certainly a very encouraging group with which to have meetings, because there is a lot of constructive discussion about how to make progress on a variety of issues.

It is clear that hon. Members seek progress on reducing waste and encouraging recycling. The Government are continuing to investigate options for influencing householder behaviour with particular emphasis on incentives. Research is under way on the extent and success of incentive schemes in England, which complements previous research on international schemes.

It is worth pointing out that in April 2004, the National Consumer Council published a report, ''Carrots not Sticks'', in which it said:

''It seems likely that punitive charging certainly without corresponding action against those responsible for packaging, and without safeguards that prevent dumping will be seriously counter-productive. Yet the behaviour of households is crucial when it comes to reducing waste. It is time to consider positive incentives to recognise the efforts people make to change their behaviour.''

That, of course, is the challenge we are trying to meet. I do not think there is a single ''stick'', or solution. There are big differences between circumstances in different local authorities.

There are local authorities that are already using the powers available to them to drive, rather than incentivise, householder behaviour. For example, the London Borough of Barnet has succeeded in significantly raising recycling rates with a pilot compulsory recycling scheme, to be rolled out across the borough in April. Clause 48 will give authorities greater flexibility to enforce compulsory recycling schemes, so DEFRA Ministers are watching Barnet's scheme with great interest, while noting that compulsory recycling will not be an appropriate solution for all councils. Blaby district council has been referred to, and it has pushed up recycling by providing a medium-sized bin free of charge and imposing a charge for larger or additional receptacles. Of course, businesses may choose who provides their waste collection service, so they can select the provider who offers the optimum services at minimum cost to meet their requirements.

There was also a reference to other European Union member states moving away from recycling, towards incineration. As far as I am aware, there is no general trend in that direction, but some have seen incineration—I visited plants in Germany under previous interests—as an element of the solution, along with recycling and waste reduction. It would be unwise, however, to regard that as a general trend.

Householder participation in recycling waste reduction is central to achieving the goals that the Government have set for more sustainable household waste management. That is a culture change that is, crucially, encouraged by practice and the availability of alternatives, and we must also look at what incentives and penalties can work in practice. There is plenty of agreement in the Committee—my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood and others have spoken in favour of the direction of the amendment, and we heard what the hon. Member for Guildford said. What DEFRA is already seeking to do as a Department is to try to drive forward the use of alternatives and the reduction of waste.

There are concerns over a number of aspects of new clause 9. The part that would authorise a waste collection authority to run an incentive scheme appears to duplicate powers that are being used to test such efforts in a variety of places. I suspect that new clause 9's amendment to section 51 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990—enabling waste disposal authorities to charge for the deposit of household waste at civic amenity sites in all or part of their area—might turn out to be unworkable. It could lead to waste tourism, with householders searching for a civic amenity site that did not charge, or which could encourage the fly tipping that the clause seeks to avoid. Obviously, there is a difference between large rural authorities and, for instance, urban situations where there may be a variety of amenity sites in a closed area.

I am surprised that no provision is made to charge in respect of treatment and disposal of household waste, in addition to collection, given that those are the major contributors to the total costs incurred in managing household waste. In any event, the Government are currently focusing their efforts on incentives. That stance is backed by early indications from research undertaken for DEFRA which appears to show that most local authorities are focusing on incentives as the way forward. It is the method being chosen by local authorities to address the issues, as is underlined by the National Consumer Council report to which I referred. All that work will inform the £5 million pilot programme helping local authorities to trial novel incentives in 2005-06. That seems to address the concerns raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood.

As a country, we are making great strides towards the goal of sustainable waste management. We are poised to confirm that we met our national target to recycle all compost and 17 per cent. of household waste in 2003-04. It is a joint achievement by local authorities and householders, with Government support and without recourse to charging. We need to experiment to find out what works best and to encourage local authorities to adopt best practice. I assure my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Guildford that we will vigorously do just that.

Sue Doughty (Liberal Democrat, Guildford)

I thank the Minister for his reply, but I am not entirely comfortable with it because we seem to be in the usual cycle of the Government saying that they will have a look and do a bit more and incentivise. Councils are still waiting for details of how they will be allowed to calculate composting as part of their landfill schemes. We asked whether we could apply variable charging schemes, and the Government replied that an amendment would be needed to sections 45 and 51 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. We did not just dream that up. We based it on the Government's advice.

The clause addresses the spectre of people driving from here to there. We would expect the Secretary of State to look at that. We certainly would not expect him to encourage a scheme operated by a council that did not have adequate facilities. That would drive people to take their waste into other areas and would be counter-productive. I hope that the Secretary of State will take a view on that.

One of the interesting things that is happening at present with recycling, which the Government are ignoring to some extent, is that people already drive their waste over boundaries. In my village of Shalford we take Waverley's plastics recycling because Waverley, a mile down the road, does not recycle its plastics. Similarly, when I was at the Tesco recycling centre in Guildford yesterday, people talked to me about the difficulties of plastic recycling, and a lady from Camberley had brought all her plastic bottles because Camberley did not have the facilities.

Those are the sort of things that the Secretary of State should look at. No one would want to encourage an endless, long-term shipping of waste backwards and forwards. We would all like our councils to rise to the top as opposed to beating each other on which can throw the most waste over the boundary.

Much more needs to be done to encourage people to recycle. It is a pity that the Government are choosing to ignore so much strong research in Europe that identifies how that could be done. I hope that the Minister can say a little more than that they are encouraging everyone and that it is all about incentives, without saying what those incentives are and how they might work. Nothing in what he has said identifies the incentives. I hoped that he would say that the new clauses are both good and that he might be minded to table an amendment on Report. We would have expressed our gratitude and sat down immediately.

Alun Michael (Labour/Co-operative, Cardiff South and Penarth)

The hon. Lady might acknowledge that I referred to the pilot schemes addressing those concerns, the lessons of which should be built into any further developments. She mentioned awaiting details of composting; she should be aware that the Environment Agency is consulting on what proportion of product from mechanical biological treatment counts toward landfill allowances under the trading scheme. The waste and resources action programme is undertaking related work to measure the contribution home-composting makes to diversion from landfill. Both issues are important, and I shall be happy to write to the hon. Lady to give greater detail. The reason that the information and a firm situation have not been given is that the consultation is not complete.

Sue Doughty (Liberal Democrat, Guildford)

I thank the Minister. That information is being consulted on as a result of an amendment that the Liberal Democrats tabled to the Waste and Emissions Trading Bill, identifying a problem in that area. Ever since that Bill was enacted, we have been asking for further information, but whenever we ask the Government about this we do not get an answer. I press for an answer because the Waste and Emissions Trading Act 2003 makes requirements of local government to which we all subscribed, such as the reduction of biological and municipal waste, but we need the relevant information so that councils can put adequate facilities in place. I would be grateful for a letter from the Minister, which will probably update the letters I have had from his colleague, the Minister for the Environment and Agri-environment.

I am still concerned about this issue and disappointed by the Government's response. I am minded to push the clause to a vote because it is an important matter of principle. Many reasons have been given why we cannot go forward on discounts for council services, as have problems with other forms of charging, which need to be ironed out. By pressing for a vote, we will make the point that, while we accept that the Government are consulting, we feel strongly and want them to consider not only the incentives available but why some incentives are not working and what the legal drawbacks are. We encourage them to do what they can to remove the problems.

On that basis, I move the clause formally.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

I remind the hon. Lady that the opportunity to divide the Committee on new clause 9 will come later. I will give her the wink at the appropriate time.

Paddy Tipping (Labour, Sherwood)

We have had a fairly wide-ranging discussion, which has been slightly longer than others, and has heard more voices than is, perhaps, usual in this Committee. Our Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for West Carmarthen and South Pembrokeshire (Mr. Ainger), will be pleased that we are due to finish the sitting at 5.30 pm; I do not think that he encourages behaviour of that kind.

Characteristically, the Minister told us that he is prepared to think outside the box and reminded us that the Minister for the Environment and Agri-environment is fascinated by this subject—what a sad description—and is always prepared to consider alternate ways of doing things. That conjures up a lot of images.

The theme of the debate has been one of general support for our direction of travel—that there should be incentive charges and that we should move toward direct charging. Of course, it is not all one-way traffic. Hon. Members are right to say that there are administrative costs. My hon. Friend the Member for Bedford asked about fly-tipping; clearly such issues need to be taken into account. It must be the case that, by making people more responsible for their waste by ensuring that there are financial tools for reward or incentive, rather than penalties, we can make progress.

Several hon. Members rightly said that the legislative background is unclear, and it would be helpful if the Minister could assist us by explaining matters in writing. I am delighted that £5 million will be available next year to promote good practice and pilot schemes.

I will not support new clause 9, which has been characterised as Stalinist, which I would describe as restrictive and not particularly liberal. The hon. Member for Guildford may wish to reconsider her position later. It is important to learn from experience, and on that basis I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 7 - Noise act 1996: requirement for consultation

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 10—National Noise Reduction Strategy—

'(1) The Secretary of State shall have a National Noise Reduction Strategy.

(2) The strategy shall address any nuisance or health problems resulting from environmental noise, with particular regard to—

(a) neighbour and neighbourhood noise;

(b) noise from industrial and commercial premises;

(c) works noise;

(d) alarms;

(e) transport and traffic noise; and

(f) any other noises or sources of noise that the Secretary of State believes require particular attention as part of the strategy.

(3) The Secretary of State shall publish an annual report on progress made by the strategy.'.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I hope the new clause will appeal to the Minister, as his Department, or the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, released a consultation paper on ambient noise strategy that attracted attention because it did not include neighbourhood noise. The Government proposed a separate strategy to deal with neighbour noise issues, which everyone seemed to think would encompass some neighbourhood noise strategy as part of the Bill.

During consultation on the noise and clean neighbourhood strategies, did the Minister receive representations on building regulations in respect of insulation, especially noise insulation between accommodation units? Considering the time that the Government devoted to discussionson chewing gum and dog mess—albeit worth while—it would be a source of satisfaction to those organisations who are concerned about noise if the Government introduced a clause on it.

I accept that in some situations noise may be no more than a minor irritant, but for the majority of people who report noise problems, the situation is quite different. The new clause recognises that in semi-detached residential properties, in flats or new developments and in the tenement flats in Glasgow and Edinburgh, noise can cause severe nuisance. The Government could consider a number of alternative strategies. One could be a greater use of tenancy agreements to tackle neighbour noise nuisance. In guidance from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, the Government said in August 2004 that landlords would be required to draw up statements on how they would deal with antisocial behaviour and antisocial behaviour orders. However, the Government and the Minister must recognise that local authorities and housing associations are often reluctant to deal with those who perpetrate such noise and have other social problems. It is incumbent on local authorities to try to help tenants work through their problems.

I know from my constituency case work, my surgery case work and my constituency mail bag that the problem seems to be on the increase. Rather than evict tenants, it is incumbent on local authorities, or increasingly on housing associations, to try to resolve the problem or to re-house them. That poses a particular problem in areas such as the Vale of York, where we have insufficient social housing or affordable homes. Indeed, over the past seven and a half to eight years, housing stock has substantially decreased.

Why have the Department not produced another noise strategy and why is there no reference in the Bill to poor sound insulation? I hope that the Government will be minded to look sympathetically on the new clause, which would bring a provision into the remit of the Bill—as with other forms of noise pollution, such as audible alarms and the need for a responsible person—for an appropriate person who will

''consult the appropriate bodies on the need for regulations to extend the provisions of the Noise Act 1996 (c.37) to the hours of 7 a.m. to 11 p.m. to enable any individual present in a dwelling to make a complaint to the relevant local authority that excessive noise was being emitted from another dwelling during those hours.''

Obviously, that raises a particular issue when tenants might simply not get on. I hope that the Government would consider that, if they were minded to adopt the new clause. We would seek to prevent vexatious and malicious reporting of noise pollution, but the purpose of the new clause is to seek Government support for real issues of noise pollution, to ask why they have not seen fit to legislate on them. We ask them to look kindly on new clause 7 and to adopt it as their own.

Sue Doughty (Liberal Democrat, Guildford)

I agree with the hon. Lady's early remarks; we need a national noise reduction strategy. I welcome the work that the Government have done on noise nuisance. We know that that work has been extensive—it is not the sort of problem that one solves overnight—and was important in enabling DEFRA to meet its objectives for protecting the environment and enhancing quality of life and public health. We need action to follow that research, and we want to press that point with the Government: having carried out their noise nuisance research programme, where will it lead?

We have talked about specific sorts of noise, but discussion has been limited. We have neighbour and neighbourhood noise, and we need to know more about the sort of noise that we get from industrial and commercial premises. In particular, we need to know more about lower-level noise and vibration, as noise is not all the same.

Transport and traffic noise is a problem. Some of us have constituents who live next to busy roads or roads that have recently become busy, such as the A3 as it runs through my constituency. The character of that area has changed enormously, as traffic flows have changed and raised the noise to unbearable levels for some of my constituents. Yet, there is nothing that triggers action by the Department for Transport to deal with a road. One might go to see the Minister and they might say, ''Well, there isn't any money''. However, as noise levels rise to unacceptable levels we start needing a strategy.

Other issues include train horns, which since the introduction of new rolling stock have made the lives of many of our constituents a misery. They are much noisier than previous horns, so there is a problem. I have been fighting on behalf of my constituents with the Rail Safety and Standards Board for a long time to ensure that they are used only when necessary and not above a certain decibel level. What else can be done?

Those sorts of things could be done nationally as opposed to individual MPs trying to pick off the train operating companies as they go through their constituencies. There are a couple of Virgin Trains a day in my constituency, part of the constituency gets First Great Western Link trains—it has been less responsive—and South West Trains is doing a little more. Possibly, there could be a national guideline about broadband horns, which are far more directional. At a stroke, the problem that has arisen during the past two or three years could be dealt with.

We need the strategy. There is a lot more that Government could put in. Our proposal is a probe, and I hope it will encourage them to move forward from the work that they have done researching the problem towards making an announcement about how they intend to mitigate against it.

We cannot underestimate the problem. As this island gets more crowded, as we build homes closer to one another and as people have to live next door to industrial plants as a result of the shortage of building land, such things become imperative. We need to get a grip now, before the situation gets worse.

Alun Michael (Labour/Co-operative, Cardiff South and Penarth)

May I summarise what I was going to say by saying that proposed new clause 7 asks for something that we have already done and proposed new clause 10 asks for something that is already in hand?

The hon. Member for Guildford made it clear that she was proposing the measure as a probing new clause and was kind enough to acknowledge the work that the Government have done. New clause 7 simply proposes that we consult on extending the Noise Act 1996. There was no call to extend it in the ''clean neighbourhoods'' consultation and there is no consensus that the Noise Act methodology is the best way of dealing with noise during the day.

There has been extensive consultation over a considerable period. A lot of good work has been done with local authorities on the sort of issues in the Bill, and, indeed on other ideas that we have not brought forward where they were not supported by the evidence.

As for new clause 10, the Government are committed to developing noise strategies, and I want to refer specifically to two. The neighbourhood noise strategy will include a thorough review of existing legislation on noise and consideration of ways in which noise from domestic, business and industrial premises can be reduced.

There is a comprehensive research programme to inform that strategy, and that is the research to which the hon. Member for Guildford referred. Initial research has scoped the extent of the problem of neighbourhood noise and the sources that are the cause of such nuisance. Current research is aimed at producing pioneering guidance to local authorities for assessing noise to improve their ability to deal with various types of noise nuisance where that has proved difficult. Any hon. Member who has dealt with noise issues in constituency case work will know that it is not an area where there is a magic wand or simple solution. Policy recommendations will be developed with the co-operation of all interested parties, which clearly includes the Local Government Association, and we intend to start consulting on the strategy this year.

The Government are also committed to developing a national ambient noise strategy to tackle noise from industry and from major forms of transport, including road, rail and aircraft. As hon. Members will appreciate, that is a different type of noise—often an underlying and pervasive one—which needs different types of responses.

Development of the national ambient noise strategy is a three-phase process. The first phase is underway and that involves analysing the ambient noise climate in England. In simple terms, that means determining the number of people affected by different levels of noise, the source of that noise and the locations of those affected. I have seen some of the work going on, and the scientists and technologies involved. It is very complicated but very impressive, and I think that it will lead to results that will go in the direction in which the hon. Member for Guildford seeks to take us.

The work is being done through the Noise Mapping England project, a nationwide programme to map noise from major transport and industrial sources. Mapping on that scale has never been attempted; the project is a pioneering exercise. Mapping standards for London road traffic and Heathrow have already been completed, as have pilot studies for mapping noise from rail and industry. Other studies include the mapping of noise from road traffic in major urban areas and from major roads; that is also in hand.

Once the results of the mapping project are known, noise hot spots and less noisy areas can be identified and we will be able to determine the extent of any noise problems throughout the country. That will help us to identify where measures are needed to target problem areas.

In addition, the adverse effects of noise and the techniques available to take action to improve the situation will be investigated, along with methodologies for economic analysis. The result of the research will be evaluated and priorities for action identified. The Government will then develop the necessary policies to tackle the issues identified.

What I have described can sometimes sound general in its input. However, I know, for instance, that steps have been taken by colleagues at the Department for Transport to consider, where roads are being maintained, laying a surface that has a less intrusive impact on the local community. That is to the immediate benefit of people who are in the vicinity of some of our roads that have higher volumes of traffic.

Sue Doughty (Liberal Democrat, Guildford)

I appreciate what the Minister says about resurfacing roads; we are familiar with the issue of new surfaces. However, at the moment resurfacing is very reliant on normal programmes for roads within the Department for Transport and the Highways Agency. People are often told that resurfacing will take place, perhaps, five years hence. Five years is a long time to live with the misery of road noise.

Alun Michael (Labour/Co-operative, Cardiff South and Penarth)

For crying out loud, of course it takes time. Changing the surfaces of roads cannot be done overnight. Even the elastic Liberal Democrat 1p on income tax would be unlikely to produce the money to resurface all roads in a single year. Many of the hon. Lady's suggestions have been helpful and constructive, but, if I may say so, that last remark was not very wise.

Eighty-nine per cent. of consultation responses on whether the strategy that I have outlined should be developed supported the Government's approach. We are also implementing the environmental noise directive, which requires us to make noise maps for major urban areas, major roads, railways and airports. We are required to use those maps to produce noise action plans for major urban areas and transport links, and to manage noise issues and effects—including noise reduction, if necessary. Those plans will be drawn up in full consultation with the public and interested parties.

As for any amendment to building regulations, that will be a matter for the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and is not related to the issue under discussion. However, I can say that noises in buildings will be dealt with in the neighbourhood noise strategy. We are about to publish the research report on noise problems and suggested solutions related, for example, to laminated floors. Many things come down to very specific circumstances, and we will set up an industry steering group to take proposals forward on the basis of that research.

A great deal is going on. We intend to launch both the strategies that I have referred to in 2007, because there is an enormous amount of work being done to ensure that they are effective and comprehensive. I ask the hon. Member for Vale of York to withdraw the new clause and support the Government's approach, which is to tackle noise problems in a way that is comprehensive and viable for the long term.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I listened with great interest to what the Minister said. Only towards the end of his remarks did he address the points made in the new clause. The fact that the Government are considering a noise strategy for transport is welcome. The Minister mentioned delivery vans and there is also the problem of some road surfaces being noisier than others, although I do not know whether the Minister mentioned that.

I should perhaps declare an interest, in that RAF Linton-on-Ouse, one of the only two—I think—remaining RAF training bases, is in my constituency. There are perhaps more circuits and bumps there than at any other airport outside Heathrow, which allegedly leads to noise pollution. The purpose of the new clause was not to address those points, but to elicit from the Minister what stage the ambient noise strategy was at, which he talked about.

I think that the Minister said that he would not accept the new clause, regrettably. His reasoning is that such matters would more appropriately fall to the ODPM. The problem with that is that, equally, other provisions in the Bill would fall more appropriately either to the Home Office or the ODPM.

Alun Michael (Labour/Co-operative, Cardiff South and Penarth)

I am not sure how the hon. Lady has come to misinterpret what I said when I referred to the changes in building regulations as matters for the ODPM and falling outside the scope of the Bill— indeed, building regulations are dealt with by existing legislation. That is why I suggested that her remarks should be addressed elsewhere. I am happy, and have been throughout, to deal with issues arising within the Bill that fall to other Departments as well as DEFRA. However, when matters fall outside the scope of the Bill and where existing legislation deals with changes to building regulations, it seems entirely inappropriate to respond more fully than I have already.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

Order. We have probably heard quite enough about building regulations. I remind the Committee that we dealing with new clauses 7 and 10, on which I ask the hon. Member for Vale of York to concentrate her thoughts and remarks.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I have not mentioned building regulations during this stage of our proceedings, although I mentioned them earlier and I am grateful for the Minister's comments. On reflection, we should like to press new clause 7 to a vote.

Sue Doughty (Liberal Democrat, Guildford)

The purpose of our new clause was to probe the Government. We knew that there was more to be done. Having stressed the need to take a much stronger view of the nuisance of noise in all its different forms and having heard the Minister's reply on that, we will not press new clause 10.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 3, Noes 10.

New clause 9 - Incentive schemes for collection of householder waste

New Clause 12 - Battery recycling

Sue Doughty (Liberal Democrat, Guildford)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Batteries present a big problem. They contain many harmful substances. The UK seems to be at the bottom of the league table for recycling them and we shall have to smarten up our act. The Government have said nothing encouraging about what we will do about battery recycling.

We tabled several questions on the matter, and it appears that the United Kingdom recycles 0.5 per cent. of batteries. Belgium recycles 58.5 per cent. The next lowest to us in the table is Spain, and it recycles 14 per cent. of batteries. People can put them in a collection box at markets. The figure for France is 16 per cent. Out of eight countries for which figures are available, we are way down—we are scarcely off the bottom.

There are no domestic battery recycling facilities in the UK, although we obtained information today that one will be opened on 17 March. We are pleased about that. It will deal with alkaline and zinc carbon batteries, which represent 80 per cent.—and rising—of household batteries, but clearly the Government have no strategies in place to encourage the market or to deal with the shamefully low recycling rate. If battery waste were being produced by industry it would be classed as hazardous waste, but because it comes from households it is not.

There was previously a battery recycling facility at Avonmouth, but the parent company closed it. Any batteries that are collected are sent to France for recycling. Alkaline and zinc batteries are sent elsewhere in Europe. We do not know where lithium batteries go. They tend to be incinerated, which is very bad news.

We have been trying to find out what has been happening to batteries in the UK—whether they are buried, burned or sent overseas—but there is no data. We have asked how many batteries have been sent to other countries for recycling since 1997. We know that that there is an informal agreement because we all know people who put their old batteries in their cars and take them to France. That takes us back to the idea about waste jumping boundaries. However, there is no data.

We asked the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many lithium batteries were incinerated in the UK in a year. The Minister for the Environment and Agri-environment said that he did not know. That is not a small problem. It has an impact on human health. Eight per cent. of rechargeable domestic batteries contain the toxic chemical cadmium. As we know, every now and then people throw away their rechargeables when they no longer hold their charge.

The website of the US Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry and that of the Australian Department of the Environment and Heritage state that the chemical cadmium is a persistent bioaccumulative that does not break down in the environment, and when humans are exposed to it through the food chain, the effects can range from headaches and digestive irritation to kidney disease, lung damage and cancer.

In answer to a parliamentary question on the environmental consequences of disposing of spent batteries in landfill, the Minister for the Environment and Agri-environment said:

''The main environmental concerns associated with the landfilling of batteries relate to the potential generation and discharge of leachate into the environment of hazardous substances i.e. cadmium, lead and mercury, all known to be toxic to the aquatic environment and human health.''

These substances are persistent. He continued:

''Discharge of these substances to the environment are likely to occur through (a) the compaction of weight, leading to substances discharging from the battery and (b) percolation of rainfall further leaching these substances into groundwater. It is however worth noting that spent batteries constitute only 0.1 per cent. of the Municipal Solid Waste stream.''—[Official Report, House of Commons, 11 March 2004; Vol. 418, c. 1627W.]

However, the EU directive will require all member states to recycle 44 per cent. of household batteries and 80 per cent. of household nickel cadmium batteries, and to collect and send for recycling all automotive industrial batteries. So we are expecting, as is usual when directives get transposed into national law, that this directive will need to be transposed into national law in 2007. If so, several of that directive's requirements will need to met by 2008. It is now 2005.

The new clause is reasonable. Indeed, it is absolutely essential, and one would hope that the Government will adopt it. I am sure that the Government would not dispute the harm that batteries do to the environment and to human health, or the persistent problems caused by batteries not being disposed of properly. That is why we tabled the new clause, almost in a spirit of helpfulness. The Government can make a useful amendment to the legislation to deal with the problem of battery recycling, and we hope that the Minister will deal with it in that way.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I note with interest what the hon. Lady has to say. The Opposition have taken several initiatives on the vexed problem of producers of household batteries, which are part of a serious problem that the Government have not addressed by signing up to several EU directives, particularly the one that does not allow the co-disposal of hazardous and non-hazardous waste. There will be many opportunities to consider the matter, including a Westminster Hall Adjournment debate tomorrow, but we take the issue seriously and would prefer it to be dealt with as part of the Government's broader strategy for developing hazardous waste disposal, possibly with their European partners, as the problem of the disposal of household batteries will clearly be with us for some considerable time.

Alun Michael (Labour/Co-operative, Cardiff South and Penarth)

I am not sure that it is reasonable to expect us to take comments from the hon. Member for Vale of York about signing up to European treaties, when one considers the record of the then Prime Minister, Baroness Thatcher, to whom the hon. Lady referred with such glowing admiration, as she was the one who signed up to the most remarkable tract of European legislation while appearing to condemn anyone else who was interested in Europe.

David Ruffley (Conservative, Bury St Edmunds)

She was misled.

Alun Michael (Labour/Co-operative, Cardiff South and Penarth)

Mistaken, perhaps. I am not sure that she was misled.

In response to the hon. Member for Guildford, I agree about the importance of dealing with batteries. She will know of the leadership that we have offered in Europe in trying to deal with some of these issues. I am a little surprised that she did not refer to the fact that political agreement on a new batteries directive was reached at the December 2004 meeting of the Environment Council. The directive will make producers responsible for the collecting and recycling of all sorts of batteries. As there are different sorts of batteries, so cases are different, and generalising across the board might be a mistake.

The directive is expected to be adopted in 2006. The problem is that it may undergo tax changes before then—that is a familiar experience—so we cannot be sure at this stage of the requirements that it will impose. It follows that any UK legislation on battery collection and recycling, including the requirements of the proposed new clause, passed prior to the directive being adopted might then have to be amended soon after it is passed to ensure transposition and consistency with the directive. That problem is compounded by the fact that we do not yet know whether the directive will be transposed by secondary legislation, or whether it will require primary legislation.

Furthermore, the directive will have a much wider scope than that covered by the proposed new clause. As such, introducing new legislation on batteries ahead of transposing the new directive would cause confusion, uncertainty and unnecessary additional burdens to industry.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

My understanding is that a directive, by its very nature, means that the way of achieving the detail of the agreed objective will be left to secondary legislation. Therefore, I would be interested to learn whether this is a new concept. Are the Government coming forward with primary legislation to implement an EU directive?

Alun Michael (Labour/Co-operative, Cardiff South and Penarth)

In general, secondary legislation can deal with the transposition of European legislation, but there are circumstances in which that does not apply. We are not certain of the form of the directive as yet.

It is worth pointing out that the UK has an excellent record in recycling automotive batteries, but for portable batteries it would be difficult to exceed the targets proposed in the directive of 25 per cent. collection after four years and 45 per cent. collection after eight years.

Several EU states with excellent recycling records have taken that amount of time to reach these collection levels. Given the experience of battery schemes in other member states, it is likely that a combination of collection routes will need to be used in order to maximise the levels of batteries collected. For household batteries—small sealed batteries—retailers and local authorities are likely to have some involvement. More innovative routes may also be used, such as incentive schemes and collection via schools.

To get a head start on the directive coming into force, we are currently in discussions with a range of interested parties. The directive has the following aims: first, to harmonise national legislation across the European Union; secondly, to contribute to the creation of an internal market for the collection and recycling of old batteries; thirdly, to put in place arrangements for financing to avoid freeloaders in the market; and, fourthly, to provide a level playing field for all the actors involved.

Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.

On resuming—

Alun Michael (Labour/Co-operative, Cardiff South and Penarth)

I had just finished outlining our discussions with a range of interests to get ahead of the directive. I hope that that will have given some encouragement, particularly to the hon. Member for Guildford, about what we are doing instead of waiting for the directive to come into play. It would be inappropriate to place requirements in legislation ahead of being certain of what is required from the directive. Sometimes haste can lead to confusion. For example, people might start down one track and be invited to invest in facilities that might not meet the precise requirements.

It is important to get the proposed directive in place, and it has our strong support. It cleared scrutiny in both Houses early in 2004. At that time, the UK Government welcomed its aims, which were

''to achieve environmental objectives and to have an effective and workable directive that is economically viable for those with producer obligations.''

There were one or two comments about a scheme in the late 1990s in which a small percentage of rechargeable batteries containing cadmium were collected. Regrettably, the scheme, which was called Rebat, fell into disuse when not all battery producers agreed to provide funding. The hon. Member for Guildford asked about lithium battery recycling, and she may be interested to know that AEA Technology has established a facility for recycling such batteries at Golspie in north Scotland, and trials are under way.

The record shows considerable variation in levels of recycling of different types of batteries. The figure for consumer batteries is below 2 per cent., whereas for automotive and industrial batteries it is more than 90 per cent. The Department of Trade and Industry and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs have been in discussions with the Local Government Association, the Waste and Resources Action Programme and battery manufacturers and retailers about establishing a project to promote portable-battery collection and recycling, and to develop battery-recycling infrastructure in conjunction with several authorities.

I endorse the plea made by the hon. Member for Guildford about battery recycling. We are addressing that issue. What would be inappropriate would be to set a time limit or to put legislative requirements ahead of certainty about the directive's requirements. I hope the hon. Lady will withdraw her new clause.

Sue Doughty (Liberal Democrat, Guildford)

I thank the Minister for his full and informative answer. I certainly take his point that, if the directive is coming along, precision is important and working with what the directive requires is right.

In the spirit of getting to the end of the Bill, I will comment on the new word that appeared with hazardous waste, which was ''head start''. I say hurrah and welcome, and how good it was to hear that; we will be watching what happens. As the Minister knows, the Opposition have often said, particularly of hazardous waste, that there is too little being done, too late. The waste industry is left with a huge headache trying to scrabble together mechanisms for dealing with waste that can no longer go to landfill.

I hope that the Minister and his team will rapidly work with the suppliers and the people dealing with collection and processing of batteries, narrowing down options for what might or might not be required under the directive. Instead of getting to the day when co-disposal ends and finding that we are not sure what we are doing, the systems will be clearly in place and we will have licensed places able to take batteries for disposal when we need them.

I will work on what the Minister said and will watch to see what will happen. I welcome the words ''head start'', which are slightly new to this sort of debate, and will not press the new clause. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Alun Michael (Labour/Co-operative, Cardiff South and Penarth)

On a point of order, Mr. Forth. May I say what a pleasure it has been to serve under your chairmanship and that of Mr. Taylor? I hope you will convey our thanks to him.

It is appropriate to thank the Clerk, Hansard, the attendants and the police officers, who have made sure that the Committee, despite the high passions raised on various occasions, has proceeded in an orderly fashion.

I am grateful to my hon. Friends for their support. Indeed, several of them have managed to stay awake for considerable parts of the discussion. I thank the speaking Whip on the Opposition Benches for his occasional sedentary interventions, as well as for leaping into the lead position at one of our sittings. I am grateful to the Opposition for what has been, in general, constructive engagement and probing of the Government's entirely virtuous approach to these matters.

I hope that I have thanked all those required to be thanked—except the officials who have supported me. They have done a tremendous job in the preparation of the Bill and in the consultations that went on before.

Mr. Forth, it has been a pleasure to be a member of this Committee.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

On a point of order. May I echo most warmly the Minister's kind words, particularly for your and Mr. Taylor's excellent chairmanship. We have benefited from your guidance. We give thanks, too, for the excellent support we have all had from the Clerk, and to Hansard, which has borne with us when we have lost the papers needed for writing the report, the attendants and, as ever, the police for watching over us. I pay particular tribute to my colleagues who manfully carried on in my inexcusable absence while on business outside the Committee. I hope that I am forgiven for that. My hon. Friends the Members for Bury St. Edmunds, for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) and for Boston and Skegness (Mr. Simmonds) leapt into the breach.

I thank the Minister and, through him, the Minister for the Environment and Agri-environment. The full briefing from their officials has led to a greater understanding and clarification of the Bill. We are obviously disappointed that we have not managed to change it one iota but we hope to do so on Report. We have also greatly enjoyed working with the hon. Members for Guildford and for Ludlow (Matthew Green).

Sue Doughty (Liberal Democrat, Guildford)

I echo the thanks to you, Mr. Forth and to Mr. Taylor for ably guiding us through the Bill. It has led to some complex areas involving DEFRA and some aspects of ODPM legislation. It was useful to have that help and support. Particular thanks go to the officials, the Clerks, the police and the Hansard reporters. We need those people for our Committees to work. Their diligence in asking the right questions at the right time ensure that the entries in Hansard accurately reflect our proceedings.

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow for his expertise on ODPM matters and his general support. My thanks go to the Whips for ensuring that we got through the business in the time allocated. I thank the Ministers for the thoughtful and constructive way in which they responded to our points. I thank the Conservative Members for the points they brought to the debate, which has given us an adequate opportunity to examine the Bill. I look forward to working with this team should the opportunity present itself again.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

It falls to me to add my thanks to my parliamentary colleagues for the way in which they have conducted the Committee. They have made it a pleasurable task for me and my colleague David Taylor to take the Chair. We are both very grateful. I add my thanks to our officers, the police, the badge messengers and the Hansard reporters for, as ever, giving us their support throughout the Committee.

May I also acknowledge the silent but professional presence of departmental officials who are a key to any Committee? They are often unsung and unrecognised, but I know how valuable they are and how much any Minister relies on them for their professional advice. Most of all I should like to thank our Clerk who has kindly but firmly guided me through the Committee and kept me more or less on the straight and narrow. For that I am very grateful.

Bill, as amended, to be reported.

Committee rose at eighteen minutes past Five o'clock.