|
Column Number: 39
Standing Committee B
Thursday 3 April 2003
(Afternoon)
[Miss Anne Begg in the Chair]
2.30 pm
The Chairman: Good afternoon. The Committee will have noticed not only that I have changed sides but that I have also changed political party. I am a late substitution as Chairman, and I will be chairing only this afternoon's sitting. Clause 2
Non-target years
Mr. John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings): I beg to move amendment No. 32, in
clause 2, page 2, line 8, leave out 'may' and insert 'must'.
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
No. 33, in
clause 2, page 2, line 15, leave out from 'only' to 'the' in line 16 and insert 'following consultation with'.
No. 34, in
clause 2, page 2, line 17, leave out from 'only' to third 'the' and insert 'following consultation with'.
No. 35, in
Mr. Hayes: May I say how delighted I am, as all right hon. and hon. Members must be, to welcome you, Miss Begg, to the Chair of this exciting Committee? I look forward to further exciting debates this afternoon and thereafter.
The amendment needs to be seen in the context of this morning's first debate, for which you, Miss Begg, were not present. The Committee discussed whether to change the word ''must'' to ''may''. We now want to change the word ''may'' to ''must''. That is principally on the ground of consistency—[Laughter.] I see that the Committee has spotted the logic in my argument.
The Minister knows that we would not want to leave him with a Bill that was imperfect. At the moment, it suggests that the Minister ''may'' specify the maximum amount of waste by weight of biodegradable municipal waste allowed in non-target years. It has already been acknowledged that, because of the obligatory requirements of the EU directive, ''must'' would be a more appropriate word to use at the beginning of the Bill. It is a matter of legitimate debate as to whether we should use the word ''must'' in the non-target years.
The difficulty with using the word ''may'' is that it might wrongly provide flexibility; it could provide variability and make it more difficult for us to meet those targets. The Minister was honest enough to say that it would be difficult to meet those targets, given the proportion of waste currently sent to landfill. We
Column Number: 40
do not start from a happy position in respect of meeting those stiff targets. As the Minister said on Second Reading, it will be a huge challenge.
The strength of the amendment is that it would encourage the Minister to be rigorous in his requirements—if we are to meet those targets, we must press ahead with vigour. Later in our proceedings, we shall say that it needs to be done with sensitivity, and proper consultation, but that is the subject of later amendments. I do not argue for a prescriptive approach. It must be done with partnership and agreement, and with proper collaboration between the interested parties, but ''must'' seems an appropriate word when specifying the amounts of waste to be sent to landfill in non-target years.
Gregory Barker (Bexhill and Battle): I am greatly looking forward to the Minister speaking in depth about the formula in clause 3. I wonder whether replacing ''may'' with ''must'' would have the additional benefit of simplifying the following clauses, which would save us having to deal with the complications that could arise.
Mr. Hayes: My hon. Friend is teasing me to display my intimate understanding of those matters in an even fuller form than I had intended. He is right that changing the word will have a material effect on the whole of clause 3; it might be that if we change the word to ''must'', the formula will become redundant. Committee members will have read it and worked it through—I did a few thumbnail sketches on it last night and found that if one presents the formula graphically it is a straight-line graph. I am sure that my hon. Friend will understand that. It will certainly be of less significance if the Minister accepts the amendment. Other hon. Members might like to comment on the matter in the course of their perorations.
However, the essence of the amendment is that if we are to meet the target that the Minister has rightly identified—if we are to press ahead with the speed and vigour that we all desire, without giving the Minister overweening powers—''must'' is a more appropriate word. On that basis, I probe the Minister to discover how he sees his role in relation to meeting the targets in the non-target years and whether he feels that it will be helpful for the Bill to give him greater authority so to do. I shall be interested to hear his response. Perhaps, in the course of it, we can have a full mathematical analysis of the formula with some worked examples.
Mr. Jonathan Sayeed (Mid-Bedfordshire): I welcome you to the Chair for this sitting, Miss Begg.
In order to determine whether one wishes to support these amendments, it is important to agree what they mean. It is particularly important to tease out whether the Minister believes that they mean what we think they mean. I shall say what I think they mean, so that the Minister can tell me whether he agrees.
I turn first to amendment No. 32. As the Bill stands, during target years, there is total rigidity owing to external commitments. However, during non-target
Column Number: 41
years there is flexibility and it is within the remit of the Secretary of State to specify the maximum amount of biodegradable municipal waste that can be sent to landfills. If the Secretary of State decides not to use his powers, the default rules specified in clause 3(2) allow the formula to be applied. If he does exert his powers, then he may override the formula.
As I understand the amendment, it would force the Secretary of State by statute to specify the maximum amount of BMW, which would—later in the Bill—render the formula redundant, as there would be no need to use the default rules. Effectively, there would be no need for clause 3.
The argument in favour is that the amendment simplifies the Bill. It removes the complexity of a—straight-line or otherwise—scientific formula, which might be too abstract and inflexible. However, there is also an argument against: it gives the Secretary of State added responsibility and enhanced powers and permits him a degree of flexibility to specify maximum amounts. Effectively, it forces him to use his powers to override the formula and to stipulate, according to the needs of the time, the whole time frame of the Bill's targets.
Amendments Nos. 33 and 34 specify that the Secretary of State's powers are exercisable following consultation with Scotland and Wales. As the Bill stands, the agreement of Scotland and Wales is required, which gives the devolved authorities the power of veto over the Secretary of State's requirements.
I would sum up the arguments in favour as follows. If the Secretary of State is required to consult rather than to seek agreement, that would centralise more power under the control of the Secretary of State and, by definition, the power of England, and would permit the Secretary of State to override the devolved authorities and remove their power of veto. That could be justified by the greater need of England to meet the targets, which are specified externally by the EU and which would require some rigidity. However, there are also arguments against. It would involve the further centralisation of power and a move away from local decision making, and Conservative Members are extremely wary of doing that.
Moving to amendment No. 35, my understanding is that, as the Bill stands, there is no obligation on the Secretary of State to consult local authorities. The amendment would force consultation, but would not give local authorities a power of veto over proposals. The arguments in favour are arguments that are often adduced in similar cases. It would involve local authorities in the decision-making process.
However, the argument against is that some local authorities might consider it to be a somewhat tokenistic gesture—seeking discussion but still retaining the Secretary of State's right to overrule. However, that could be justified by the need to meet external targets, which place responsibility on central Government.
I should be grateful if the Minister would say whether he agrees with my interpretation not only of what the clauses were supposed to mean before
Column Number: 42
amendment, but what they would mean after amendment.
The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Michael Meacher): I, too, am glad to see you in the Chair, Miss Begg, for what will be a warm, and even entertaining, afternoon if it is a repeat of this morning's performance.
I am a little puzzled. Having ended the remarkable morning sitting by being taken to task for being so pedestrian and prosaic as to be committed to the beauty of targets, on the grounds put forward by the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) that I should have a more aesthetic view of life and the great unquantifiable goals of love, friendship and altruism, I am now confronted, in the early afternoon, with being asked to explain an algebraic formula. I am not sure whether to be lyrical or mathematical, but I shall try to respond to each count.
Amendment No. 32 would change the discretionary power that the Bill gives the Secretary of State to set targets in non-target years to an obligation. Opposition Members are right to say that the Bill could be simplified in the way that they suggest. However, the amendments would remove the need, in clause 2, for the Secretary of State to reach agreement with the other United Kingdom Administrations on the maximum amounts of biodegradable and municipal waste to be sent to landfill in non-target years and require only that she consult with those Administrations before making the decision. The proposal is that she should consult but they should not be able to exercise a veto.
The problem is that that proposal runs counter to the devolution agenda. I think—I am sure that I am right—that it would be unacceptable to the Administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland simply to be consulted and told that they could not override a provision. They would not regard that as in keeping with the nature of a devolved relationship, in which there is negotiation between equals. They are not equals, but they are more equal than the amendment implies.
|
