| Waste and Emissions Trading Bill [Lords]
|
|
Mr. Hayes: I want to clear up that point at the outset. The critical point here is that responsibility for meeting the targets, and any fine imposed, would lie with the UK Government. There is a real worry that, if we are to take the hit and own up to the responsibility for meeting targets, we must retain control over the means by which we meet them. That is the purpose of the amendment.
2.45 pmMr. Meacher: It is perfectly true that in the end it is the Government who are responsible to Brussels for meeting the targets. If we failed to do so and were infracted—if that is the word—we would be subject to a payment, although we would ensure that that financial and legal liability was passed on to the other Administrations. To use a more common phrase, we would not simply pick up the tab, but would expect them to pay in accordance with their responsibility, and that is well understood. Column Number: 43 Mr. Sayeed: The Minister says that we would not pick up the tab. However, England keeps picking up the tab for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland through one formula or another. The question is whether they get extra money or not for not doing something that we ask them to—although I might have used too many double negatives and should perhaps express that slightly differently. English taxpayers and ratepayers subsidise Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish taxpayers and ratepayers. I trust that if, for example, Scotland did not undertake a duty that had been imposed and agreed on, more money would not go from English taxpayers to Scotland in order to subsidise that. Mr. Meacher: Although that is certainly the case, there is no suggestion of giving financial aid through a different formula from that which is available in England in order to ensure that those targets be met. I repeat that the Government have made available substantial extra sums to local authorities across the country. That suffices in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Those local authorities are expected to meet the targets with the financial dispensations that have been made. Mr. Bill Wiggin (Leominster): Will the Minister give way? Mr. Meacher: I am finding it difficult to keep to the thread of the argument, but of course I will give way. Mr. Wiggin: Let me help return the Minister to the thread of the argument. When we were talking about target years I asked him whether he felt that the Government's devolutionary spirit would be undermined by the Secretary of State's insisting on compliance during target years, and now it appears that the Secretary of State is happy to be more flexible during non-target years. Does that not undermine the authority of those regional Governments? I do not believe that that is something that the Minister intends to do. Mr. Meacher: No, it certainly is not something that I intend to do, nor is it something that the Government will do. Clause 3 contains the default position, which would prevent that from happening. The approach of the amendment runs counter to the established framework of devolution and would not be acceptable to the Administrations. Protection of the environment is generally a devolved matter, and it is right that the setting of targets in non-target years should be subject to agreement between the parties. In other words, we are trying to provide as much flexibility as we can, while safeguarding the meeting of the targets in the target years. That is the key point. The negotiations are open and transparent—at least I think that that is right, and there is no question of trying to conceal them. If no agreement is reached in non-target years, as is possible, clause 3 provides the default position, which would provide a gradual reduction between target years. Amendment No. 35 would require the Secretary of State to consult relevant local authorities before setting targets through regulations in non-target years under the clause. It is difficult to see quite what the intention is. The Secretary of State and the Column Number: 44 devolved Administrations will agree the setting of targets in non-target years between them. Local authorities have no locus in that operation. Rather, they have locus in allocating allowances to waste disposal authorities under clause 4, for which it is intended that they be consulted on the basis used for the allocation, as part of the wider consultation on regulations to set up the landfill allowances scheme. Once allowances are made, clause 4 requires the allocating authority to publish a statement setting out the allowances allocated to the authority and the basis of the allocation.In relation to the position in Scotland and Wales, to proceed by agreement where possible and not by diktat from London is clearly the only approach in a devolution age. The consultation that is referred to in amendment No. 35 is unnecessary for the reasons that I have given, and I hope that, on those grounds, the amendment will not be pressed. There was some interesting discussion about the exegesis of the mathematical formula. I would not attempt to do any such thing, but I would refer any hon. Member who is interested in exploring it—it is very detailed, although a careful reading makes it clear—to fact sheet No. 5. It is available and I am happy to provide it to any member of the Committee. It sets out in detail, with plenty of graphs, exactly how it operates. The simple principle behind it is that where agreement is not reached, there must be a formula that will ensure that it is reached. That is provided here, and examples are given. Mr. David Drew (Stroud): Who interprets the formula? Is it done within the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs or elsewhere? Mr. Meacher: I hope that the formula is self-disclosing if one takes account of the definition of the variables L, N, B and G. They depend on whether the year in question falls directly after a target year or whether there is one or more intervening year between the last target year and the one in question. If one reads the rules and the footnotes that underpin the formula, that should be clear. In the last analysis, if there were a dispute about how it works, it would be for the Department or the Secretary of Secretary of State to determine it. Norman Baker (Lewes): Since we are talking about the formula— The Chairman: Order. Before the hon. Gentleman starts, the formula comes up in the next clause. Unless it is relevant to clause 2, hon. Members might like to wait until we debate that clause. Mr. Baker, do you still want to intervene? Norman Baker: No; I am suitably chastened. Mr. Meacher: I am, if not suitably chastened, suitably finished. I have answered the points that have been made. I hope that I have explained that our formula is designed to achieve maximum flexibility while ensuring that the targets are met. That is better than simply consulting but saying that there is no veto—in other words, claiming to consult, having already decided. That is not acceptable; the formula is better. I hope that I have explained it and that the Column Number: 45 amendment was a probing one, which the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings will withdraw.Mr. Hayes: There will be more than enough time to discuss the consultation issues associated with the amendments in the course of our proceedings. At this point, I would signal that it is vital that the whole process be founded in the spirit of partnership between local and national Government. Local government will end up having to do the job, and the variety in local situations, both in terms of the volume and nature of waste and of the structure of local government necessitates proper consultation. Two-tier authorities and unitary authorities are involved, as well as urban and rural authorities, all with their own waste culture. However, I accept that that consultation would be best discussed later. As the Minister suggests, the targets are fixed and the consultation might—as my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed) said—be perceived as purely paying lip service if the local authorities were to be consulted only to be told that the matter had been agreed anyway, as the Minister put it. In terms of the Scottish experience, it is important to acknowledge that the Minister has made it clear that we shall not find ourselves in that situation. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire rightly feared that the Minister would be in a position in which the UK Government would accept responsibility and, indeed, financial liability, but that would not be passed on to the devolved assemblies. However, the Minister made it clear that that was not the case and that the assemblies would be expected to take, in an appropriate fashion, their share of the responsibility and any financial penalties that might ensue. On the basis that the Minister has given us assurances on both those points, and given that we shall debate the formula in fine detail in the discussion that we are about to enjoy, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill. Mr. Meacher: I am happy to respond to any questions, but we have explored the fundamental principle and I have nothing further to add. Given that the Committee is anxious to make progress and save time for the more substantive issues, I shall conclude my remarks. Question put and agreed to. Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2003 | Prepared 3 April 2003 |
