Waste and Emissions Trading Bill [Lords]

---

[back to previous text]

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Wiggin: Shall I draw that to the Minister's attention?

Mr. Meacher: Do you want me to respond?

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

2.59 pm

Sitting suspended.

3.10 pm

On resuming—

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

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

Column Number: 47

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

Norman Baker: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Meacher: Obviously, I am not going to get very far.

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

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

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

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

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

3.15 pm

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

Column Number: 48

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Meacher: It has.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4

Allocation of landfill allowances

Mr. Wiggin: I beg to move amendment No. 36, in

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

Column Number: 49

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Column Number: 50

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

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

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

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

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

 

---

Prepared 3 April 2003