Waste and Emissions Trading Bill [Lords]

---

[back to previous text]

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

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

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

Column Number: 58

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 I hope, with that explanation, that the amendment will be withdrawn.

4 pm

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

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

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

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

Column Number: 59

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

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

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

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

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

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

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

Mr. Meacher: Yes, I am pleased to respond. I hope that—

Mr. Hayes: I now have the regulatory impact assessment in my hand.

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

Column Number: 60

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

Clause 5

Alteration of allocations under section 4

Mr. Hayes: I beg to move amendment No. 37, in

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Column Number: 61

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

 

---

Prepared 3 April 2003