Waste and Emissions Trading Bill [Lords]

---

[back to previous text]

Mr. Meacher: Okay. I am prepared to accept that, so I should play down, if not withdraw, the objection to amendments Nos. 3 and 50 on the grounds that they could have unintended results. I can see that, from their wording, that does not appear to be so, but I retain my present position whereby I cannot agree to those amendments because I am not yet in a position to do so. I hope that I can clarify this important matter further by the time the Bill is considered on Report, when I am sure that we will return to it. I hope that neither amendment will be pressed, on the grounds that I have indicated that the Government are serious about this matter. There is a very good precedent in statute, but I cannot take the matter further now, and I hope that the Committee accepts that.

Mr. Hayes: It may be worth saying something about our discussion on the other amendments in the group. The Minister is right that, in general terms, these are probing amendments. The purpose of the Conservative amendments was certainly to tease out comment from the Minister and to establish precisely the Government's intention. Although amendment No. 48 would help by providing clarification, I accept the Minister's point that it is not strictly necessary because its effect is implicit in the Bill.

On amendment No. 49, the Minister suggested that a later part of the Bill clarifies that the penalty is financial. Again, the amendment is important from a probing perspective, but I broadly accept his assurance that, although it is not unhelpful, it is unnecessary.

I make no particular comment on the ''may be'' issue, if I may describe it so, which the hon. Member for Lewes elucidated. Amendments Nos. 12 and 13 are in his name.

Column Number: 107

The important matter is amendment No. 50 and, to a slightly lesser extent, amendment No. 3. They have brought an important issue to a head. I am grateful to the Minister for expressing his views, which are close to our own, and of course I understand the sensitivity of discussions in the Government on these matters. However, my judgment is that we would want to press amendment No. 50. I think that that would be quite helpful to the Minister—he may take a different view—because it would demonstrate how strongly the Committee feels about these matters. I do not doubt for a second the absolute honesty of the Minister's remarks, but dropping the amendment at this stage would not reflect the depth of the Committee's feelings.

I suspect that the Minister will have the opportunity to return to the matter on Report. Far be it from me to predict such things, but the Government might table a similar amendment with slightly tighter wording—who knows? I happen to like our wording, but that is a matter of nuance, judgment and aesthetics. I am therefore inclined to press amendment No. 50 to a vote.

It is not for me to say what the hon. Member for Lewes will do about amendment No. 3; it is for you to test him on that, Mr. Griffiths. However, we might be inclined to support it, because, despite my earlier jibes, we very much accept its sense and content, as the hon. Gentleman knows.

That is where I stand on the amendments. We have had a useful debate, and we shall no doubt return to these issues when the Bill reaches its later stages.

Norman Baker: I am grateful for the Minister's serious and thoughtful response to the amendments. He probably went as far as he could in the circumstances, but the bottom line is that he could not confirm that the intention behind the amendment would become Government policy, that the words in the amendment, or similar words, would be incorporated in the Bill, or that he would be able to persuade his colleagues of the validity of our argument. He could confirm that he is supportive and sympathetic, and that he understands the arguments, but that will not necessarily produce the legislation that we want. I therefore intend to press amendment No. 3 to a vote, and I hope that that will steel the Minister's arguing power with his colleagues.

Mr. Hayes: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed: No. 3, in

clause 9, page 7, line 27, at end insert—

'( ) All monies in respect of financial penalties collected under this section shall be hypothecated directly to waste disposal authorities as directed by the allocating authority.'.—[Norman Baker.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

Column Number: 108

The Committee divided: Ayes 7, Noes 10.

Division No. 3]

AYES
Baker, Norman Barker, Gregory Doughty, Sue Hayes, Mr. John
Robertson, Hugh Sayeed, Mr. Jonathan Wiggin, Mr. Bill

NOES
Ainger, Mr. Nick Dobbin, Jim Drew, Mr. David Havard, Mr. Dai Kidney, Mr. David
Meacher, Mr. Michael Thomas, Gareth Tipping, Paddy Whitehead, Dr. Alan Wright, Mr. Anthony D.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 10

Monitoring authorities

Mr. Wiggin: I beg to move amendment No. 52, in

clause 10, page 7, line 39, leave out from 'must' to 'be'.

I shall not detain the Committee long. I seek to ensure that responsibility is retained by the authority, rather than passed to an individual. When we pressed the Minister earlier about who would take responsibility for misdemeanours, his answer was far from clear. I hope that he will take this opportunity to clarify that the allocating authority must be the monitoring authority in its own area. That is the intention behind the amendment, which is very short and very sweet. Given the time on the clock, that is quite appropriate.

Mr. Meacher: I shall also attempt to be extremely quick. I am interested to hear the reasoning behind the amendment. The issue, quite simply, is who is best placed to take on this role, given the need for expertise in regulating waste operations, as well as contacts and access to data, to reduce the burdens on local authorities and the waste industry.

For England, the answer is straightforward. The Environment Agency is the designated authority in respect of the landfill directive. It is best placed to take on the role of monitoring authority for the allowance scheme in England. The Department, on behalf of the Secretary of State, has neither the technical expertise nor the access to data to make it viable as a monitoring authority. As the skills and other attributes required already reside in the agency, I see no reason to reinvent them elsewhere. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that and withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Wiggin: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

It being twenty-five minutes past Eleven o'clock, The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned till this day at half-past Two o'clock.

Column Number: 109

The following Members attended the Committee:
Griffiths, Mr. Win (Chairman)
Ainger, Mr.
Baker, Norman
Barker, Gregory
Dobbin, Jim
Doughty, Sue
Drew, Mr.
Havard, Mr.
Hayes, Mr.

Column Number: 110

Kidney, Mr.
Meacher, Mr.
Robertson, Hugh
Sayeed, Mr.
Thomas, Gareth
Tipping, Paddy
Whitehead, Dr.
Wiggin, Mr.
Wright, Mr. Anthony D.

 

---

Prepared 8 April 2003