|
Column Number: 111
Standing Committee B
Tuesday 8 April 2003
(Afternoon)
[Mr. David Amess in the Chair]
2.30 pm
The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Michael Meacher): On a point of order, Mr. Amess. Would it be convenient if I were to respond to the point made this morning in relation to amendment No. 13? With your agreement, I shall comment now, because we have moved past that group of amendments.
The hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) asked about the interpretation of clause 10(2)(d), which requires the monitoring authority to
''notify the allocating authority for the area of any case where it appears to the monitoring authority that a waste disposal authority . . . is or may be liable to a penalty''.
He was concerned that the use of ''may be'' in that provision meant that the monitoring authority would have to inform the allocating authority if it predicted that the disposal authority might, in future, breach its allowances. I can assure the hon. Gentleman—I have had it checked—that that is not the case. The word ''may'' is used to cover the situation in which, for example, there is a dispute about how much biodegradable municipal waste has been sent to landfill that would require further investigation, such as checks with the landfill operator, or that would require the allocating authority to take a decision. However, it must appear to the authority that the disposal authority is or could be currently liable and not that it could potentially become liable. That would be an absurd reading, given the possibility of trading.
Put another way, the requirement would be to notify the allocating authority in cases in which it appears to the monitoring authority that a WDA has or may have become liable to a penalty. I hope that that clarifies the situation for the hon. Gentleman.
The Chairman: That is perfectly in order.
Norman Baker (Lewes): Further to that point of order, Mr. Amess. I thank the Minister for having taken the trouble to investigate the matter with his colleagues. Whether or not the word is open to ambiguous interpretation, the Minister's comments are on the record, and that will be useful if anybody wishes to refer to the point.
The Chairman: That is a splendid start to the afternoon's proceedings. Clause 10
Monitoring authorities
Mr. Bill Wiggin (Leominster): I beg to move amendment No. 53, in
It is not my intention to delay the Committee much. Subsection (2)(b) contains the words
Column Number: 112
''audit the performance of waste disposal authorities in the area in complying with their obligations under this Chapter''.
I propose the addition of the helpful words
''and publish this audit annually.''.
The Minister may intend to publish the audit annually in any case, but the amendment is designed to clarify the matter and, should that not be the Minister's intention, to tease out of him why the audit should be kept secret. I have just received a nod from the Minister affirming that my amendment has had its desired result.
Mr. Meacher: As the hon. Gentleman has said, the amendment would result in annual publication of the audit of performance of waste disposal authorities in complying with the waste-sent-to-landfills obligations specified in chapter 1. I am not necessarily opposed to the amendment, as it is perfectly reasonable. I want the allowance scheme in England to be as open and transparent as possible, and I am sure that that applies to the other countries of the United Kingdom. However, the amendment could have major resource implications for England—I know that the hon. Gentleman is hot on resources, as we found out this morning—as annual reports would be required for all 121 waste disposal authorities, including the unitary ones.
In any case, as the hon. Gentleman surmised, the amendment is not necessary: the Bill already provides for allocating authorities to require monitoring authorities to keep a register of monitoring information. That could include information about the performance of waste disposal authorities, and regulations may provide for such a register to be open to public inspection and for members of the public to obtain copies of the information contained in it. We intend the register in England to be as open and accessible as possible to the public, and I assure the Committee that no information will be withheld without an extremely good reason. I have always been extremely keen on freedom of information and on providing information as fully as possible to the public and to interested bodies. Indeed, one of the two private Member's Bills that I attempted to pass through the House of Commons was a freedom of information Bill. Needless to say, it lapsed.
I hope, with that explanation, that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the amendment, as what he seeks to do is already provided for.
Mr. Wiggin: I am delighted to hear what the Minister has to say, particularly in the light of amendment No. 27, which we will discuss under clause 11. English Members of Parliament, in particular, will be able to ask a parliamentary question to find out information about their own authority every year.
Mr. John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings): I do not want to dilute the warm thanks that my hon. Friend is offering the Minister for his assurances. However, I just add one caveat: the information must be available in a comprehensible form in case those who want to access it do not have the necessary expertise. The published information must be in a form that is as comprehensible and
Column Number: 113
accessible as possible. Frankly, not all local government information is.
Mr. Wiggin: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his important intervention. Although I am not an expert in the workings of the Minister, I suspect that he will seek to do exactly that.
Mr. Jonathan Sayeed (Mid-Bedfordshire): Comprehensibility is certainly very useful, but common is also a very useful word. If waste disposal authorities lay out the information in a common fashion, WDAs may be compared with one another. Will my hon. Friend press the Minister to ensure that information provided is comprehensible and laid out in a common form so that like can be compared with like?
Mr. Wiggin: I assume that the Minister will take both those interventions on board.
Mr. Meacher: Perhaps I could record the fact that I agree with both points. Comprehensibility is important, and I have striven to provide information on the pollution infantry, which provides information on 150 pollutants, in a manner that is understood by anoraks and ordinary people alike. I agree with the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed) that information should be provided in a uniform, standard way, and I shall issue guidelines to ensure that that happens.
Mr. Wiggin: It is unusual for me to score a point for the anoraks, but I am grateful to the Minister for his assurances. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. Hayes: I beg to move amendment No. 63, in
As the Committee will have noted, the clause concerns the monitoring authorities and the business of monitoring performance. In the previous short debate, we dealt with the importance of information being both available and appropriate. The amendment would add to the end of the clause a provision exempting operators from the Waste Management Licensing Regulations 1994. It is an attempt to add further, proper scrutiny to the process established in this part of the Bill. It adds to the spirit of the clause and plugs a loophole that might be said to exist, given the limits on the earlier legislation referred to in the amendment. We have said throughout our proceedings—particularly today, when we discussed scrutiny and performance monitoring in respect of the Bill's objectives—that the process must be clear, comprehensive and well understood. That is essential if we are to give public assurance about the implementation of the objectives. I hope that the amendment goes some way towards reinforcing that intent.
Mr. Sayeed: Regulation is one of the key drivers of the waste management industry, and the effective enforcement of regulations is essential if we are to give
Column Number: 114
investors confidence that there is a prospect of waste management resources going into new infrastructure. If environmental regulations are enforced effectively and assiduously, the introduction of new and higher standards should not be a problem.
Some 120,000 sites are exempt from waste management licensing requirements, including golf courses. I know that the Minister has an interest in golf; his son—a very fine golfer—plays at the same club as I do. I have nothing against golf clubs, but, partly because of the funding arrangements, those sites are inspected less frequently by the Environment Agency than are the licensed waste management facilities operated by Environmental Services Association members.
The ESA gave oral evidence to the Select Committee inquiry into the future of waste management on 19 March 2002. It cited the example of an ESA member that operated a licensed waste management facility. Directly opposite that facility was a golf course that was, in places, 7 m higher than it had been in 1993 because of the volume of waste that it had received. That is one way of producing bunkers, I suppose, but I should not like to have to play my bunker shots from a waste dump. According to the ESA, there has been no formal inspection of that golf course by the Environment Agency. We need to ensure that all such sites are covered by the Bill.
That is a problem that runs through the Environment Agency. I have had complaints from metal recyclers that they are visited very frequently by what they describe as rather low-level, extremely poorly paid inspectors, who make life easy by going to an established and well-regulated metal recycler and complaining about where the rubbish bin is, or who say that things would be so much better if a desk were moved 3 in left or right. What they do not do, however, is go half a mile down the road to where a didicoi is stripping out the good bits of cars and dumping the rest all over the countryside. The Environment Agency should deal with the hard targets rather than the easy ones. Can the Minister confirm the ESA's figure of 120,000 sites being exempt from waste management licensing requirements—and, if that is so, what should be done about it?
2.45 pm
| 
