|
Mr. Meacher: These matters are fairly peripheral to the amendment. We are considering the entire range of the agency's duties and responsibilities, and we are asking whether a recent change has been fully funded. I cannot answer that directly, but if the hon. Gentleman wishes to press the point, he can write to me and I can have it checked.
I am sympathetic to the purpose of the amendment. Those are not just soft words; we will issue a major consultation paper in the next few months that will examine waste management regulation exemptions far more thoroughly than ever before. We are considering the issue in a broader way than the amendment would achieve. I hope that after this slightly diffuse discussion the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) will feel satisfied that we have taken his point on board and that there is no need to press the amendment.
3 pm
Mr. Hayes: Yes, I am impressed with the Minister's assurances about tightening the enforcement and inspection regime. It is clear that that determination permeates the Bill, and it has been reinforced by the Minister's comments. It is important that the Committee has recognised that there is a loophole. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 11
Scheme regulations
Mr. Wiggin: I beg to move amendment No. 24, in
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
No. 25, in
No. 23, in
No. 26, in
clause 11, page 8, line 23, after 'registers', insert 'by the allocating authority'.
Mr. Wiggin: The amendments appear small and not overly wordy, but their purpose is important, as it has to do with the burden of responsibility for definitions. Amendment No. 24 seeks to shift responsibility from the allocating authorities to the Secretary of State. That would be constructive because providing for determining the amount of biodegradable municipal waste in an amount of waste could be interpreted very differently by allocating authorities in different parts of the country. That is the nub of the issue.
Column Number: 119
The Bill seeks to cut the amount of biodegradable waste that goes to landfill. Unless we have one authority to determine the definition, different levels will occur in different areas. Trade between the different areas will only compound the problem. As we consider the regulations under subsection (1), we can see why it is important that the Secretary of State, rather than the allocating authority, should make provision for the purpose of carrying into effect the chapter's provisions. I have helpfully added that it would, if necessary, be possible to agree a formula with the Government for the allocating authorities.
The important point, which my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire mentioned, is that we compare like with like, and the amendments seek to achieve that. They may not be in the best place in the Bill, and they may not be worded in the most eloquent fashion, but the Minister will understand that it is important that we have a uniform approach to waste. The present wording could allow authorities to differentiate between types of waste. I hope that the amendment will be seen in a constructive light and that the Committee will accept it.
Mr. Meacher: I am a bit surprised by the amendment because we have touched previously on the devolution of responsibilities between the Government in Westminster and other parts of the UK administration. I made it clear then, and will again now, that I cannot accept changes that run counter to the devolution agenda and that—rightly—would not be acceptable to the Administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
Protection of the environment is generally a devolved matter. That is right, and I should have thought that it was widely accepted. It is for those Administrations to make the regulations required to cover all aspects of the allowances scheme in their areas. The Secretary of State should not become involved in how those matters are handled in other UK countries once the initial maximum amounts of biodegradable municipal waste allowed to go to landfill have been specified. That is the key point; it is what the directive requires. We have to lay down the mechanisms by which it will be done—the points in each target year and at each inter-target year stage, and the levels that have to be reached to ensure that the targets are achieved and the final target met in 2016 to 2020. So long as the target figures are reached, how that is done is a matter for the devolved Administrations. I am surprised that that is not widely accepted.
As regards amendment No. 27, regulations under clause 11 may provide for registers to be maintained on matters relating to landfill allowances. Who should maintain such a register will depend on the type of information that a register will contain—
The Chairman: Order. We have not reached amendment No. 27; we are on amendments Nos. 24, 25, 23 and 26.
Mr. Hayes: The Minister spoke earlier about the importance of aesthetics. In no way should the aesthetics of this kind of debate be adulterated by inefficiencies in paperwork. We should focus on the
Column Number: 120
elegance, style and panache with which the Minister is delivering his speech, rather than being pedantic about its content.
Mr. Meacher: That was a marvellous speech, and one that should be recorded in the annals of Hansard with all the credit that it deserves. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Amess, you are right to say that amendment No. 27 appears in the next set of amendments; I was reading ahead in my brief. Nevertheless, as I said, it runs contrary to the devolution agenda.
Mr. Wiggin: When the Minister touched on devolution in the first part of his speech, I was tempted to make a joke about the waste Lothian question. At that point, he was talking about target and non-target years. He has no problem in insisting on intervening to ensure that the maximum weight of biodegradable waste in each scheme should be set during target years, whereas he is happy to leave it to the devolved Governments in non-target years.
The problem lies in determining the amount of biodegradable waste within a given amount of waste. The percentage of the waste in a dustbin that is biodegradable does not change depending on whether we are in a target year. That is why I felt that it would be helpful if the Minister maintained a formula to help devolved Governments to decide how much of that dustbin waste qualified.
Mr. Meacher: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that there is a distinction between target years, when we have to meet target figures, and inter-target years, when there is some latitude, although we cannot allow it to stretch far. There is a default formula in case we seem not to be on track. We are talking about the detailed minutiae of how the figures will be achieved, and I do not think that it is for the allocating authority for the UK to determine what proportion of biodegradable municipal organic waste should be put in a particular dustbin. It is not appropriate for the Secretary of State to specify that sort of detail; it should be left to the devolved Administrations. I should have thought that even they would devolve that decision much lower.
Mr. Wiggin: As I understand the Minister, when the people in Scotland work out the quantity of biodegradable waste from their waste stream, and when it is different from the Welsh amount, we will achieve different amounts in non-target years across the UK. That does not seem to be what the Bill is about. I hoped that the amendment would throw some light on that, but it has not. I may be being unfair, because the Minister was addressing his comments to the wrong amendment, but the point is important.
The Minister seems to have been trying to tell us that he would like devolved authorities to set provisions and targets, but he has not been able to help me with the problem that they might set different amounts. We are trying to produce a uniform result in order to comply with the European directive, and the Bill fails in that respect. That is why I am somewhat agitated.
Column Number: 121
Mr. Sayeed: The fact is that information matters more than set targets. So long as a conclusion is reached in the target year as to how ground will be made up in the intervening years, they are not important. What is important is what is in amendment No. 27—we shall come to that at a later stage—regarding transparency, so that people know where they are, what they have to do and that they can be checked off against other authorities.
Mr. Wiggin: I am grateful. Does the Minister want to continue with his intervention? I had a feeling that he was about to make one.
Mr. Meacher: I wanted to make it clear that what I said was addressed to the relevant amendments, Nos. 24, 25, 23 and 26. However, I referred to amendment No. 27, although that was out of order, because I thought that it had a bearing on the matter. It is not appropriate to impose that degree of detailed regulation on the devolved Administrations. The amendment would require the Secretary of State to make regulations covering the whole UK for the purpose of carrying into effect the landfill allowances scheme,
''following formulae agreed with the Government''.
As I said, that runs wholly counter to the devolution agenda. The Administrations in the other countries would object. Protection of the environment is a devolved matter, and it is for those Administrations to make the regulations that cover detailed aspects of the allowances scheme in their areas.
Other hon. Members do not have the reservoir of expertise that is available to me, so I do not object to the terminology. However, it is not clear what is meant by
''following formulae agreed with the Government''.
I repeat that the amendment is misguided. The basic framework should be set out in the Bill, and the detailed provisions should be left to the devolved Administrations. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that.
| 
