|
Mr. Meacher: On that specific point, cross-border trading would certainly be permitted—that issue arose at an earlier point—but it is expected that such trading would be preceded by an agreement among the relevant countries to ensure proper monitoring. On that basis, it could certainly occur.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 25 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 26
Penalties under Chapter 1: General
Norman Baker: I beg to move amendment No. 16, in
The amendment returns us to a point that was discussed earlier, namely the response of waste disposal authorities to the new regime that will be created for them. It also concerns the response of allocating authorities to situations that may arise. I am very much in favour of subsection (3), which clearly
Column Number: 292
sets out for waste disposal authorities the regime that will be put in place with regard to fines, when penalties will be enforced, the rules for calculating their amounts, provisions as to where payments are made and so on. Waste disposal authorities can be in no doubt as to the consequences if they fail to meet their targets or otherwise behave in a way that would incur penalties. That is admirable.
If we are to see the step change that the Government want to happen in terms of waste disposal methods, especially with regard to increased recycling, it is absolutely right to have penalties and to enforce them. So, subsection (3) seems absolutely admirable to me, but we have a rather different scenario in subsection (1). That is where the amendment comes in. In subsection (1), we see that the allocating authority may, notwithstanding the regime clearly set out in subsection (3),
''extend the time for paying the whole or part of the penalty or any interest on it''.
We suggest a 12-month limit on that extension.
Subsection (1)(c)(ii) even gives the allocating authority the power to
''relieve the waste disposal authority, in whole or in part, from liability to the penalty or any interest on it.''
That is a curious arrangement. On the one hand, the clause sets out clear rules with firm penalties, but, on the other, the allocating authority could say, ''If you don't like it, or if it is not working, we shall waive the penalty entirely.''
There are two dangers in taking such an approach. First, subsection (1)(c) sends the message to waste disposal authorities that, notwithstanding the penalty regime, they still have the option to argue with the allocating authority over making representations to the Government—I put it bluntly—that they should be exempted from paying the penalty because of their particular circumstances, that it should be scaled down or that they should at least have more time to pay.
That would be a charter for special pleading for waste disposal authorities, and I predict that they will be queuing up at the Minister's door saying that they should not pay the penalty that the rules suggest. That cannot be what the Government want. They cannot want the Minister of the day interfering and negotiating with waste disposal authorities, saying ''If you do this, you will not incur the penalty,'' or, ''If you do that, we can shave the penalty down.'' That would give undue power to the Secretary of State.
It would be much better to have the regime suggested in subsection (3), which states the arrangements simply. We do not have a criminal justice system that sets maximum penalties and then allows Ministers to decide whether the circumstances of a case permit the penalties to be waived. That would interfere in the judicial process, although it seems that a similar mechanism is countenanced in subsection (1).
Mr. Hayes: The hon. Gentleman is making a persuasive argument. Once again, it is about clarity. We should not underestimate the nature or importance of the message that comes from our debates: we are making tough demands, so we need to be absolutely
Column Number: 293
clear about their repercussions. As with derogations, clarity is critical. The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, which is bigger than we first anticipated. It is about the signals that the Committee gives the authorities.
Norman Baker: I am grateful for that intervention, which reinforces what I said. It further reinforces a point that I made on Second Reading, when I painted a scenario in which, notwithstanding the derogations that may come into force, the targets may be missed by some or all waste disposal authorities. Given the step-change that has to be made, that is not inconceivable.
The authorities would then argue for the penalties to be waived or put off, saying to the Minister, ''If you enforce the penalties under clause 26(3), you will take away money for recycling and further reduce our ability to meet the targets. We are in a downward spiral, and you will make it worse. You will deprive us of the means to do what you want. You must let us off the penalties.'' I can imagine such conversations taking place in three or four years and the authorities queuing up at the Minister's door.
Subsection (1)(c) is an admission by the Government that many waste disposal authorities may not meet their targets, that penalties will be incurred and that they may have to be waived. Why else include a provision that could allow the Minister to override subsection (3)? Why else override the rules for calculating the penalty? Why else override the provisions on when penalties are due? Why are those provisions all being negated?
The answer is that the Minister wants an escape clause should the whole thing go pear-shaped, but that is not the right message to send to waste disposal authorities. They know that targets have been set but that, if they are not met, the penalties can be watered down. That is not what we should be saying to the authorities. They must be under no illusion: all penalties incurred under the rules must be met. The amendment, which my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford and I have tabled, sets a maximum leeway of 12 months, which is pretty generous. I cannot foresee any circumstances in which there would have to be any extension beyond 12 months. I hope that the Minister takes that point on board.
11 am
The Minister is sending out the wrong message with subsection (1)(c), which is that the targets and the thrust of the Bill can be fatally undermined. If he concludes that waste disposals authorities do not have the powers, funds, wherewithal or whatever else to meet the targets, the answer to the conundrum is to set up a special fund or to provide extra funding by local authority-Office of the Deputy Prime Minister channelling. The way to help waste disposal authorities that do not meet their targets cannot be to let them off their penalties, which would be fatal.
Mr. Meacher: The hon. Gentleman makes a strong case, and I have considerable sympathy with him. However, I say at the outset that there is no question of letting waste disposal authorities off the hook. The wording in subsection (1)(c) is qualified by the premise that ''the allocating authority may'', which does not
Column Number: 294
suggest that the authority will do what is described or that if large numbers of authorities queue up at the office, they will all be let off. The question is whether there should be flexibility.
The amendment would limit the power of the allocating authority to extend time in which to pay the whole or part of a penalty under chapter 1, as well as any interest on it. As the hon. Gentleman said, the amendment would prevent the time for payment from being extended by more than one year. Given the force of his argument, I am surprised that he tabled an amendment to paragraph (c)(i), as opposed to paragraph (c)(ii), for which he seemed to be arguing.
The amendment would reduce the flexibility available to the Secretary of State and to other allocating authorities in the case of a waste disposal authority landfilling more than its allocation or breaching other requirements of the landfill allowances scheme.
Sue Doughty: We have one additional consideration. If for whatever reason the Minister suggests that he is not encouraging people to beat a path to his door, we shall continue to have a political situation, which I think the public have by now rumbled, whereby Governments are often more friendly to local authorities that are of the same political persuasion as themselves. There could again be opportunities for people to say, ''Well, we won't go so heavy,'' ''They had an excuse,'' or ''We won't fund this local authority, but we will fund that.'' We have been talking about the amount of money that is given to local authorities to support the change from landfill to other technologies, or about the lack of funding or budgetary constraints, which is a political decision. The amount of money that local authorities have—
The Chairman: Order. This is becoming a speech rather than an intervention.
Sue Doughty: I think that the Minister will get the gist of my concerns about political bias, which the amendment would prevent.
Mr. Meacher: I understand the hon. Lady's point that a Secretary of State or allocating authority could respond more positively to a waste disposal authority of the same political complexion. However, the amendment allows for discretion in payment to be given up to a year, so judgment could still be exercised in a discriminatory way, although I take the general point.
I absolutely agree that if there are to be financial penalties—and there are—they need to be a strong deterrent. That is their purpose, and we should not send out the signal that the penalties are voluntary or discretionary and that with a nod and a wink payment can be deferred almost indefinitely. We do not want to generate that situation.
The Secretary of State might extend the time available for a penalty to be paid if, for example, the ability to pay over several years would enable a waste disposal authority to continue investment in alternatives to landfill. The hon. Member for Lewes, in moving the amendment, anticipated that by saying that all sorts of excuses about good and worthy
Column Number: 295
purposes would be used in order to benefit from that discretion. I have some sympathy with his point, and I am prepared to look at the matter again. I am not prepared to say that we should limit the discretion to a period of one year, nor would I want to give the impression that the financial penalty could be easily manipulated, particularly by a sympathetic Secretary of State; that is not the intention of the Bill. I am prepared, without prejudice, to reconsider the matter.
|
