Waste and Emissions Trading Bill [Lords]

---

[back to previous text]

Mr. Hayes: My hon. Friend is right about the direct relationship he describes, which may well have an impact on performance, but I do not think that he would want to give the impression that all waste disposal authorities are unable to recognise the fact that they have a public duty. Many waste disposal authorities do a very good job, and we are speaking about the margins. Waste disposal authorities are rightly concerned about having the correct powers to deal with recalcitrant collection authorities. This is a matter of balance. I am sure that my hon. Friend wants to endorse that, and perhaps talk a little about the difference between symmetry and balance.

Gregory Barker: I must decline my hon. Friend's invitation to deliver a trigonometry lecture, but I wholeheartedly agree with his analysis. He is absolutely right. I am concerned with the few waste disposal authorities that do not work well with the collection authorities. It must be said that, as a nation, we must do better.

We cannot be satisfied with the level of recycling or our disposal practices. We need a complete step change, so I am in no way complacent about even the best being good enough. We have a very long way to go, which is why we keep returning to the problem that the Bill is not sufficiently ambitious, given the scale of the problem that we are confronting.

My hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings spoke extensively, with his usual idiosyncratic charm and eloquence. In particular, he returned to the point that we need an enforceable holistic approach, which must be backed by meaningful powers in the Bill—with stick as well as carrot.

The only attempts to achieve balance and fairness have come from this side of the Committee—similar amendments have been tabled by the Liberal Democrats—and the two are at the heart of our objectives, matched by high ambitions for the future. The hon. Member for Southampton, Test made the knockout observation that, under the current regime, the trump card is always in the hands of the waste disposal authority. That is our everyday experience in constituencies and counties, and it is the obvious conclusion that one reaches on reading the regulations.

3.15 pm

This is the final afternoon of our deliberations. It is our one opportunity to redress the balance and to send a clear message from Westminster to our colleagues in the country that we would like to be far more ambitious. We are not prepared merely to offer sympathy and moral support; we want to go a long way towards arming collection authorities with the tools that they need to enforce a better disposal regime. If I may misquote the bard, the road to the great incinerator is paved with good intentions. There is no doubting Ministers' good intentions, but good intentions are not enough. This is our only

Column Number: 313

opportunity to give this part of the Bill the teeth that it requires, and I appeal to Labour Members to listen to the hon. Member for Southampton, Test and join us in our effort to do so.

Mr. Meacher: I find it difficult to resist the hon. Gentleman's meretricious blandishments. Without going over all the details of our lengthy debate, I repeat first that the collection authority can avoid the consequence that he described by achieving high levels of recycling; secondly, that the matter should not arise if joint waste management strategies work in the way that we intend; thirdly, that disposal authorities have their own recycling targets, particularly at civic amenity sites; and fourthly that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud said, incineration is unpopular.

I now have an answer for my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test. A disposal authority can object to a collection authority's recycling, but only if the disposal authority has made arrangements for recycling, not if it has made arrangements for incineration. My hon. Friend shows a remarkable range of understanding and application in looking at an earlier Act, but his original point is not right. Contrary to the impression that may have been given, disposal authorities are not in a position to subvert the intention of the Government and all members of this Committee. On that basis, I hope that the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle, although he intends to press the amendment to a vote, will concede that the arguments are against it.

Norman Baker: May I pursue that point for a moment? As I understand it, the Minister said that under the 1990 Act, disposal authorities can give instructions to collection authorities to change the method of recycling. I recall that earlier we concluded that collection authorities that were told by disposal authorities to change their practices would be subject to compensation if they found themselves out of pocket. If that is so, does the new provision supersede the 1990 Act or will it have to exist in parallel with it?

Mr. Meacher: I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman's recollection is correct. We envisage that a disposal authority will be able to take steps to change a collection authority's custom and practice over recycling, but only where the disposal authority itself undertakes a certain level of recycling, and not as a way of substituting recycling for incineration. That is the key point. In the circumstances that we are talking about here no case can be made for compensation for the collection authority as a result of any such action by the disposal authority.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 5, Noes 9.

Division No. 7]

AYES
Baker, Norman Barker, Gregory Doughty, Sue
Hayes, Mr. John Wiggin, Mr. Bill

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

Column Number: 314

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 26 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 27

Regulations under Chapter 1: consultation

Norman Baker: I beg to move amendment No. 17, in

clause 27, page 17, leave out lines 42 to 44.

This debate will be rather shorter than the previous one. I simply seek from the Government a statement on their policy on consultation. The Minister will know that we raised the issue earlier when I praised his Department's brave stand in resisting the Cabinet Office guidance and ploughing its own furrow.

The Bill gives the allocating authority—the Secretary of State in the case of England—the power not to consult if it concludes that those who might otherwise be affected will not, in a specific case, be affected by regulations that the Government want to amend. That seems quite reasonable, and I do not wish to demur from it. However, I have concerns. First, the analysis of whether an interest will be affected is rather subjective. The allocating authority may genuinely conclude that individuals are not affected, but those individuals may conclude that they are affected. We would find out the truth only once the regulation had been changed. That is not a happy state of affairs, and it is not how consultation should work.

There is also a potential legal problem. The Minister will be only too aware that there have been various legal judgments relating to consultation, not least that concerning the airports paper in which Gatwick was not included as a possible location for a new runway. The Government had to rerun that entire exercise. I am not sure whether that was right, but that was the judgment that was reached.

Clearly there is a legal aspect to consultation. I do not want to see a situation in which every single person is consulted about every single matter, and on the face of it the clause is quite reasonable, but I have two concerns about it. The first is that the legal framework in case law requires more consultation than the Government may be used to carrying out. Secondly, the interpretation of who is affected may mean that those who are genuinely affected are not consulted and find out about a change after it has been made.

Mr. Meacher: As the hon. Gentleman said, the amendment relates to the requirement for allocating authorities to consult before making regulations. It would require them to consult bodies and persons representative of the interests of disposal authorities or of the operation of landfills in its area, even if those interests were not affected by the regulations. However, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out, that may not automatically be clear.

Nevertheless, it is possible to envisage cases in which the interests of disposal authorities or landfill operators may not be affected by the regulations covered in this part of the Bill. For example, there would be no need to consult landfill operators on regulations made under clause 25, because those would alter penalties that did not affect them. Equally, there

Column Number: 315

would be no need to consult disposal authorities on regulations made under clause 13 about the powers to inspect records held by landfill operators. However, I assure the hon. Gentleman that we intend to carry out comprehensive consultation on all regulations.

If I may be permitted to say to, I sometimes think that one of the Government's problems is consultation-itis. We consult not once but two or even three times. I therefore think it odd to be chastised for not allowing for adequate consultation. It would be a waste of time and resources to require allocating authorities to consult interest groups if the interests of those groups were not affected. There will be the fullest consultation, but it is common sense to restrict it to those groups that are directly affected. That is the basic position, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept it and withdraw the amendment.

Norman Baker: Of course I accept that is reasonable to consult only those who are affected. The amendment was probing, but the Minister has not answered two of the points that I raised: perhaps I did not express myself clearly.

The test of whether an individual or a body is affected is subjective, and I am slightly unhappy with the wording. The individual using the test to decide who to consult might get it wrong. The Minister gave a clear indication of when consultation would be ludicrous, and I accept that, but I am concerned about the grey areas—perhaps a minority of cases—where it will not be clear who should be consulted.

I suggested that the Minister may want to reflect on the proposed consultation in light of recent court judgments. I am not in favour of more consultation, for the reasons given by the Minister. However, I recognise that out in the big wide world are people who take legal action, defending their case on the basis that they were not consulted. That can slow things down, as happened with the Gatwick airport consultation. I am not arguing for more consultation; I am trying to make the system work properly. I shall happily withdraw the amendment, but those were my questions.

 

---

Prepared 29 April 2003