Clause 1 - Target years
Waste and Emissions Trading Bill [Lords]
8:55 am
Mr John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings, Conservative)
I beg to move amendment No. 29, in
clause 1, page 1, line 7, leave out 'must' and insert 'may'.
I am delighted to kick off our proceedings.
At first sight, the amendment might seem to weaken the Bill's provisions fundamentally because part 1 arguably sets the tone for our consideration of the Bill
as a whole. In fact, the reason for the amendment is the uncertainty—to put it mildly—about the opportunities to exercise the derogation that the provisions make available to the Government.
The Bill deals with waste. Our record on the amount of biodegradable municipal waste that goes to landfill is lamentable—and among the worst in Europe—although I think that the Minister has said that in Greece the situation is worse, and he might be right. However, we are certainly not near the top of the league table of dealing with waste in an environmentally friendly manner, which is why our targets are stiff. That is acknowledged in all parts of the House, and in debates on the matter the Minister has said that the targets are demanding and challenging.
As we debate whether to put ''may'' instead of ''must'' in subsection (1), the question whether the derogation will be used arises. The matter will be debated again when we come to an amendment on the derogation, but it is important to consider how the Government intend to proceed in respect of the targets. ''Must'' suggests that the Government will not use the power to extend the timetable, whereas ''may'' would perhaps give greater flexibility to do so. That does not suggest in any shape or form that those in the Opposition who care about these matters deeply want to dilute the intent to move ahead. It is vital to make significant progress in dealing with waste, but I wonder whether the targets can be met. Does the Minister wonder the same thing? He has hinted that he is uncertain that the targets can be met, has talked of them as an enormous challenge, and has said how stiff they are. I do not doubt the Minister's resolve to try to meet those targets, but if we do not allow any flexibility or take account of the possible derogation—