Clause 1 - Target years
Waste and Emissions Trading Bill [Lords]
8:55 am
Mr Michael Meacher (Minister of State (the Environment), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Oldham West and Royton, Labour)
This is an interesting first amendment because, as the hon. Gentleman has recognised, it could be perceived as a fundamental weakening of the structure of the Bill. I accept that that is not his intention and I realise that it is a probing amendment, presumably to find out why there is an obligation on the Secretary of State to specify an amount in target years but only a power to do so in non-target years. For the years for which targets are set in the landfill directive, which the United Kingdom must meet, amendment No. 20 changes into a discretionary power the obligation placed by the Bill on the Secretary of State to specify by regulations the amount of biodegradable municipal waste that can be landfilled in each target year by the UK and each of its component countries.
The hon. Gentleman is concerned about whether we can meet those obligations. They are absolute and are subject to infraction proceedings and to sizable fines, to which I am determined that the UK will not become liable. By no means am I suggesting that we might not meet them and that, therefore, we need to have a measure of discretion. The fact is that we do not have a measure of discretion. As I said, the limits have been set down for the first period, which is 2006. A derogation may apply until 2010, if we choose to use it; indeed, I think that we are bound to in the first period. We must achieve a target of no more than 75 per cent. of 1995 landfill levels. That is a very testing target, but it is absolute and it is an obligation. There can be no question of using our discretion or of changing the dates or amounts—we can change neither. The UK must meet its obligations under the landfill directive. The devolved authorities recognise that fact, which neither they nor, indeed, anyone else has challenged. In order to meet those obligations, they have agreed to the division of targets set out in clause 1(1).
I recognise that the hon. Gentleman has simply tabled a probing amendment and that he does not seriously intend to weaken the Bill's structure. I am
absolutely clear about the fact that the obligation must remain an obligation, that the ''must'' must remain and that we cannot insert ''may''. On that basis, I hope that he will withdraw the amendment.