Mr Michael Meacher (Minister of State (the Environment), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Oldham West & Royton, Labour)

There may well be a wish to discuss further questions about the formula. I hope that that

can be done by reference to fact sheet No. 5. The clause provides default rules for setting the maximum amount of biodegradable municipal waste by weight that may be sent to landfill by the constituent countries of the UK in scheme years that are not target years. The default rules would apply if the Secretary of State did not set a maximum for that year under clause 2 because, for example, she could not secure agreement on the target with the appropriate authority. The formula secures the reductions needed to meet the target in the next directive target year in equal annual steps from the last target year, or the last scheme year when agreement was reached—whichever is the later. That ensures that the reductions required by target years are achievable through progressive reductions in targets for non-target years in the absence of agreement between the parties. Our preference is for such agreement, but if that cannot be achieved, the default formula kicks in.

Mr Gregory Barker (Bexhill & Battle, Conservative)

I am sorry to interrupt the Minister and I may well be ill prepared, but no one seems to have access to fact sheet No. 5; I do not believe that it is supplied on the Table. It would greatly help the debate if we had sight of that fact sheet.

Mr Michael Meacher (Minister of State (the Environment), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Oldham West & Royton, Labour)

I am sure that that is right, because to attempt to explain the measure to this avid listening group without access to the detailed figures is a virtually impossible task.

Miss Anne Begg (Aberdeen South, Labour)

May I suggest that we suspend the Committee, because I think that someone has gone to get fact sheet No. 5? I hope that that will take only a few minutes.

Mr Bill Wiggin (Leominster, Conservative)

On a point of order, Miss Begg. Could something as important as fact sheet No. 5 be included in the explanatory notes to the Bill, or is there a formula for explanatory notes that would preclude something as germane as that fact sheet from being included?

Miss Anne Begg (Aberdeen South, Labour)

The Minister in charge and his Department produce the explanatory notes.

Mr Bill Wiggin (Leominster, Conservative)

Shall I draw that to the Minister's attention?

Mr Michael Meacher (Minister of State (the Environment), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Oldham West & Royton, Labour)

Do you want me to respond?

Miss Anne Begg (Aberdeen South, Labour)

I have suspended the Committee, so you can do anything that you like.

Sitting suspended.

On resuming—

Miss Anne Begg (Aberdeen South, Labour)

Order. The doorkeeper is distributing fact sheet No. 5, so every Committee member will have a copy. I believe that the technology in the House slowed things down.

Mr Michael Meacher (Minister of State (the Environment), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Oldham West & Royton, Labour)

I have never known such demand for a DEFRA fact sheet; I hope that that is a harbinger of things to come. It is complex and it might take hon. Members a while to get the hang of it. I apologise for the fact that it was not made available with the explanatory notes. We shall ensure that the other six of

the seven fact sheets are made available at the start of the next sitting.

Mr Norman Baker (Lewes, Liberal Democrat)

Will the Minister give way?

Mr Michael Meacher (Minister of State (the Environment), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Oldham West & Royton, Labour)

Obviously, I am not going to get very far.

Mr Norman Baker (Lewes, Liberal Democrat)

I have had a moment or two to look at the formula afresh, without reading fact sheet No. 5. The explanation of the letters is given in subsection (5), G and B being relevant years. I fail to understand why it is G + 1 and B + 1, rather than simply G and B. What is the significance of the one that is added? Can the Minister comment on the implications of removing the one?

Mr Michael Meacher (Minister of State (the Environment), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Oldham West & Royton, Labour)

I am sure that by the time I finish my other remarks an answer will be forthcoming—at least, I hope so. Having made the fact sheet available, I do not think that we should become too involved in the algebra. It is the principle behind it that is the issue. The formula secures the reductions needed to meet the target in the next directive target year in equal annual steps from the last target year—which is why there are two graphs with a straight line at different levels of incline—or the last scheme year when agreement was reached, whichever is the later. That ensures that, in the absence of an agreement between the parties, which we would much prefer, the reductions required by target years are achievable through progressive reductions in targets for non-target years.

Subsection (6) deems the year ending 16 July 2004—that is important because it is the first opportunity when it kicks in—a target year for the purposes of the default rule. That is necessary because the default might be—I would say, will be—needed before the first actual target year, which is 2010. The amount deemed to have been set under clause 1 for the nominal target year of 2004 will be set by regulations, but will be based on the amount sent to landfill in the year ending 31 March 2001. Again, that is necessary to ensure that the formula can be worked through before the first landfill directive target year. That base amount may only be set after consultation with the constituent countries of the UK. That is basically how the formula works. Unless I can offer any further advice—

Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test, Labour)

Perhaps I can help my right hon. Friend. As far as I can see, where there were no years between the target years, and so G and B are nought, part of the formula would be multiplied or divided by nought, which would make nonsense of the formula. The + 1 is therefore needed.

Mr Michael Meacher (Minister of State (the Environment), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Oldham West & Royton, Labour)

I have always known that it was a stroke of genius to have my hon. Friend on the Committee. That is a brilliant explanation. It sounds plausible to me, and I am prepared to stand by it.

Mr John Hayes (South Holland & The Deepings, Conservative)

I am grateful to the Minister for making the information available to the Committee. I said to him privately, and it is worth placing this on the record, that I had the wit to work out the graph before I had seen fact sheet No. 5, but I did not have the wit to find fact sheet No. 5. I do not know what that says about me. I understand that it was available in the

Library, and I am grateful for the Minister's generosity in ensuring that we all have it and for making the commitment that we will have all the other necessary fact sheets.

If we pursue the logic of the debate a few moments ago, by which, in effect, we gave priority to ''may'' rather than ''must'' at the beginning of the chapter, we find that it is absolutely essential to have a default formula. The formula presented to us does exactly as the Minister says and provides a guarantee that we will have a reasonable chance of meeting the targets on the basis of a progression. To that extent, it is appropriate. I have little more to add.

Mr Bill Wiggin (Leominster, Conservative)

Although I am deeply impressed that my hon. Friend managed to discern that this was a straight-line graph, I am a little worried that as the Committee needed fact sheet No. 5, anyone taking part in the negotiations will also need it. Perhaps it should be part of the explanatory notes, or there should be a more permanent accompaniment than something that is squirreled away in the Library.

Mr John Hayes (South Holland & The Deepings, Conservative)

That is a fair point. I do not wish to be facetious, but it is important that the default position is comprehensible, especially to those who have a direct interest in these matters. Frankly, given the confusion that it has caused among the luminaries of the Committee, I hate to think what it might do more widely. My hon. Friend is right; comprehensibility is an important factor, given that the Bill requires a spirit of partnership with several agencies, as I said earlier. The Minister may want to reflect on the need to explain it to people in more detail so that it is more widely accessible. On that note, I conclude my remarks, and I look forward to the Minister perhaps reflecting and commenting on them in the course of his own deliberations.

Mr Michael Meacher (Minister of State (the Environment), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Oldham West & Royton, Labour)

I shall be extremely quick. I do not believe that every negotiator at local authority level needs to grasp the full algebraic beauty of fact sheet No. 5. The issue is simple: we try to reach agreement with the bodies that are responsible for carrying out the aims of the Bill, but in case we cannot do so, there must be an agreed formula by which we can achieve those target productions within the time scale. This formula delivers them. People are free to go through the mathematical detail if they want to, but it is unnecessary to force that on them, and it would not be welcome. In the end, the proposition is simple, even if it looks complicated.

Mr Norman Baker (Lewes, Liberal Democrat)

I shall abandon the mathematical formula, but ask whether the concept of the default rules has been agreed with the Scottish Parliament and the National Assembly for Wales.

Mr Michael Meacher (Minister of State (the Environment), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Oldham West & Royton, Labour)

It has.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.