Mr Bill Wiggin (Leominster, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 24, in

clause 11, page 8, line 17, leave out from beginning to 'make' and insert

'The Secretary of State must'.

Mr David Amess (Southend West, Conservative)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:

No. 25, in

clause 11, page 8, line 18, leave out

'in relation to its area'.

No. 23, in

clause 11, page 8, line 19, after 'allowances', insert

'following formulae agreed with the Government'.

No. 26, in

clause 11, page 8, line 23, after 'registers', insert 'by the allocating authority'.

Mr Bill Wiggin (Leominster, Conservative)

The amendments appear small and not overly wordy, but their purpose is important, as it has to do with the burden of responsibility for definitions. Amendment No. 24 seeks to shift responsibility from the allocating authorities to the Secretary of State. That would be constructive because providing for determining the amount of biodegradable municipal waste in an amount of waste could be interpreted very differently by allocating authorities in different parts of the country. That is the nub of the issue.

The Bill seeks to cut the amount of biodegradable waste that goes to landfill. Unless we have one authority to determine the definition, different levels will occur in different areas. Trade between the different areas will only compound the problem. As we consider the regulations under subsection (1), we can see why it is important that the Secretary of State, rather than the allocating authority, should make provision for the purpose of carrying into effect the chapter's provisions. I have helpfully added that it would, if necessary, be possible to agree a formula with the Government for the allocating authorities.

The important point, which my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire mentioned, is that we compare like with like, and the amendments seek to achieve that. They may not be in the best place in the Bill, and they may not be worded in the most eloquent fashion, but the Minister will understand that it is important that we have a uniform approach to waste. The present wording could allow authorities to differentiate between types of waste. I hope that the amendment will be seen in a constructive light and that the Committee will accept it.

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

I am a bit surprised by the amendment because we have touched previously on the devolution of responsibilities between the Government in Westminster and other parts of the UK administration. I made it clear then, and will again now, that I cannot accept changes that run counter to the devolution agenda and that—rightly—would not be acceptable to the Administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

Protection of the environment is generally a devolved matter. That is right, and I should have thought that it was widely accepted. It is for those Administrations to make the regulations required to cover all aspects of the allowances scheme in their areas. The Secretary of State should not become involved in how those matters are handled in other UK countries once the initial maximum amounts of biodegradable municipal waste allowed to go to landfill have been specified. That is the key point; it is what the directive requires. We have to lay down the mechanisms by which it will be done—the points in each target year and at each inter-target year stage, and the levels that have to be reached to ensure that the targets are achieved and the final target met in 2016 to 2020. So long as the target figures are reached, how that is done is a matter for the devolved Administrations. I am surprised that that is not widely accepted.

As regards amendment No. 27, regulations under clause 11 may provide for registers to be maintained on matters relating to landfill allowances. Who should maintain such a register will depend on the type of information that a register will contain—

Mr David Amess (Southend West, Conservative)

Order. We have not reached amendment No. 27; we are on amendments Nos. 24, 25, 23 and 26.

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

The Minister spoke earlier about the importance of aesthetics. In no way should the aesthetics of this kind of debate be adulterated by inefficiencies in paperwork. We should focus on the

elegance, style and panache with which the Minister is delivering his speech, rather than being pedantic about its content.

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

That was a marvellous speech, and one that should be recorded in the annals of Hansard with all the credit that it deserves. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Amess, you are right to say that amendment No. 27 appears in the next set of amendments; I was reading ahead in my brief. Nevertheless, as I said, it runs contrary to the devolution agenda.

Mr Bill Wiggin (Leominster, Conservative)

When the Minister touched on devolution in the first part of his speech, I was tempted to make a joke about the waste Lothian question. At that point, he was talking about target and non-target years. He has no problem in insisting on intervening to ensure that the maximum weight of biodegradable waste in each scheme should be set during target years, whereas he is happy to leave it to the devolved Governments in non-target years.

The problem lies in determining the amount of biodegradable waste within a given amount of waste. The percentage of the waste in a dustbin that is biodegradable does not change depending on whether we are in a target year. That is why I felt that it would be helpful if the Minister maintained a formula to help devolved Governments to decide how much of that dustbin waste qualified.

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

The hon. Gentleman is right to say that there is a distinction between target years, when we have to meet target figures, and inter-target years, when there is some latitude, although we cannot allow it to stretch far. There is a default formula in case we seem not to be on track. We are talking about the detailed minutiae of how the figures will be achieved, and I do not think that it is for the allocating authority for the UK to determine what proportion of biodegradable municipal organic waste should be put in a particular dustbin. It is not appropriate for the Secretary of State to specify that sort of detail; it should be left to the devolved Administrations. I should have thought that even they would devolve that decision much lower.

Mr Bill Wiggin (Leominster, Conservative)

As I understand the Minister, when the people in Scotland work out the quantity of biodegradable waste from their waste stream, and when it is different from the Welsh amount, we will achieve different amounts in non-target years across the UK. That does not seem to be what the Bill is about. I hoped that the amendment would throw some light on that, but it has not. I may be being unfair, because the Minister was addressing his comments to the wrong amendment, but the point is important.

The Minister seems to have been trying to tell us that he would like devolved authorities to set provisions and targets, but he has not been able to help me with the problem that they might set different amounts. We are trying to produce a uniform result in order to comply with the European directive, and the Bill fails in that respect. That is why I am somewhat agitated.

Mr Jonathan Sayeed (Mid Bedfordshire, Conservative)

The fact is that information matters more than set targets. So long as a conclusion is reached in the target year as to how ground will be made up in the intervening years, they are not important. What is important is what is in amendment No. 27—we shall come to that at a later stage—regarding transparency, so that people know where they are, what they have to do and that they can be checked off against other authorities.

Mr Bill Wiggin (Leominster, Conservative)

I am grateful. Does the Minister want to continue with his intervention? I had a feeling that he was about to make one.

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

I wanted to make it clear that what I said was addressed to the relevant amendments, Nos. 24, 25, 23 and 26. However, I referred to amendment No. 27, although that was out of order, because I thought that it had a bearing on the matter. It is not appropriate to impose that degree of detailed regulation on the devolved Administrations. The amendment would require the Secretary of State to make regulations covering the whole UK for the purpose of carrying into effect the landfill allowances scheme,

''following formulae agreed with the Government''.

As I said, that runs wholly counter to the devolution agenda. The Administrations in the other countries would object. Protection of the environment is a devolved matter, and it is for those Administrations to make the regulations that cover detailed aspects of the allowances scheme in their areas.

Other hon. Members do not have the reservoir of expertise that is available to me, so I do not object to the terminology. However, it is not clear what is meant by

''following formulae agreed with the Government''.

I repeat that the amendment is misguided. The basic framework should be set out in the Bill, and the detailed provisions should be left to the devolved Administrations. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that.

Mr. Hayes rose—

Mr Bill Wiggin (Leominster, Conservative)

I shall give way to my hon. Friend.

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

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way almost before rising. In recommending, through this intervention, that my hon. Friend might seek to withdraw his amendment—I do so in a paternal way; it is entirely up to him—I would say that we must appreciate, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire said, that amendment No. 27 is important and that more remains to be answered. Indeed, that is obviously what the Minister's advisers thought, which is why they prepared such a detailed brief—the one to which the Minister moved with such enthusiasm slightly earlier than anticipated.

I finish on this happy note. It is a reflection of the Committee that only you, Mr. Amess, recognised that we were speaking about the wrong amendment—a good three minutes into the debate.

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

For the sake of clarification—I sense that there is a good deal of amusement at my expense, to which I have no objection—

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

Good natured.

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

Yes, I am very good natured.

Amendment No. 26 amends clause 11(2)(b), which provides that the regulations proposed by the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin) may

''make provision for the maintaining of registers of matters relating to landfill allowances''.

I was referring to amendment No. 27 because it is directly relevant. I shall not go into detail, but it was not a mistake and I was not verging on the next set of amendments. The question that I was seeking to answer is who should maintain such a register, and I provided reasons for its being different from what the hon. Gentleman proposes in amendment No. 26. I do not think that I was entirely out of order, but I am sorry if I gave that impression.

Mr Bill Wiggin (Leominster, Conservative)

It is clear that the Committee has fulfilled its role in scrutinising clause 11 to the nth degree. I am grateful for my hon. Friends' interventions and for the Minister's guidance. I could find it difficult to withdraw the amendment because of the trouble that I have with the devolved issues. However, it would be prudent to withdraw it because I may wish to return to the matter on Report. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Bill Wiggin (Leominster, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 27, in

clause 11, page 8, line 41, at end add—

'( ) The Secretary of State shall publish all infringements under this section in the London Gazette, Edinburgh Gazette and Belfast Gazette.'.

Mr David Amess (Southend West, Conservative)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 28, in

clause 12, page 9, line 21, at end add

'( ) The Secretary of State shall publish all infringements under this section in the London Gazette, Edinburgh Gazette and Belfast Gazette.'.

Mr Bill Wiggin (Leominster, Conservative)

Here we go again. The amendment speaks for itself. I note that it has been grouped with amendment No. 28, which relates to clause 12, but I intend to speak to the first of the two amendments. As my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire said, the purpose of the amendment is to draw the full glare of public attention to all infringements; the authorities' infringements should be published. I have listed some of the potential newspapers in which publication should be made. That is all that the amendment seeks. It would help if the Secretary of State had that extra weapon in her armoury. It would encourage authorities to fulfil their obligations. I look forward to hearing the Minister's response.

Mr Jonathan Sayeed (Mid Bedfordshire, Conservative)

There is no doubt that the publication of infringements would act as a deterrent. It would also increase transparency and public trust. I would support all those gains. My hon. Friend proposes publication in

''the London Gazette, Edinburgh Gazette and Belfast Gazette''

I know that that is the normal way for the Government to publish information. I regret, however, that he has been so modest in choosing the newspapers and publications. Had he chosen The Sun, The Mirror or the Daily Star, he would get more publicity. One can imagine the headline: ''Meacher muzzles muck-makers''. It would have been fame for the Minister. [Interruption.] Yes. Perhaps that is too many syllables for those newspapers. Naming and shaming seems to be the current ploy, and it certainly works against local authorities, which do not like to be chastised and shown to be deficient. Even if the amendment is not perfectly phrased, I hope that the Minister will endorse its general concept.

Mr Gregory Barker (Bexhill & Battle, Conservative)

My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point about the need to widen the readership. If the publication is not The Sun or The Mirror, perhaps thought could be given to using local newspapers serving the districts where the waste disposal authorities that have infringed are based. It is important that the people who get access to that information are not the anoraks who might read the London Gazette—I cannot even conjure up in my mind what the London Gazette looks like, and I am sure that many of my constituents could not do so—but those who are affected. The biggest club with which we can beat those councils and waste disposal authorities is local popular opinion, which the London Gazette, or any other such gazette, will not be able to affect.

Mr Jonathan Sayeed (Mid Bedfordshire, Conservative)

I am surprised that my hon. Friend, who is a gentleman of considerable means, does not read the London Gazette—after all, it contains all the court and social events. His point is that such information should be published in local newspapers, which, it must be said, normally better trusted than national newspapers, as well as in newspapers with more lurid headlines such as ''Meacher muzzles muck-makers''. His point is very good, and I hope that the Minister listened to it.

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

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's solicitude. I suspect that the headline will not be ''Meacher muzzles muck-makers'' but ''Meacher murders muck-makers'' because muzzling is a modest form of torture.

I have a great deal of sympathy for the amendment because the forces of publicity are influential with business, local authorities and the Government. Everyone wants to have a good brand image, which they do not want to tarnish. Publicity is effective partially because it is internalised as a norm, and I think that it is useful. The question is whether publicity is necessary and whether there are other means by which to achieve the same goal. There is also the interesting question of how many people read the London Gazette, the Belfast Gazette and their Edinburgh equivalent. I can see that my hon. Friends have their heads down busily going over page 17 of all those publications, but I suspect that the impact of publication would be relatively small.

The amendment would require the Secretary of State to publish in those gazettes any breach of the provisions in regulations made under clauses 11 and 12. Such regulations may require disposal authorities

to produce evidence about the amount of waste sent to landfill, to have regard to guidance or to make certain returns to the monitoring authority. Those are the compellingly titillating issues that will command the attention and attract the great interest of those who might read about them. The matters are relatively technical and, although I am not saying that they are not important, even The Sun or the Daily Mail would find it difficult to make them attractive.

We can all agree that waste disposal authorities should comply with the rules of a scheme set out in regulation. It would clearly be difficult to run such a scheme if the monitoring authority could not obtain proper records. The question is whether the public announcement of those who failed to meet the scheme's rules is necessary or desirable to ensure compliance. I have no objection to naming and shaming—it is quite effective—but I wonder whether it is the most powerful driver. If I am honest I think that local authorities are more likely to respond to the possibility of a financial penalty. The regulations that can be made under clauses 11 and 12 may make provision for authorities to be liable to penalties, and clause 26 makes general provision for those penalties. I wonder whether there is any need for an additional or separate deterrent.

Any register that monitoring authorities are required to keep by regulations made under clause 15 could include information about infringements of the requirements of the landfill allowances scheme. Clause 16 would allow that register to be open to the public. I am keen for both of those to be made effective. That is probably a perfectly adequate way of getting the information into the public domain. It would be quite effective if it could be taken up, as the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire said, and used by local newspapers, which are widely read by people in the neighbourhood. The most effective method is the risk of financial penalty plus the publicising of the registers, which are open to the public so that journalists can consult them and present the information in a form that is much more likely to attract the attention of the local electorate.

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

I intervene not because the matter requires a great deal more elucidation, but because I believe that, if we get this right, the political embarrassment of failing to perform effectively and to meet targets, and of not trying to achieve a good objective will be just as powerful as any financial penalty. Applying the appropriate pressure through public scrutiny and the publicity of these issues is crucial to the Bill's success.

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

I am not entirely sure that I agree. The risk of financial penalty is probably the biggest driver. I entirely agree that it would be useful to harness and mobilise the force of public opprobrium. We are then down to deciding whether to accept the amendment, which talks about publicising the information in these rather obscure and arcane gazettes, or to have registers that would include evidence of failure to comply in particular ways. Such registers would be open to the public, and local journalists would have their attention drawn to them. That is a much more effective method.

Mr Gregory Barker (Bexhill & Battle, Conservative)

Would the Minister be open to the suggestion that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs press department might take on the responsibility of drawing the attention of local press to these specific infringements?

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

I am a little surprised that the hon. Gentleman, who is a member of a rugged party of individualism, should want the nanny state to trigger the attention of local journalists. I would hope that those people are raring to go and that they know where to find local sources of embarrassing information, which is what interests journalists everywhere. If someone in public authority can be embarrassed because they have not done something that they should have done, or they have done something that they should not have done, that is immediately a story.

If the Bill passes through both Houses, we will have to publicise its main effects. We would certainly put all the new provision on a website, and we would state where the information could be obtained. To write to every newspaper in the country to alert them of that is going a bit far.

Mr Bill Wiggin (Leominster, Conservative)

I took on board the comments that my hon. Friends and the Minister made in criticism of my choice of newspapers. Given my passion for Wales, I regret that the amendments do not refer to a Welsh edition. Perhaps The Western Mail should have been included. I thought it unwise to get into a dispute about The Daily Telegraph or The Guardian, so I named the papers that I believed were the normal way of announcing Government news items.

However, the Minister's remarks about naming and shaming are important, and I am grateful to him for being so positive about the principle behind the amendments. What he says about financial penalties is right most of the time, but in election years local authorities are particularly sensitive to public opinion. That is certainly the case in my constituency.

I think that, at the beginning of the sitting, the Minister was surprised by the vehemence and the strength of support for the Bill on both sides of the Committee. Once again, he has seen that that support is national, so by getting the whole population properly informed and behind the principle of the Bill, a great deal of good could be achieved. I am grateful for the Minister's principled support for my amendments. I urge him to take away the support that he has received from Opposition Members and to consider including a perhaps more appropriate way of publicising and naming and shaming, should infringements take place. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill.