Mr David Amess (Southend West, Conservative)

I remind the Committee that with this we are taking new clause 45—Directions to waste disposal authorities—

'(1) A waste collection authority in England which is not also a waste disposal authority may direct that the waste disposal authority to whom it delivers its waste shall not dispose of that waste by incineration.

(2) Any waste disposal authority which receives such a direction shall take such steps as are necessary to ensure it is complied with within 12 months of the issuing of the direction.

(3) A waste collection authority issuing a direction under subsection (1) above shall pay to a waste disposal authority such amounts as are needed to ensure that the disposal authority is not financially worse off as a result of having to comply with the direction.'.

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

It is a great delight, Mr. Amess, to see you in the Chair after your Easter sojourn when we were, happily, able to spend a little time together.

We have been discussing the vital relationship between waste collection authorities and waste disposal authorities, and the need for them to work collaboratively to meet the targets set in the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker) spoke with his customary eloquence and not a little charm—hon. Members can tell that I have had a good lunch—about the importance of that relationship and the real danger if it breaks down. There may be good collection authorities in areas where disposal authorities are less than up to the mark, and vice versa. Consequently, unless both commit to meeting the targets in a co-operative way, either could fall down through no fault of its own.

The situation is complicated by the fact that within a disposal authority's purview there will be collection authorities with a variety of profiles. My hon. Friend spoke about a typical county council. I accept that not all authorities are two tier; there is a multiplicity of arrangements. However, let us consider a two-tier authority in which a county is working with a variety of districts that are responsibly and sensibly collecting

waste to meet the Bill's requirements, but in which the disposal authority is not up to speed. There will be a major disincentive for collection authorities and their householders to change their culture to adopt new, healthy practices if they know that the disposal authority will end up burning everything. That could be a problem for collection authorities that do their jobs well and aim to do them even better.

The hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) drew attention to innovative and imaginative work that is taking place in some of the best collection authorities. He implied that they would be disincentivised and demoralised if they felt that their work was not matched by the disposal authorities. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle said, it works both ways.

Mr Gregory Barker (Bexhill & Battle, Conservative)

I want to expand on the point about disincentives to collecting authorities as a result of incineration by disposal authorities. Cynical voters perennially make the point to collection authorities that it is no good collecting things to recycle if there is no market for them. The market will not develop if recyclables are not properly sorted or are incinerated. Until we get critical mass in the market, we will not see people recycling in the numbers that we would like.

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

My hon. Friend knows that I am not the greatest enthusiast for market economics, but I am a former business man so I understand the importance of ensuring that there is an economic incentive. If people are to feel that their work is worth while, there has to be a policed approach between the collection and disposal authorities and all others involved in the partnership, which may include the private sector, householders and all those who care about or are involved in dealing with waste.

I was about to speak of the need for the relationship to work both ways, although that is not unrelated to what my hon. Friend said, because there may be recalcitrant collection authorities in a disposal authority area. If the disposal authority is obliged to bring itself up to the standards of the best, it would be awkward if it had to work with collection authorities that were not doing their bit. It is a two-way relationship, and all parties need to be responsible.

My hon. Friend rightly pointed out that duality is recognised in new clause 45 because of the financial link between the collection and disposal authorities, and the obligation for disposal authorities to deal with waste properly once the collection authority has taken the necessary steps to collect it, sort it and pass it on in an acceptable form. That is what underpins the amendment and new clause 45. They are helpful in cementing the relationship between the different elements in the strategy. They are essential to ensuring that everyone who commits to the strategy embodied in the Bill believes that they are being treated with fairness.

My worst-case scenario is of some collection or disposal authorities being committed to implementing the strategy properly while others are not, because the result will be that the activities of the best are diminished or diluted by the standards of the worst.

The Minister will probably say that the targets that we set for all authorities will mitigate that to some extent, but in the initial stages, while people are finding their feet, it will be necessary to cement those relationships in order to emphasise their importance.

Mr Norman Baker (Lewes, Liberal Democrat)

Clause 31 enables disposal authorities to deal with recalcitrant collection authorities; that power is already available. Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that the amendment would give collection authorities the power to deal with slipshod disposal authorities? That symmetry is currently missing from the Bill.

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

Yes, and the hon. Gentleman, who has miraculously been transformed from a poodle into a terrier during our proceedings—

Mr Norman Baker (Lewes, Liberal Democrat)

Was I a poodle?

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

The hon. Gentleman may not be a thoroughbred terrier, but he is a terrier none the less. He made a good point this morning. I make no judgment about this, but it is worth restating that he believes that collection authorities are typically rather more advanced than disposal authorities. I accept that the picture is patchy, and that one should not be too simplistic about it, but it is at the collection end of the process that most advances have been made.

The best collection authorities are already doing things rather well. Unfortunately, they are not to be found everywhere, and they are certainly not the norm, but they do exist and they are leading the way. However, the hon. Gentleman implied, not unreasonably, that we may have dragged our feet a little more over disposal, and the Bill does not give collection authorities that are doing the job well adequate power or legislative influence over disposal authorities.

That is a good point; such a balance is a prerequisite for the partnership that I described. Both kinds of authority must feel that they have teeth; both are answerable for the stiff targets and both will have the Minister looming over them with his typical kindly vehemence. It is therefore only right that they should have at their disposal mechanisms to ensure that an authority that ought to be a partner does not undermine their work. That is the purpose of the amendment, which new clause 45 reinforces in a fuller form. The amendment adds to the Bill in a positive way, and I move it in that spirit.

Mr David Amess (Southend West, Conservative)

Order. The amendment has been moved.

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

On a point of order, Mr. Amess. I did not mean to move the amendment. It has already been moved, but I was so beguiled by the eloquence of my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle that I was put off my stride.

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

I begin to think of the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) as a golden retriever, although we had better get out of the habit of associating each other with categories of dog.

We return, inevitably, to the issue of incineration, although it now appears in a rather different guise. The hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle persuasively expressed his concern about constituents whose collection authorities have some influence or control over the destination of collected materials. I understand that point, and the hon. Gentleman was strongly supported by the hon. Members for Lewes and for South Holland and The Deepings. I sympathise with the aim of the amendment, but the question is whether it is the right way to achieve the objective. I do not accept what was said a few moments ago about symmetry because I do not think that the relationship between collection and disposal authorities is symmetrical.

The amendment and new clause 45 seek to give collection authorities a power to direct. The key point is that a disposal authority should not use incineration to dispose of the waste that is delivered. We have dealt with that issue, and I shall not go over it again. We are all agreed that incineration is and should be a long way down the waste hierarchy. Our waste strategy, in which the landscape of waste management is set out, makes it explicit from the first that waste minimisation, reuse, recycling and composting are, in that order, the preferred options for dealing with waste.

We cannot, however, escape the fact that increases in waste minimisation and recycling alone cannot achieve the landfill directive target, no matter how much every member of the Committee, including me, may wish that they could. Giving collection authorities the power to rule out incineration without regard to the adequacy of alternatives is therefore stretching things. Whether we like it or not, some incineration will be necessary. Indeed, some forms of waste incineration can be the best practical and environmental option; for example, burning clinical waste. We have talked about soiled bandages, which are of course not appropriate for composting and need to be destroyed.

As I said, the relationship between collection and disposal authorities is not symmetrical. The Bill gives powers to a disposal authority to direct a collection authority on the form in which waste is delivered so that it can carry out its proper role in meeting the landfill directive. However, there is no reciprocity in that relationship. It would be wrong to give the collection authority as absolute a power as the amendment suggests. That could produce significant difficulties for the disposal authority in carrying out its duties.

However, I am sympathetic to the aim of the amendment. The question is whether giving a power to direct is the right way to proceed. If a collection authority is concerned about sending its waste for incineration, for reasons that I totally understand, the time for it to address the issue with the appropriate disposal authority is when the authorities develop their joint municipal waste management strategy. I appreciate that there is no guarantee that what both parties want will be achieved, and there might be political acrimony between them, but I believe that that occurs only in a minority of cases. We should rely

on that co-operation in the first instance. The only question, then, is whether there should be a power to enforce an agreement in certain cases, and I do not think that it would be right.

Mr Norman Baker (Lewes, Liberal Democrat)

Even in the absence of acrimony, waste collection and waste disposal authorities might be in dispute over what should be done with the waste. For example, the waste disposal authority might take the view that it is necessary to construct a large incinerator because it anticipates that its waste will increase by 6 or 7 per cent. and the alternative would be to ship it by lorry to a landfill site the other side of the country. In order to do that, it would have to sign a contract with a waste contractor. That, in turn, would require a great deal of material to be fed into the incinerator, and that would undermine the recycling market. The waste collection authority might be operating a number of important and effective voluntary-organisation or locality-based schemes that would have to close down in order to provide the waste stream that the waste disposal authority wanted. I appreciate that that is not the Government's intention or their policy, but that is the possible outcome unless waste collection authorities have some means of protecting the schemes that are in line with what the Government want.

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

I was about to suggest that. They have a degree of power in their own hands. Waste collection authorities play an active role in waste management. The amount of waste that a collection authority delivers to a disposal authority for disposal is under the control of the collection authority. If it does not want its waste to be incinerated, it should do everything possible to ensure that it recycles or composts it. The less waste there is to go to the disposal authority, the less is likely to be incinerated. A disposal authority will only dispose of residual waste, so recycling will mean less waste to dispose of.

Mr Norman Baker (Lewes, Liberal Democrat)

I refer the Minister to clause 31(2). Unless I have misunderstood it—in which case it should be clarified—it makes an important point in that it says that a waste collection authority that is not also a waste disposal authority must discharge its duty in accordance with any direction about separation of waste given by the waste disposal authority for its area. Going by what the Minister has said, the key question is whether the power of direction for the waste disposal authority only kicks in with residual waste after recyclables have been removed, or whether it has the ability to give directions about the waste before that point.

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

Clearly, clause 31(2) says:

''A waste collection authority . . . must discharge its duty . . . in accordance with any directions about separation of waste given by the waste disposal authority for its area.''

It means what it says. It gives directions about the separation of waste. It does not say anything about the amount of waste. It mentions residual waste so, in answer to the hon. Gentleman's question, the residual waste has to be separated in the way that the waste disposal authority says. The waste disposal authority cannot say that it does not want another body to

recycle—it wants all its waste to arrive in a form that is appropriate for a large incinerator. The waste collection authority has power to thwart the feeding of a large incinerator by high levels of recycling.

Mr Gregory Barker (Bexhill & Battle, Conservative)

What about the case in which a collection authority is separating the waste stream in a more sophisticated way than the disposal authority is able or willing to cope with? What happens if the former creates several streams, but the latter cannot or will not handle more than one or two?

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

Clause 31(2) states that a waste collection authority must discharge its duty in accordance with any directions about the separation of waste. I am not quite sure what the hon. Gentleman means by a ''more sophisticated'' way of separation. However, if it was inappropriate for the waste disposal authority to be able to deal with it in that form, it would be able to give a power of direction as to the manner in which it was separated, hopefully after discussions, negotiations and attempts at conciliation and agreement.

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

The issue is the nature of the relationships within local authorities. The Minister is right to say that it is important that the disposal authority has the power under clause 31 to require the collection authority to deliver the waste in a proper way. I would not argue for symmetry. I did not use the word symmetry; I used the word balance. The hon. Member for Lewes used the word symmetry. They are quite different words. Reciprocity is certainly different from symmetry. The question relating to balance is, if a collection authority is doing its job well, in the way that my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle implied, what about the recalcitrant disposal authority that then frustrates that good work by not handling the waste in an appropriate manner? What power does the collection authority have?

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

The collection authority has the power to ensure that there are high levels of recovery, recycling and composting so that the amount of waste that is handed over is pretty small, and probably too small to feed a large incinerator. That is a very strong power. All that the waste disposal authority can do is lay down the manner in which the separation of waste should be undertaken; it cannot control the amount of waste. Therefore, the collection authority has it in its own hands to deal with that matter.

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

With respect, that is a sophisticated counter-argument, but it is not ultimately a persuasive one. The reason why it is sophisticated but not persuasive is that what the Minister is saying in bread-and-butter terms is that the collection authority's real power lies within itself. It is not a power over the disposal authority; it is a power born of its own performance. Therefore, if it does its job to the best degree, the problem would, at least, be minimised.

The Minister is not answering the question about what happens to the remainder of cases. Once the waste collection authority has done its job and the waste goes to the disposal authority, if the disposal authority is performing extraordinarily badly there is no power over that disposal authority on the part of the collection authority. That is not a balanced

relationship; it is a one-way relationship with the collection authority's only power lying in its own performance. The disposal authority has extensive powers over the collection authority, regardless of its own performance. That is the imbalance that my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle and the hon. Member for Lewes drew to the Committee's attention.

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

The hon. Gentleman is making a meal out of this. First, the waste collection authority can control the situation to a very high degree by high levels of recycling, recovery and composting. The powers of the disposal authority to control the waste collection authority and what it does in its collection are therefore pretty small.

The other point that I wish to stress is that there is an erroneous assumption in this debate that there is head-to-head hostility between disposal and collection authorities. There are 148 waste disposal authorities, so I expect that probably only the bottom 10 per cent. in terms of co-operativeness have a hostile relationship. In the great majority of cases, that problem should not arise. I expect the disposal and collection authorities to discuss in detail what each expects of the other in the preparation of joint waste management strategies. It is not a question of whether the waste disposal authority acts badly or does not act well. Those authorities have their own targets that they must meet. They are constrained; they cannot accept waste from the collection authority and just do what they like. They have to act in accordance with waste management strategies that meet the Government's overall objectives. There are constraints and parameters. I think that the hon. Gentleman is unnecessarily worried.

Mr Norman Baker (Lewes, Liberal Democrat)

I hope that my worry is unnecessary, but I am worried. A moment ago, the Minister said—I want to be sure that I am correct—that the power of waste disposal authorities to direct waste collection authorities, given by clause 31, which is related to what we are discussing now, covers only residual waste, and that that excludes recyclable waste.

The definition of waste includes recyclables, however, because waste collection authorities collect everything and then recycle what they can. First, it is waste; it may be recycled, but it is initially waste. We have two definitions of waste—first, what is collected, which is everything; and the Minister's narrower definition of waste, which is waste that has not been recycled or reused. That is an important point. If I am right, proposed new subsection 1A in clause 31(2) means that waste disposal authorities can give directions about separation of waste only in the narrower definition, excluding recyclables. That is not what I understood.

If the Minister's view is correct, however, there is a further problem. It is that a waste disposal authority could sign a 25-year contract for an incinerator—that is how long such contracts usually last—and it will be based on expected arisings of waste over the period. If the Minister's interpretation is correct, waste collection authorities may substantially increase their recycling under such innovative schemes. If they

increase their recycling beyond all expectations, there will be no waste stream for the incinerator. If there is no waste stream for the incinerator under the Minister's definition of waste under clause 31, the waste disposal authority cannot require there to be a stream of waste because it will have been recycled.

The consequence will be that the waste disposal authority will have a contract with the incinerator and a waste stream for it; but there will be no waste stream, because the waste collection authorities will have upped their recycling of waste. There will be a shortfall in what the waste disposal authority requires. The only option will be to pay a penalty to the contractor for the incinerator because it is unable to deliver as much waste as was promised. The alternative scenario is to import waste from outside the waste disposal authority area to be incinerated. In other words, those collection authorities who decide significantly to up their recycling of waste will pay the penalty of having extra transport movements into their area to feed an incinerator for which they could have provided waste themselves.

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

I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman makes. It is a significant point, but I am glad to say that his worries and anxieties are misplaced. It is true that the collection authority collects waste, and that that includes recyclables. However, recyclables can be recycled; and if they are recycled, they are not residual waste to be handed on to the disposal authority.

Clause 31 amends section 48 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. Section 48 is entitled:

''Duties of waste collection authorities as respects disposal of waste collected''.

It states:

''The duty imposed on a waste collection authority by subsection (1) above does not . . . apply as respects household waste or commercial waste for which the authority decides to make arrangements for recycling the waste''.

That is the key point. The fear is that a disposal authority may be hell-bent on incineration—God forbid that there should be many of those—but it cannot pervert its relationship with the collection authority in order to feed the incinerator for the next 25 years. As I say, it is an important point. Those who fear that we are going down the incineration route should understand the limits on those who decide to invest in incineration: they are greater than many realise.

Mr Gregory Barker (Bexhill & Battle, Conservative)

Certainly in my mind, and perhaps in others, there is some confusion. Where does the Minister think that the boundary lies between disposal and collection authorities in relation to responsibility for separating recyclables? In East Sussex, the disposal authority, which is responsible for extracting recyclables, separates part of the waste stream. A plant in my constituency has a pellet-making facility and an ordinary waste collection facility side by side, both operated by the disposal authority. There is a greater onus on the disposal authority to make arrangements for separation than the Minister seems to indicate.

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

I do not think that that is so. I repeat the argument that it is for a collection authority, such as that described by the hon. Gentleman, that wishes to recycle as much of its recyclable waste as possible to ensure that it does so and that all that it hands on to the disposal authority is the residual waste. Under clause 31, which amends section 48 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, the disposal authority has the power to set down the basis on which the residual waste is separated in order for it to fulfil its proper function. The hon. Gentleman's fears are unfounded.

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

I acknowledge that that authority exists in the Bill. There is no opportunity for financial penalties to be imposed. Furthermore, there is no suggestion that the disposal authority is there to penalise the collection authority if it does not separate waste. I acknowledge that, too. I do not think that it is part of the Minister's plan. Although the disposal authority would have no fiscal sanction against the collection authority, some disposal authorities want that to be so. I have mentioned a letter from a disposal authority to one of my hon. Friends, making that very point.

If balance is to be achieved through a partnership approach—in most cases that will happen in the way that the Minister describes, and we are dealing not with the mainstream but with the margin—we need to look again at how a collection authority can ultimately introduce some sanction against a disposal authority. I do not seek symmetry; I am just looking for some power to be given to collection authorities that do a good job that is not matched by neighbouring disposal authorities.

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

Unless the amendment is accepted, there is no proposal or measure that would give a collection authority a sanction against a disposal authority as that is not necessary, first, because the collection authority can structure the situation through high levels of recycling and, secondly—perhaps I have not emphasised things enough—because the disposal authority has recycling targets too. The Committee is in agreement that, once the 25 per cent. national average recycling target for 2005–06 has been met, the Government should continue the upward pressure that applies not just to collection authorities, but to disposal authorities.

Disposal authorities, not collection authorities, run civic amenity sites where recycling takes place. They will be subject to Government pressure to increase recycling, which is another reason why they will not be able to say that they cannot recycle because they are feeding an incinerator. The opposite applies, too—the Government insist that the recycling targets must be met. If, residually, it is possible to run a small incinerator, we shall not absolutely forbid it, but it will be difficult.

Mr Norman Baker (Lewes, Liberal Democrat)

I hear what the Minister says, but it would be helpful to have the word ''residual'' in front of ''waste'' in clause 31. A waste disposal authority might build an incinerator with a particular capacity as part of its waste plan, but the waste collection authorities that perform well in collection and

recycling could reduce the stream going to the incinerator. In such circumstances, there might not be enough waste to meet the contracted amount for the incinerator. What would the waste disposal authority do then? The authority would have to either pay the penalty, which would leave the taxpayer worse off as compensation would have to be paid to the incinerator operator, or import waste from outside the area to feed the incinerator. I do not want to see either solution. Increasing recycling has a downside in both senses.

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

If a waste disposal authority knows the responsibilities that the Bill sets out for collection and disposal authorities, knows the constraints imposed by the need for a sufficient supply of materials to feed the incinerator, knows that collection authorities can limit the supply of residual waste and knows that the disposal authority is subject to recycling targets that, as the Government have made perfectly clear, will be increased, and yet is imprudent enough to sign up to a 25-year contract, it must accept the consequences. That might mean making a payment to the operator—I do not know what it will be—but it is not a matter for the Government. The Government's role is to set out the framework of incentives and penalties, and to leave players on the ground to act in ways that they feel are appropriate.

Several hon. Members rose—

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

I shall give way first to my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) and then to my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew).

Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test, Labour)

I hope that my right hon. Friend will write to me about my point, because I do not anticipate him supplying an immediate thought on the matter. My understanding of section 48(4) of the 1990 Act is the opposite way round—namely, that where a waste disposal authority has contracted to recycle any waste, that authority can serve a notice on the waste collection authority objecting to it having the waste recycled. Subsection (4) goes on to say that

''the objection may be made as respects all the waste, part only of the waste or specified descriptions of the waste.''

It therefore appears that under at least one interpretation of section 48 the trump card is in the hand of waste disposal authorities and not in the hand of the waste collection authorities, although I might have misunderstood.

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

My hon. Friend, with his customary grace, is saying that I might need to look further into the matter, and he is entirely correct. I do not have the 1990 Act before me, but what he says is contrary to the advice that I have received. However, he has raised an important point that is relevant to the discussion, and I shall either reply later or write to him and all members of the Committee.

Mr David Drew (Stroud, Labour/Co-operative)

From all I can hear, the discussion is a wonderful advertisement for unitary authorities more than anything, as we could get away from all the nonsense about one authority dumping on another. Notwithstanding that, there might be an uneven partnership. Does my right hon. Friend agree

that the rationale for having waste collection and disposal in the hands of the local authority is that the electorate will have a view on it?

I would expect the electorate to consider carefully any administration that tied the people of an area to a universally unpopular waste process for 25 years. The consequences of an administration doing so would be quite interesting. I do not know whether that point is a cry from the heart for local government, but it is a strong reason why what has been described is unlikely to happen. If it did happen, the consequences would be only too obvious.

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

That is a further point and an important one. Everyone knows that public opinion has been moving strongly against incineration for the past few years. The scenario that we have been discussing of a waste disposal authority—an elected body—being so hell bent on incineration in defiance of public opinion and forcing the local authority to abide by its instruction is, as my hon. Friend argues powerfully, very unlikely.

Mr Gregory Barker (Bexhill & Battle, Conservative)

We have had thoughtful and worthwhile debates in the morning and afternoon sittings. I am grateful to the Minister for his attempts to answer so many of the points that have been raised in interventions. What has undoubtedly been unearthed by this discussion is the fact that the current state of affairs, however seriously one views it, in the relationship between waste disposal authorities and waste collection authorities is unsatisfactory.

The big issue is whether one regards that state of affairs as unsatisfactory, but acceptably so, while hoping that the authorities will somehow muddle through or whether one has a rather higher ambition for the arrangement and is determined to force through greater change. We must not only hope for that change, but will the means by which it can be achieved by putting more teeth in the Bill. That would make the legislation more effective, which would create the change in the waste regime that we all want to see. Here, yet again, is an opportunity to put aside platitudes and take the Bill further towards the holistic waste management view that Conservative Members want, rather than the narrowly defined legislation that the Minister is piloting through the House.

Good points have been made from all parts of the Committee. The hon. Member for Lewes spoke well on the proximity principle and how it is being flouted due to the lack of proper co-operation between disposal and collection authorities. He also said that the collectors are more green than the disposal authorities. That point was picked up by the hon. Member for Stroud, and there is a reason for it: the voters interact with waste at the district and collection levels.

Where recycling is introduced it is universal, whereas incineration is invariably a local issue that mostly concerns people who live in close proximity to the facility. Those who live far from it—in large county areas, people might live a very long way off—

are necessarily less worried by it. Disposal, by its nature, is hidden from the public, whereas every voter and every household deals with collection on a daily basis. It is not surprising that collection should be higher in the voters' minds than disposal, unless the disposal problem lands right in their neighbourhood.

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

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.

Mr Gregory Barker (Bexhill & Battle, Conservative)

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.

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

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

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.

Mr Norman Baker (Lewes, Liberal Democrat)

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

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.