Clause 70
Climate Change Bill [Lords]
12:30 pm
Anne McIntosh (Shadow Minister, Environment, Food & Rural Affairs; Vale of York, Conservative)
I will take this opportunity to correct the record. When we debated clause 69 on Thursday, I was recorded in column 334 of the Official Report as saying “clause 60”. I will ensure that that is corrected.
I will press the Minister on a couple of points so that she can respond to some criticisms that have been made. We have had lengthy debates last Thursday and today on why five pilot areas have been designated. Subsection (4) will give the Government the power to change the pilot areas. Does that mean that there can be additional pilot areas or that a pilot area can be substituted? Is five the maximum? How does she envisage subsection (4) being interpreted?
The Minister will recall that the Communities and Local Government Committee report described the thrust of clause 70 as a “massive retreat” because it will limit the number of recycling incentive schemes to just five local authority areas and because the Government have capped the amount that local authorities may offer as incentives or take-in charges. Perhaps the most serious criticism is that it delays any possibility of England-wide schemes until after 2012-13. Is she confident that the Government will be able to introduce an England-wide scheme before that date? What date do the Government have in mind? Does the clause mark a departure from the Government’s waste strategy along the lines suggested by the criticisms, or does the Minister believe that the clause is in keeping with the strategy?
I have had a little read of “Erskine May”, as one does from time to time. Subsection (5) will exclude the prospect of an instrument being treated as a hybrid instrument. Is that a standard procedure? I am sure that the Minister will find that help is at hand. The Commons is not as used to this procedure as the Lords because hybrid instruments are largely used in the Lords. Such instruments give the public the opportunity to petition. I do not know whether that could be seen as a delaying tactic, given the strength of feeling about clauses 69 and the amendments to it. What was the thinking behind the Government’s seeking to exclude the possibility of a hybrid instrument?