'(1) The Secretary of State shall consult waste collection and waste disposal authorities on the introduction of statutory targets for the minimisation of municipal waste.

(2) The Secretary of State shall consult representatives of industry on the potential for minimisation of waste of—

(a) statutory waste minimisation targets;

(b) statutory requirements for substitution of materials that are hazardous, difficult to recover, or difficult to recycle; and

(c) market incentives to promote the redesigning of products to extend their useful life and limit unrecoverable waste.'. —[Sue Doughty.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: New Clause 16—Waste disposal contracts' compatibility with statutory performance standards and local waste development frameworks—

'The Secretary of State may make orders requiring local authorities that have contracts transferring waste disposal functions to specially formed companies to review those contracts to ensure compatibility with statutory performance standards and local waste development frameworks.'.

New clause 17—Retail packaging recovery—

'(1) A relevant retailer shall provide a safe collection point within the curtilage of each of his retail outlets for the return of packaging sold or otherwise supplied from that outlet in the course of business.

(2) A collection point under subsection (1) shall be clearly signed and shall be open to the public during all business hours.

(3) A relevant retailer shall ensure that packaging collected under the provisions of section (1) above—

(a) where reasonably practicable, is reused, returned to the supplier or recycled; or

(b) in any other circumstances, is safely disposed of using a licensed waste disposal contractor.

(4) The Secretary of State may make regulations for the purposes of subsections (1) to (3) above.

(5) In this section—

"packaging" means any container, material, substance or component supplied with a product but which is not a part of that product;"relevant retailer" means a person who carries on a business in a premises which—

(a) is approved for that purpose under Planning Use Class A1, A2 or A3, and

(b) has a net retail sales area greater than 250 square metres.'.

New clause 18—Sustainability requirement for waste disposal functions—

'(1) The Secretary of State may make regulations to require that, where a waste disposal authority enters into a contract with a third party for all, or any part of, its waste disposal duties, minimum environmental sustainability requirements shall be met.

(2) Regulations under subsection (1) may have particular regard to—

(a) the effect of the duration of a contract on waste minimisation;

(b) the effect of the duration of a contract on diversion of waste from disposal to reuse or recycling;

(c) the application of the proximity principle;

(d) the energy efficiency of facilities;

(e) the involvement of sustainability advisers at evaluation stage for bids for waste disposal contracts;

(f) the use of mandatory outcome-based requirements for sustainability objectives.'.

Amendment No. 37, in page 31, line 29, clause 37, leave out

'is being or is about to be' and insert 'or is being'.

Amendment No. 29, in page 46, line 31, clause 50, at end insert

', in subsection (7)(c) after "authority", leave out "may" and insert "shall".'.

The purpose of tabling these new clauses and amendments is to consider the problem of waste disposal. New Clause 15 considers waste minimisation.

It would be wrong not to give the Government credit for the work of the waste and resources action programme, which is working hard on waste minimisation. We know that the waste strategy 2000 identifies both eco-design and redesign as ways to reduce waste, but we need to go further. WRAP is well supported by the Government, but it can only go so far. Waste minimisation needs to be taken further. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is ending its support for Waste Watch, which was doing valuable work in education. Having considered the previous group of new clauses and amendments on littering and so on, it is clear that education was one of the Government's tools, and not supporting Waste Watch will reduce the effectiveness of that.

We have a real problem, however, with the continuing rise in the total amount of municipal waste, which in 2002–03 was an estimated 29.3 million tonnes—an increase of 1.8 per cent. on the 2001–02 figure of 28.8 million tonnes. Although we are making progress in decoupling the rise in waste from economic growth, which is healthy, we need to go further and consider waste minimisation targets. WRAP is getting work done on redesign, but it can only provide a certain level of stimulation for redesign in relation to the waste minimisation needed if we are to achieve sustainability.

Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the problems is that the Government indicators, which highlight how councils perform on recycling, do not reflect waste minimisation? Councils such as mine in Lewes, which have succeeded in reducing waste per head of population, therefore receive no credit for that, because the recycling figure bears no relation to minimisation.

That is an important point, and I thank my hon. Friend for raising the issue. While we work with councils, consider recycling and alternative ways of disposing of waste and meet targets to reduce landfill, if we do not reduce the amount of waste that we produce, no matter how much we divert waste from one place to another, we will ultimately fail to meet those targets. We therefore have some major concerns.

Liberal Democrats have been debating zero waste strategies for some years, and it is now party policy. It is also the policy in other places, such as New Zealand, whose waste strategy includes major requirements to reduce the amount of waste produced in the first place. In relation to zero waste, Mark Barthel of WRAP talks about the interesting concept of Z2, which considers sustainability in terms of zero waste and zero emissions and examines the problem in its totality. One of the worrying aspects of waste is that it not only fills up landfill but particular types of waste produce harmful emissions. New Zealand, Canada and Australia have taken that on board, yet when we asked recently what the Government were doing to examine further the question of zero waste, the answer was "nothing". It does not seem to be on the Government's agenda, and it is of great concern to us that such techniques should be evaluated by the Government. There is a large body of information from across the world on how waste can be reduced and minimised. Our Government would be foolish to ignore that, as some quick wins are possible.

People question whether zero waste can be achieved, but quality control always aims for zero faults. We should aim to continue to reduce the amount of material sent to waste, instead of digging up resources from the ground or plucking them from the trees and then throwing them away three or six months later. We are missing good opportunities to examine how to reuse materials and minimise waste.

It was sad, and it is a reflection of why we are not doing enough on waste minimisation, that a conference on zero waste that I attended last week was woefully under-attended. Some brilliant techniques were put forward, including work being done by WRAP, but without a Government strategy for waste minimisation, as opposed to initiatives through WRAP, we will not make progress. The new Clause would put that right by requiring the Government to consult on ways in which they could strengthen the waste strategy by introducing stronger measures to support the top two options in a zero-waste hierarchy, reduction and redesign. We need much more focus on those options, which is why my party will press for a Division.

We hope that following their review of the waste strategy 2000, the Government will take the excellent opportunity that we are presenting to amend the hierarchy so that it explicitly includes redesign. Some work is being done through the waste and resources action programme, but much more is needed. We want the current way of measuring recycling levels to be reformed so that councils, such as Lewes, that reduce waste per capita by means of, for instance, home composting do not score less than councils that perform less well. That is why we are particularly concerned about waste minimisation.

New clause 16 is intended to ensure that consultation involves local waste development frameworks, and contracts relate to what is happening in the big world outside. The contracting out of waste disposal functions to the private sector or to arm's-length companies could result in inflexibility. The previous arrangements under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 can prevent waste disposal authorities from securing continuous improvements in the way in which they dispose of waste to meet recycling targets. We have major worries about contracts that are written and then cost an arm and a leg to change. Society and the Government may say that we need to change the rules to ensure a more sustainable approach to disposal, but councils are tied to contracts that do not reflect that. We want to help authorities to manage contracts while also making improvements.

In 1999, Surrey county council signed a 25-year contract that included incineration. Even since then, things have changed. We opposed incineration, and there was a change of MP in part of the Surrey area. Throughout Surrey people are beginning to recognise the need for a fresh look at waste.

The hon. Lady claims that her party is opposed to incineration, yet it adopts an enthusiastic approach to combined heat and power. How does she square the two views?

I am very disappointed by that Intervention. Combined heat and power does not need to be fed by incineration. A range of fuels can be used, and it is not necessary to burn waste to produce energy. Under a Conservative council, Guildford has not taken opportunities to make the maximum energy saving—but the debate is about waste, not energy. We must ensure that contracts requiring incineration do not promote the assumption that waste will continue to feed the incinerator.

As a Select Committee member, the hon. Lady has a detailed knowledge of these matters. Does the very term "combined heat and power" not suggest the use of some form of incineration?

We are talking about the incineration of waste, not about combined heat and power. We are not discussing the use of wood chippings, sugar beet or anything else to produce heat. Combined heat and power presents a good many opportunities, but I do not understand what part they play in a debate on a Bill dealing with waste.

What concerns me is that after only two years the Surrey county council contract failed to meet its statutory performance targets for recycling. I am not trying to "beat up on" Surrey. I know that there has been a change of personnel and that the council is trying to take a fresh look at the possibilities for a sustainable environmental approach. It would be wrong not to give it credit for its use of "sustainability" in job titles. Some of the staff are deeply committed to sustainability, and I support what they are trying to do with the contract that they have inherited. The fact is, however, that although we have a local waste development framework on which consultation is taking place, what was done in 1999 set the course of waste disposal.

That is the reason for the new Clause. If contracts could be reviewed and updated to facilitate compliance with statutory performance standards, Surrey council and the contractor would be obliged to confront the fact that at present the contract requires only 25 per cent. recycling. Moreover, that includes incinerator ash, which it is no longer legal to include in the calculation. The statutory target is 36 per cent., and excludes incinerator ash. The contract needs to be changed. Would that not best be done in conjunction with the local waste development framework?

The Government will expect such contracts to be reviewed in terms of best value. The problem is that we are consulting on frameworks at a time when a wet earth disposal strategy has been established in a contract. We want contracts to be tied to frameworks. Another problem is that although boroughs in Surrey have been trying hard to improve their recycling records, credit is going to the disposal authority, which has done far less than those boroughs. As the Minister knows, I have long had worries about the whole business of collection and disposal authorities. I have never quite understood why it seems to work against what is best. Some unitary authorities have a much more coherent approach.

What puzzles me is that waste minimisation, along with recycling, often depends on the volume of waste. Does the hon. Lady agree that that gives authorities little incentive to deal with, for example, the recycling of batteries? I have seen it in France, but my local authority provides no facilities for it.

I understand that waste is measured by weight rather than volume. We have debated the issue for a long time, and I am sure the hon. Lady will know of the problems with disposal of plastics, which are bulky but light. Fewer than 0.1 per cent. of batteries are sent for appropriate disposal—recycling—and we still have a problem with batteries in domestic waste. Most authorities cannot make their sums add up, because this country does not have adequate facilities. I speak from memory and stand to be corrected, but I understand that although facilities are being set up, that is happening in Scotland—a long way from the point of generation in the south of England or the east, where the hon. Lady's Constituency is. Adequate battery disposal is a matter of great concern to us all, and under a zero waste contract—or, indeed, under any waste contract—we want some of the harder-to-deal-with products to be dealt with appropriately.

I return the hon. Lady to her comments about waste being measured by weight. Is not the fact that local authority targets are fixed by weight one of the fundamental problems? Instead, one needs a much more selective mechanism so that, for example, packaging and other parts of the waste stream could prove valuable to local authorities in terms of contributing to national targets. We need a much more sensitive arrangement than the current one.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that useful Intervention. I get the feeling that even with plastics, with which we know we are having problems, there is much more that we can do. In my local authority—I am not making a party political point; this is doubtless true of many other authorities—two major supermarkets, Tesco and Sainsbury's, have plastic "bring points". One might assume that one end of Guildford shops at Sainsbury's and the other at Tesco, but these "bring points" are used by people who work in the Constituency but do not necessarily live there. For example, someone who lives in Reigate but teaches at a school in Guildford deposits plastic bottles at one of those sites. Bottles are brought to the collection area and left there in plastic bags; indeed, bag upon bag is left there.

We need to do much more to educate the public, hence my concern about Waste Watch. We need to ensure that, as in France and Spain, people drop their old batteries into a collection unit when they buy their replacements, assuming that they cannot use rechargeable ones. We also need to ensure that people know that the best thing that they can do with their plastic bottles is to stamp on them and, if possible, remove the paper wrapper. That would help everybody, including the markets, but unfortunately we are failing on the education front.

Such issues are also important in terms of how contracts work. We must create a framework whereby we modify those contracts and tell collection and disposal authorities that they must improve, increase recycling and reduce waste. In that way, we will avoid waste incineration, for example, which people do not want. We should also help people to dispose of their waste in the most appropriate way. On mechanical biological treatment, would it not be better to provide the option of anaerobic digestion, which is not an incineration process, even though it produces a gas by-product that can be burned? There are many other ways in which we can dispose of waste, and tying oneself into a long contract is not a good idea.

We still have a problem with retail packaging recovery and producer products. We buy such products at supermarkets, take them home—and then what? Again, the burden falls on local authorities. Some of the better organisations have had a serious look at packaging and are doing some good things; for example, B&Q is looking at end-to-end use of packaging. Unfortunately, although they are leading from the front, many other organisations are lagging behind and not playing their part. We want to introduce a measure on producer responsibility in order to increase recycling rates, and to provide an incentive for retailers to limit the amount of packaging used. In Germany, deposits form part of such schemes. There has been some negotiation as to how such deposits work, along with some discussion of how well the German scheme is working. There is room for improvement in terms of recovering bottles and other plastics, but such improvement is beginning to happen.

New Clause 18, which would create a sustainability requirement for waste disposal functions, is also concerned with the problem of contracts. We need to establish what the sustainability requirement is. As we know, it is very easy to introduce private finance initiative-based contracts that include no real definition of sustainability. Although the Government look for best value in such contracts, they do not put the same effort into dealing with sustainability deficiencies. Some authorities will of course still choose to contract out waste disposal functions. For example, a small authority might not find it economical to carry out such functions or to build a partnership with a neighbour. Such contracts must have sustainability at their core.

A report produced by the Green Alliance last year, entitled "PFI: Meeting the sustainability challenge", pointed out that there are sustainability guidelines for agreeing PFI contracts, but that not a lot of attention is being paid to them. They are honoured more in the breach than in the observance, and they are optional. If there were firmer sustainability requirements, local authorities would have to take on board advice about sustainability, and bidders would have to pay greater attention to, and make firmer commitments to, meeting such requirements. We need to strengthen those requirements and I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say on this issue. He has the opportunity to tell us how sustainability will be brought into waste contracts and other contracts.

Amendment No. 37 follows on from a debate that we had in Committee on the failure to provide valid authority for transporting waste, and on the obstruction of officers exercising stop-and-search powers relating to that offence. We identified a discrepancy between subsections (2)(b) and (8)(b) of clause 37. The former states that a vehicle can be stopped by an officer if it

"appears to him to be a vehicle that has been, is being or is about to be used for transporting . . . waste".

However, subsection (8)(b), which deals with the offence of failing to co-operate with an officer exercising such stop-and-search powers, refers only to waste that

"was or was being transported".

The Minister said in Committee:

"An offence is committed only if controlled waste is or has been transported, which is the reason for the language in the Bill"—[Official Report, Standing Committee G, 20 January; c.167.]

That, however, does not clear up the inconsistency between the two subsections. We are taking account of the Minister's response and suggesting that the phrase "about to be" be removed from subsection (2)(b). I hope that the Minister has had a chance to look at the amendment and that we will achieve a satisfactory meeting of minds. We already have enough problems securing adequate evidence and conviction, particularly in relation to transporting waste, and I would hate a loophole to be used to provide a defence in cases where we should be securing a conviction.

I do not want to detain the House for very long, but I want to add a few remarks to those made by Sue Doughty, who made some very valid points about waste minimisation. The whole purpose of our recycling policy should be to reduce the amount of waste material going into landfill sites, but the hon. Lady will doubtless join me in congratulating the Government on increasing recycling in an astonishing way—one that I did not think possible in 1997.

In my own local authority, when Labour was in control in 1998, we were recycling 14 per cent. of domestic rubbish. That gave the Liberal Democrats a target of 28 per cent. to achieve by 2004, which they failed to realise. They have also failed the further target of 36 per cent. this year. I am sorry about that, because many things could quite easily be done to enable the council to meet its recycling targets.

I understand that the hon. Member for Guildford is talking about waste minimisation rather than recycling, but I hope that she agrees with me that the higher the rate of recycling, the less waste needs to go to landfill sites. I know that it is not always the case, but manufacturers sometimes seem intent on vying with each to produce more and more packaging, so we all end up with more packaging in our shopping bags at the end of the day. If we can increase the amount of waste for recycling, less material will need to go to landfill.

The hon. Lady mentioned two figures relating to recycling in Cambridge. I cannot comment on the second, because I have not looked into it, but I understand in respect of the first figure that it had nothing to do with the change of council administration and a sloppy attitude, but reflected a change in the way waste was counted. It would not have mattered which council took over from the previous council: the figures would have risen in any case.

That was the excuse offered by the Liberal Democrats on Cambridge city council, but the Government have not accepted it. It is not sensible to start quibbling about the figures; we should look at further ways to enhance recycling and improve waste minimisation.

In response to the Intervention of Norman Baker, when Cambridge city council first introduced green bins, I was visited by one of the council's officers, who wanted to know why I was putting so little into my green bin. The answer was that most of the stuff that should have gone into my green bin had actually been deposited on my own compost heap. That is an eminently sensible way of dealing with the problem, rather than leaving it for someone else, though many people without large gardens have to resort to that.

The hon. Lady seems to agree with me and I noticed the Minister nodding helpfully. What seems to have happened is that the Government, with the best of intentions, have driven councils down the recycling route—we are all in favour of recycling—but not down the minimisation road. Councils now often actively recycle to get their figures up, instead of minimising in order to get the waste down.

I take the hon. Gentleman's point. There is some good sense in what he says and I began by observing that I agreed with much of what had already been said in the debate. Given the importance of waste minimisation and given that the hon. Member for Guildford mentioned plastic bags a few moments ago, I am surprised that she did not mention—perhaps it is inappropriate in the context of the particular provisions that we are debating now—the idea of having a plastic bag tax, as in Ireland, where it has proved to be a sensible measure. I must say, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I find it infuriating when I go into a supermarket with my rucksack—of course, I cycle there—and I am immediately offered plastic bags to put all my shopping into. As well as being infuriating, it is completely unnecessary.

I appreciate the hon. Lady's comments and I believe that we are of one mind on the issue. She will be pleased to hear that what she suggests will, subject to a full environmental impact assessment, become Liberal Democrat policy.

I am pleased to hear it. At the national policy forum, which I attended in July, a resolution was passed to include in our relevant policy documents the need for a review of the plastic bag tax. I am pleased that Ministers felt able to accept that proposal.

In taking that argument forward, is my hon. Friend aware that the Department is now investigating the environmental cycle of plastic bags and that there may be a downside as well as an upside? Does she agree that placing a tax on plastic bags would raise the profile of waste management? Should we not now get on with it?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, who makes an excellent point. Yes, let us get on and do that.

I want to deal with the recycling of plastics generally, which has been a hot issue in my own Constituency. I carried out a survey, based on a form that was sent to every household. I received more than 600 responses—not bad considering that people had to pay to post them back to me. What people wanted more than anything else was kerbside collection of plastics. I believe that it is a very good idea; I know that my waste bin is full of plastic, partly because I am reduced to buying convenience foods that all come neatly wrapped in rather rigid plastic containers.

I discovered, however, that it is difficult to carry out kerbside recycling of plastics, largely because of the bulk, which the hon. Member for Guildford mentioned. When plastics are collected, it is probably necessary to have a crusher to reduce the volume. Cambridge city council has proposed kerbside recycling of plastics and collecting them separately from other products such as tins, papers, glass bottles and so forth. I understand that most of the energy saved by recycling the plastic will be used in oil when the material is taken to China, melted down and re-used. I cannot believe that that is a sensible use of council tax payers' money. If the hon. Lady had some fresh ideas and could offer them to her Liberal Democrat colleagues on the council, I would be most grateful. I understand that that policy will increase council tax in Cambridge by about 10 per cent.—a horrendous amount for people to pay. I am advised that it will cost about 20p per plastic bottle recycled. That cannot be a sensible way forward, though it may appear to be so on the surface.

I think that we are both of one mind on the need to recycle plastics. The fact remains that, if more were done to stimulate the market for plastic recycling in this country, it would not be necessary for materials to go over to China. I looked into the problem and I am concerned about boats coming over full and going back to China, so—

Order. The hon. Lady must not go on making mini-speeches in her interventions. There is only a relatively small amount of time left for debate.

I do not want to add anything further to what I have said and I know that we are all interested in hearing what the Minister has to say in response.

I rise to support Amendment No. 28—

Order. I suspect that the hon. Lady means to speak to Amendment No. 29.

I am most grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I mean Amendment No. 29, which relates to Clause 50. I draw the Minister's attention to the instructions in the briefing sent by the Environment Agency to all right hon. and hon. Members. It deals with how to apply section 59 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. The amendment would remove "may" and insert "shall", thereby requiring the relevant authority—the Environment Agency—to clear fly-tipped material or rubbish from all land. Once the landowner has proved that the material was fly-tipped—namely, dumped without his knowledge, consent or permission—we believe that that should be enough to qualify for removal: not at the landowner's expense, I hasten to add, but at the expense of the local authority.

Will the hon. Lady give way?

No, we have heard quite enough from the hon. Lady about this group of amendments.

The briefing says that we must stamp out all forms of fly-tipping. It is a form of environmental crime which is increasing. It has an element of cowboy activities with a strong criminal undertone, and we must remove the results from private land as well as public land. Why should landowners have to put up with what could be hazardous, noxious and very unpleasant waste on their land?

The purpose of the Amendment is to require the relevant authority to clear fly-tipped material from all land. That would occur only when the occupier had established his defence that the material was fly-tipped. Without the amendment, authorities will continue not to clear waste from land in their areas, so the true scale of fly-tipping will never be ascertained and the necessary resources to deal with the problem will never be allocated.

I shall not speak at length on the note from the Environment Agency, but I wanted to draw the Minister's attention to it before he responds. It states clearly on page 1 that the agency cannot and would not want to require an occupier or landowner to remove waste or remediate against the deposit if there was no evidence that they were responsible. It also states that the agency does not have the power to require any other person, including the culprit, to remove waste unless they are the occupier or landowner. Again, the agency cites the background data to the effect that in 2003 it served 131 notices under section 59.

In conclusion, I humbly submit to the Minister that the Environment Agency is not empowered to require an occupier or landowner to remove waste or remediate against its deposit if there is no evidence that they are responsible. Clearly, it believes that illegally dumped waste on privately owned land is a more difficult issue than that on public land. Neither the local authority nor the Environment Agency is under any legal obligation to remove the waste. However, the agency states that in some circumstances it will remove illegally deposited waste to mitigate an imminent risk of pollution or harm, and then seek to recover its costs. That is unacceptable. Fly-tipped waste should be removed from all land regardless of whether ownership of that land is private or public.

It is interesting how much ground has been covered during this short debate and I pay tribute to all hon. Members who have taken part.

Sue Doughty acknowledged some of the actions that we are taking to improve our performance on waste disposal. I accept that the matter is fraught with difficult decisions and challenges. Indeed, so much could be said on the issues that have been raised that I will write to hon. Members who have taken part in the debate and will place a copy of my letter in the Library.

The impact on existing contracts, which are often—but not always—long term, is a serious issue. Norman Baker complained that recycling and composting targets do not reflect waste minimisation. That is true at the moment. We have focused on recycling and composting in current targets, but another best value performance indicator—the number of kilos of household waste per head—takes account of waste minimisation. We are reviewing the local authority recycling targets this year, along with a review of waste strategy 2000, and we will consider further levers to encourage waste minimisation as part of that. There are some points on which we can have a meeting of minds in attempting to deal with the issues.

I am particularly grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge for her helpful contribution on the whole range of issues before us.

New Clause 15 is resisted because Government policy seeks to drive the management of waste up the waste hierarchy. Waste minimisation sits at the top of that hierarchy so, when planning for waste management, the potential for minimisation must be evaluated before consideration of any alternatives.

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I apologise for interrupting the Minister, but will you confirm that in five minutes you will be required to put the Question on this stage of the Bill's consideration without the House having had the opportunity to discuss Amendment No. 11 and dogs? We shall be unable to discuss that not because the Chair has forgotten about it, but because the restrictive programming motion leaves us no time to consider it.

The hon. Gentleman may be premature in making his point of order. The Chair does not know what will happen in the next few minutes.

Well, the Standing Committee had a good debate on dogs. When we discussed the programme motion, Derek Conway took up some time referring to various organisations, which I have met and engaged with in recent weeks. I assure him that his and their concerns have been addressed. We can make progress, even if he is frustrated and prevented from making his contribution on the only issue in the Bill that seems to bother him.

New Clause 15 is resisted because a number of means exist by which the same objectives can be pursued, including the new landfill tax escalator, the packaging obligations, and the waste and resources action programme. I shall expand on some of those and other issues in a letter to hon. Members.

New clause 16 is also resisted. We accept that waste disposal contracts must deliver the outcomes in a waste disposal authority's long-term strategy for sustainable waste management and deliver the infrastructure needed to reach those outcomes, as set out in the authority's local development framework. However, local authorities are autonomous bodies and responsible for making their own decisions on procurement within the regulatory framework. Sufficient mechanisms are in place to ensure that existing contracts are reviewed and that future contracts do not cause conflict.

The duty of best value, as the hon. Member for Guildford said, requires local authorities to secure continuous improvement in service delivery through challenge, comparison, consultation and competition. When an existing contract does not meet statutory obligations, the authority must find a way of taking additional action within or separately from the contract to address the problem, or face the consequences. That could involve formal Intervention by the Government as a last resort if the authority is failing to deliver best value or a financial penalty under the landfill allowance trading schemes. A number of mechanisms exist—I would be happy to expand on them—that allow us to go in the direction that has led to the drafting of the new clause.

New clause 17 is also resisted. There are two separate issues: increased packaging recovery and persuading more consumers to recycle more. Both are vital, but it is not clear that compulsory provision of take-back facilities for packaging in-store is the best way of achieving both, although that may play a role. We do not believe that such a duty would add value to the mechanisms already in place. We are also concerned that the proposal would disregard the fact that local authorities have a statutory duty to collect and dispose of household waste, including household packaging waste. It is not clear how the Amendment would fit with that duty. There would be practical problems with identification of material supplied from a particular outlet, lack of support from consumers, and so on. However, I do not deny that the proposal could make a contribution and that it is worth exploring further.

New clause 18 is resisted because waste disposal contracts must be environmentally sustainable, but local authorities are autonomous bodies, responsible for making their own decisions on procurement within the regulatory framework. Sufficient mechanisms are in place to ensure environmental sustainability of contracts, including a duty of best value, statutory performance standards and so on.

Amendment No. 37 is resisted because it would limit the flexibility of the enforcing authorities to take the most appropriate enforcement action at the most appropriate time. It would not allow them to search vehicles that were reasonably believed to be about to be used to commit an offence. Instead, they would have to wait until the offence was committed and only then proceed to carry out the search. It is important to retain the power to search vehicles that are, it is reasonably believed, about to be used to commit an offence.

Amendment No. 29 is resisted because the national and local taxpayer—

It being three hours after the commencement of proceedings, Mr. Deputy Speaker put the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Order [this day].

The House divided: Ayes 25, Noes 246.

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Deputy Speaker then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.