Gregory
Barker: I will not detain the Committee. We feel strongly
that there should be a far more explicit statement on the face of the
Bill about the power to reduce the amount of tax payable in relation to
household waste, so we propose to press new clause 18 to a vote. I beg
to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment. Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn.
The
Chairman: The Opposition have asked for a vote on new
clause 18. That, of course, will come later in our
proceedings.
Joan
Ruddock: I beg to move amendment No. 24, in
schedule 5, page 74, line 21, leave
out paragraph 3 and
insert— ‘(1) Section 46 of
the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (c. 43) (receptacles for
household waste) is amended as
follows. (2) After subsection
(1) insert— “(1A)
Where— (a) subsection
(1) applies to a waste collection authority, and
(b) a waste reduction scheme under Schedule 2AA to
this Act is in operation in the authority’s
area, the authority may require
the occupier to place the waste for collection in receptacles
identified by such means as may be
specified. (1B) A requirement
under subsection
(1A)— (a) must be
imposed by notice served on the
occupier; (b) may be imposed
instead of, or in addition to, any requirement imposed on the occupier
under subsection
(1).”. (3) In subsection
(10) (interpretation), in the definition of “specified”,
after “subsection (1)” insert “or
(1A)”.’. (4) In
subsection (6) (penalties for failure to comply with requirements under
subsection (1) etc) after “subsection (1),” insert
“(1A),”.
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the
following:
Government
new clause 5—Collection of household
waste. Government
amendment Nos. 25 and
26
Joan
Ruddock: The amendments refine an amendment that was made
during the Bill’s passage in the other place. Our intention was
to enable waste collection authorities to run waste reduction schemes
where residents buy tags or stickers to place on their waste
receptacles, either waste sacks or bins, when they put them out for
collection. Residents would then receive a flat rate rebate. People
buying the most tags would pay more overall, whereas others who had
bought fewer tags would make a net financial gain. To allow for such
schemes, we made an amendment to the Environmental Protection Act 1990
to give authorities the power to specify in a notice to residents under
section 46 of that Act how they should identify their waste
receptacles—say, with a specific tag or sticker.
That would
apply to all waste collection authorities, which was not our intention.
The amendment would avoid the unwanted impact and clarify that the
power to specify how waste should be identified should be available
only to those authorities running a waste collection scheme.
Following the
pilots, as the Committee knows, the Government will report back to
Parliament and will consider whether to roll out to all authorities in
England powers to make a waste reduction scheme available. Should the
powers to implement such schemes be rolled out in future, the power to
specify how waste should be identified would continue to apply only to
those authorities operating a waste reduction scheme.
I turn now to
new clause 5. My noble Friend Lord Rooker mentioned during the
Bill’s passage in the other place our intention to table an
amendment to clarify that once a local authority has informed residents
how they should present their waste for collection, such as by putting
it in a bin, the authority need not collect any waste left lying
outside the bin, for example. In the business, such waste is normally
termed “side waste”.
As explained
then by my noble Friend, these sorts of policies have been successfully
operated by a significant number of authorities, with the support of
their communities, using powers conferred by the Environmental
Protection Act 1990. As part of a good overall service, they have
helped householders to reduce the waste that
they throw away, and to increase the amount that
they recycle. We have not made any change to existing policy, but we
think it would be helpful for local authorities and for residents to
have a single clear point of reference in legislation. That is why we
tabled Government new clause 5, which would apply to all waste
collection authorities in England and
Wales. Miss
McIntosh: Would the provisions permit councils whose
current policy it is to allow side waste to continue to do
so?
Joan
Ruddock: The hon. Lady is probably referring to situations
where the way in which waste should be collected is specified, but
householders put out additional waste and the collection authority
willingly takes it away. Authorities would obviously be able to do
that. They are not being dictated to, but are being given a power. It
is our understanding that the power exists at present.
Local
authorities can refuse to take away the side waste because they have
made a specific provision under a section 46 notice. However, some
local authorities choose to take waste that is additional to the bin or
system that they use. That is their choice. There are, however, quite a
lot of authorities which say, “We issued a notice. We made it
clear what you are required to do. You must not put out more
waste.” The Bill will clarify what we believe to be the case
already—that they have the power to
refuse. The
hon. Lady still frowns, but I hope that what I said is clear. Our
reason for tabling the new clause is to make it clear that all waste
collection authorities are covered by the relevant provisions. They
need not collect waste that is placed for collection in a way that
contravenes the collection requirements set out by the local authority
in a notice to residents. That may seem unnecessary and complex, but it
is intended to make the law absolutely clear.
Government
amendment. No. 25 is consequential to Government new clause 5 on the
collection of household waste. The amendment adjusts the Bill so that
its provisions on the collection of household waste extend to England
and Wales only. Similarly Government amendment No. 26
adjusts the long title of the Bill to reflect the inclusion of the new
provisions.
Gregory
Barker: I note from the Minister that the amendments seem
primarily to be of the tidying-up kind. She answered my hon.
Friend’s query, but we need to probe a little into the
ostensibly innocuous nature of the provisions and consider their exact
intention a little further.
Amendment No.
24 is an amendment to schedule 5, which in turn makes changes to
section 46 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. For the benefit of
those without the Minister’s mastery of the legislation, can she
clarify the significance of the 1990 Act, how it relates to the waste
section of the Climate Change Bill, and the effect that the amendment
will have on the operation of the Bill and the 1990 Act?
Government
new clause 5 would also change section 46 of the 1990 Act.
The text to be inserted looks somewhat less innocuous than that in
amendment No. 24. It
reads: “A
waste collection authority is not obliged to collect household waste
that is placed for collection in contravention of a requirement under
this section.”
Such
phrases can set alarm bells ringing all over the country, particularly
where residents have experience of particularly officious waste
collection regimes, so can the Minister assure me that the inclusion of
the amendment will not mean that people will get out of bed in the
morning to find that their rubbish has not been collected, on the
grounds that they put the bag 1 m in the wrong direction, it was a few
grams too heavy, or for some other pedantic
reason?
Mr.
Gummer: The proposal worries me a great deal. We should be
passing legislation for the benefit of the customer, and not of the
provider. This sounds like bureaucratitis of the worst kind. It says,
“I am the local authority, I am going to decide what is
convenient for me. You are going to do it and, if you don’t, I
have no duty to collect your waste.” That is precisely the
attitude of Government that people are getting tired of. It is an
attitude that has become more pervasive over recent years, and this
seems to be a prize example. The provision is too tight and I do not
like the feel of it at all. I suspect that our constituents will not
like it. I know what will happen. Mr. Jobsworth will be
around from the local council, saying, “Wrong place, wrong type
of product. I’m afraid we can’t take it. And
what’s more, they’ve just moved the law so that we can
tell you that if you don’t put it out in the right way, we
don’t take
it.”
Gregory
Barker: My right hon. Friend has his finger on the pulse
of the public, as ever. In my area many elderly people are worried
about such regulations. There has been the experience of bins not being
collected from time to time by new operators. Particularly when there
is a change in operator and a switch from one system to another, people
take a while to get used to it. Sometimes waste is not collected, even
though the householder has behaved entirely
sensibly.
Miss
McIntosh: Will my hon. Friend take the opportunity to
press the Minister further? I am not entirely satisfied. My right hon.
Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal has struck on a problem. The
amendments make the system much less flexible than the present one.
There are people who work away and who are not able to put out their
rubbish on the collection day, but have come to an arrangement. There
might be pressing security reasons why that cannot be done. Could my
hon. Friend press the Minister further about the Government closing
down a degree of flexibility and making matters more difficult, which
will lead to more
fly-tipping?
Gregory
Barker: Absolutely. That is expressed across the country,
where new regimes and new contracts are coming into force, ending the
flexibility that many householders used to have with their dustman and
the relationship that they used to have with him, which found
expression at Christmas. There was often a personal relationship with
him. [Laughter.] No, not the milkman.
[Laughter.] From a sedentary position, the
Minister has broken the habit of a lifetime and been rather vulgar.
However, I will rise above
it. All
I am saying is that customs have grown up locally where householders
were on good terms with their dustmen, ensuring flexibility in the
collection of rubbish. I would hate to see such arrangements
compromised by tightly worded legislation such as this. I have lost my
line of thought.
Joan
Walley: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is about to
return to his text, but I would like him to confirm that this is a
serious
issue.
Gregory
Barker: We are looking for flexibility and common sense in
the interpretation of the law, to make sure that we are not creating a
charter for jobsworth
officialdom.
David
Maclean: My concern is not just, as my hon. Friend said,
the jobsworths coming around and dictating what they cannot take and so
on, but what will happen to the stuff that they do not take. We are not
referring to people who, when they are supposed to be putting out their
garbage or recycling, dump a sofa or mattresses. What will happen to
the little bags? What happens if a person puts out extra newspapers in
the wrong box—a whisky box or a wine box—instead of the
official council plastic box? Such a move will inevitably be fly
tipping. I would like to have reassurances that if householders put out
extra, legitimate, material on the right day, it will not end up being
thrown over a hedge into a farmer’s field in the
countryside. 12.30
pm
Gregory
Barker: My right hon. Friend makes another valid point. We
want to hear the Minister say that she takes on board such common-sense
concerns and that a common-sense regime and culture will not be
superseded by an exact charter and a legalistic interpretation of the
rules and regulations. We hope that common sense will continue to
prevail.
Martin
Horwood: I do not know what the story will be in
tomorrow’s Daily Mail, but I think that I know what it
will be in The Sun.
Amendment No.
24 is astonishing, in that we have to produce a piece of legislation to
permit a local council to ask someone to put a sticker on a bag in its
local authority area. It is a measure of just how ridiculously
centralised this country is that the amendment is before us and that 20
Members of Parliament have to discuss special clauses to allow people
to put stickers on bags. If the Minister insists that it is necessary,
we have to take it at face value.
In all
seriousness, I share the concerns of other hon. Members about amendment
No. 24. The Minister is right that councils can already refuse to
collect waste under certain circumstances. I have had one such
experience. Having been told to shred my confidential waste paper, I
was then told that I did not have the right to have it collected for
recycling. In the brave new world of the right hon. Member for Penrith
and The Border, I suppose that it would have been collected anyway and
that it would have clogged up all the recycling
machines.
David
Maclean: If the hon. Gentleman shredded his confidential
papers, why did the council refuse to collect that for recycling? Was
it in a plastic
bag?
Martin
Horwood: A paper bag. I gather that the dust generated by
shredded paper affects the machinery. There was a technical reason why
it could not be done. Such realities have to intrude on the debate
occasionally. The alarm that I have is that there is a difference
between shredded paper and what is generally known in the trade as
putrescible waste, which is something that I learned about on the
Select Committee. That is where the concern of the public starts to get
real along with that of environmental health officers and others. I
would hate to think that we were compromising any important public
health principles in the name of recycling and that we were
inadvertently placing people, such as the elderly and those in a
confused state, at risk of having their welfare compromised by well
intentioned provisions aimed at allowing councils to enforce recycling
schemes. I guess that the scenario could be positively Neapolitan if
things went badly wrong. I am seeking reassurance from the Minister
that even after the measure has been passed, there will still be
sufficient protection in other legislation or regulations to protect
vulnerable citizens and ensure that public health is protected as
strongly as it has
been.
| 
