Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer and for what has been done so far. He will be aware that at the beginning of November the Merits of Statutory Instruments Committee reported its concern that not enough had been done to put householders on notice. The Government then acted in the middle of November. Have they any means of discovering what reaction there has been to their efforts?

Lord Bach: My Lords, yes. We were aware of the reports made by the Merits of Statutory Instruments Committee and the concerns that were raised. We have provided the committee with additional information.

Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, is the publicity that has been given to these regulations sufficient and is it enough to rely on local authorities to publicise them? Is there not scope for a national publicity campaign so that householders may better understand the obligations which rest with them if they dispose of waste to an illegal contractor?

Lord Bach: My Lords, we have not relied only on local authorities, assuming that they will necessarily publicise the scheme. I ought to make it clear to the House that the regulations do not require a significant change in behaviour on the part of householders. In the majority of situations, householders will continue to have their household waste collected by the local authority.

Baroness Knight of Collingtree: My Lords, are there plans to review the way in which the new directive is working? Is the Minister aware that for many people it is extremely inconvenient and unhygienic that household rubbish is now collected only once every two weeks instead of weekly? Why does there seem to be a post-code selection in that matter? Is the Minister further aware that hot summer weather has the most unpleasant effect on a great deal of household rubbish, particularly the remains of a meat joint or a fish dish, and certainly after the first week it smells to high heaven?

Lord Bach: My Lords, I am well aware that in some local authorities the collection of waste is on the basis described by the noble Baroness, which can cause considerable difficulties. She will know that we are concerned not to overburden local authorities from central government. It is up to them to decide how to do this, within certain parameters. The noble Baroness knows that if there are complaints about particular local authorities, they should be complained to loudly.

Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, given that our recycling rates have been increased recently but are
 
12 Dec 2005 : Column 965
 
nothing like as good as other countries such as the Netherlands and Australia, where up to nearly 50 per cent of waste is recycled, is the Minister satisfied that packaging is under as much control as it should be so that only the minimum amount is used for household goods?

Lord Bach: My Lords, the noble Baroness is right; in 2003–04 we recycled 17.7 per cent. However, about half of our household waste could be recycled, so we have a long way to go. Of course, no one is satisfied that the amount of packaging is necessarily appropriate. Much work could be done there, too, and it is about time it was done.

Baroness Sharples: My Lords, is fly-tipping on the increase?

Lord Bach: My Lords, I cannot tell the noble Baroness whether fly-tipping is on the increase. All I can say, and I am sure that the House will share my view, is that any fly-tipping is a disgrace. We think that it occurs for a number of reasons: sometimes because producers of waste are ignorant of their responsibilities for the waste that they produce, and sometimes because householders would rather throw their bulky waste away in a lay-by than contact the local authority to come to collect it, perhaps because some local authorities charge for that service. Frankly, a lot of fly-tipping occurs because some householders blatantly disregard their responsibilities, and the effect on the rest of us is obvious.

Lord Dubs: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that reducing the total amount of waste is the preferred option and is better than recycling? In that context, would he like to say anything about the Government's present thinking about putting a tax on plastic bags? They do not have a large volume, but they last hundreds, if not millions, of years and it would be easy to solve the problem, as has been done in Ireland. Put a tax on them and the volume of plastic bags will fall immediately.

Lord Bach: My Lords, my noble friend has previously asked a Question about this in practically the same form. I am afraid my answer also will be in practically the same form. The Irish example is a good one, and there are many attractions in what they have done, but matters of taxation are not a matter for Defra.

EU: Criminal Law

2.51 pm

Lord Pearson of Rannoch asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether the European Court of Justice has issued a judgment agreeing that the European Commission has the power to require European Union member states to prosecute breaches of European law in their national courts.

Lord Triesman: My Lords, the European Court of Justice judgment confirmed that where criminal
 
12 Dec 2005 : Column 966
 
sanctions are essential to ensure that the community's rules are effective, the Commission may propose them. The member states would still have to agree any such proposals in the Council through the normal legislative procedure. The judgment also confirmed that, as a general rule, criminal law matters do not fall within the Community's competence.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Since this judgment was strongly opposed by three-quarters of the member states, including the United Kingdom, does it not make a mockery of the claim that our democracy is safeguarded in the Council of Ministers? Secondly, is there anything to stop this judgment eventually being extended to cover all EU laws, together with relevant penalties, including prison sentences, whether the Government support them or not?

Lord Triesman: My Lords, I do not believe that there is much scope for extension because the issues that can be considered have to be of importance across the Community. Some of them are international matters, and there has frequently been a demand in this House that we try to get a better level of co-ordination. If someone pollutes up-river in Hungary, the pollution also has to be dealt with in Germany. When there is money laundering in one country, it is usually also happening in another country. Some degree of international response is helpful.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is this not the first time in British legal history that any organisation would be able to impose criminal penalties on British people without the consent of the British Government and Parliament?

Lord Triesman: My Lords, I think that there may be a misapprehension about what is being done. The ruling reiterated that criminal law is not generally a matter for the European community. I have given the example of wilful pollution and other things that go across borders where there is a general Community interest. The European Commission can bring forward a proposal only where criminal sanctions are necessary to the fulfilment of a Community objective. Any proposal for criminal sanctions must be approved by member states and enforcement remains a matter for member states. Therefore, the judgment does not change the fact that member states would have to implement community law and enforce it if they made the decision to do so. I think that we may be over-anxious about something that is not going to happen.

Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, as the noble Lord points out, the judgment is limited to pollution, which of course crosses national boundaries. Is not the Commission, with the consent and support of the European Parliament and the Council, the right body to determine fair play between the member states and
 
12 Dec 2005 : Column 967
 
to ensure that those member states introduce criminal sanctions on those who cheat in order to bring the whole of Europe into line?

Lord Triesman: My Lords, I agree with the points that have just been made. I think that it would be to the benefit of all of us if we could say with a degree of consistency that if someone cheated in one country he would not get away with it because he was in that country when the impact might be on another country. That seems to me to impose on us both obligations and fairness.

Lord Tebbit: My Lords, since, when member state governments and their farmers in one country cheat over agricultural subsidies, the burden is borne principally in this country as we are the principal paymaster, is there any prospect of getting prosecutions of the governments concerned?