HC Deb 13 March 1998 vol 308 cc916-23

Motion made, and Question proposed,

That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Waste Minimisation Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums which under any other enactment are payable out of money so provided.—[Mr. Dowd.]

2.34 pm
Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. One of my colleagues has received a notice to attend a Standing Committee to consider the Bill next Wednesday. I understand that, in order for a private Member's Bill to go to into Committee, its money resolution must first be passed. How can Members be invited to a Committee next week, before the House has even considered the money resolution? That strikes me as premature, to say the least.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin)

rose—

Mr. Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath)

Further to—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman has a terrible habit of interrupting the Chair. He should not do that.

I have been the Chairman of a Standing Committee, and I know that it often happens that Members are invited, subject to any decision that will be made in the House. If the decision was negative, the meeting would be cancelled.

Mr. Hawkins

I apologise for rising too soon, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Further to that point of order, I am one of those hon. Members who received notification about the Committee. I wanted to let you know that I was in the position to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) referred.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

I am pleased to hear it.

Mr. Forth

We are considering a money resolution in support of a private Member's Bill. It is difficult to assess the merits of the case if a Bill has not received a proper Second Reading and has gone through on the nod.

It is perfectly acceptable for private Members' Bills to receive a Second Reading on the nod, but it leaves us at a disadvantage in subsequent stages, because we are unaware of the rationale behind the Bill and of the thrust of its contents. That will be a considerable handicap to us today in giving proper and detailed consideration to the money resolution, although it seems that the Bill could have considerable spending implications.

I remember, as no doubt will my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery), that in the good old days private Members' Bills were supposed not to carry significant spending implications. Recently, however, we have had a series of examples of private Members' Bills—they may be Government handouts for all I know—with considerable spending implications and requiring money resolutions before going into Committee.

Sir Peter Emery (East Devon)

It is certainly true that, in the past, private Members' Bills were normally expected to be so worded as not to require money resolutions. It is very unusual, and a more modern structure, for them to require money resolutions. When that is the case, one is led to believe that those Bills are not so much private Members' Bills as Government-sponsored Bills under the name of a private Member.

Mr. Forth

My right hon. Friend confirms what I suspected: that this is in effect a handout Bill, as we call them in the trade, which a private Member has been persuaded to take up. That has important implications, one of which is this resolution.

It is relevant, although not crucial, that not many of the Bill's numerous sponsors are present today. It seems odd that hon. Members are prepared to sponsor Bills, perhaps because they sound attractive, but are mysteriously absent at a crucial stage of their progress. I will let that point go for the moment, because it is not relevant. We will see who is here when we vote on the issue, instead of speculating now.

The wording of the motion left me somewhat puzzled, and I hope that the Minister will be able to clarify the position. The motion contains the words: it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums which under any other enactment are payable out of money so provided. It always makes me suspicious when I read the words "any increase", because that is our old friend the blank cheque. We are being asked to approve any expenditure. That might not be too difficult to accept if the Bill were a Bill in the modern sense, with a statement of financial implications attached. I look in vain for such a statement in the Bill. All it says under "Money" is this: There shall be paid out of money provided by Parliament any increase attributable to any provision of this Act". In other words, we receive no guidance whatever about the expenditure implications of the Bill. If that is added to the fact that we have had no Second Reading debate, I am sure my hon. Friends will be as anxious as I am about the possible spending implications of the Bill and, therefore, about the money resolution before us.

It seems that a certain slackness is entering the proceedings of the House, because we are being expected to approve the motion and other motions on the Order Paper that carry the same implications—as I hope to point out when we reach them. We are being asked, as a House of Commons responsible to the electorate for the raising of moneys through taxes and the expenditure of taxpayers' moneys, to approve of unspecified expenditure.

Sir Peter Emery

I am sorry to interrupt my right hon. Friend again, but I wish to point out that the House acted, some years ago, to ensure that Bills contained a paragraph on finance in the introduction, so that the House would know the likely financial cost of legislation. It seems strange, when the House has introduced that change, to have a retrogressive Bill that does not include such a paragraph—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The right hon. Gentleman's intervention is far too long.

Sir Peter Emery

I shall make my point on a point of order, if you prefer, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The right hon. Gentleman knows better than that.

Sir Peter Emery

rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. My ruling is that interventions must be brief. I gave the right hon. Gentleman a lot of leeway and it is not on for him to say that he will use a point of order to make his point.

Sir Peter Emery

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not correct to point out the normal procedure of the House so that we all understand it?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

I do not need to reply to the right hon. Gentleman, because he knows the procedure of the House and I was addressing my remarks to him.

Mr. Forth

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon, who makes an important point. I believe that we are witnessing a change in the nature of private Members' Bills. That is happening because hon. Members—legitimately—are accepting Bills from Government Departments. I have no difficulty with the principle of that, because hon. Members are free to adopt whatever subject they choose for a Bill if they are fortunate enough to come high enough in the ballot. However, as my right hon. Friend emphasised, if, in the process, we lose the discipline that the House has sought to apply to Government Bills—that the financial implications should be clearly laid out—we are entitled to be more suspicious of what is laid before us.

If that is complicated by the fact that we have not had the benefit of a Second Reading debate and therefore do not know in detail what is going on, we are entitled to be doubly suspicious. However, holding this short debate allows us to explore the implications of the Bill and the expenditure that would arise from it, and we will be better able to judge it.

I shall discuss the Bill briefly, because my colleagues want to contribute. The Bill gives me little encouragement or confidence on the issues that I have mentioned—quite the reverse. Clause 1(1) deals with minimising the quantities of controlled waste, or controlled waste of any description, generated in its area. It authorises authorities to do, or arrange for the doing of, or contribute towards the expenses of the doing of, anything which in its opinion is necessary or expedient for the purpose". My reading is that authorities would be given unlimited scope to interpret what minimisation of waste generation means and to come up with ideas for implementing that aim. However, the words "waste", "minimise" and "generation", all of which are crucial to understanding the meaning of the Bill, have not been satisfactorily defined. The Bill seems to authorise authorities to do anything they see fit to fulfil its broad aim, and that is underpinned by the financial authority of the money resolution.

If ever there was a vehicle for unlimited expenditure, this Bill must be it. The Bill's aims are not adequately defined and although expenditure to underpin them has been requested, its effects have not been explained satisfactorily.

Angela Smith (Basildon)

I am the Bill's promoter. The right hon. Gentleman said that I was not present, but I am. The Bill is not a handout from the Government Whips; I took it over from the former hon. Member for Beckenham, who is no longer a Member of Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman said that the Bill's aims are broad. Will he not acknowledge that they are narrow and specific, and that the Bill describes in detail what it is designed to bring about?

Mr. Forth

No, I cannot agree with the hon. Lady. I am delighted that she is here, and apologise if I said that she was not. I hope that I said that few of the Bill's sponsors were here to support it; if I did not, that is what I meant to say. I of course acknowledge that she has taken the trouble to attend, and hope that she speaks in support of the money resolution.

However, I cannot agree with the hon. Lady, because, the phrase minimise the generation of waste is not specific, but extraordinarily general, and unconstrained. The Bill does not refer to domestic or industrial waste, define the generation of domestic or business wastes, or give us any guidance as to whether the aim is minimisation to zero. I cannot agree that the Bill's specificity gives us comfort. I am arguing the opposite.

Sensibly, the Bill requires an authority to consult about the proposal every other relevant authority whose area includes all or part of the area of the first authority. In this modern era of consultation, that sounds not only sensible, but highly desirable. However, it carries two implications that require explanation. First, the act of consultation is not cost free, as my party is about to find out in its enthusiasm for it. We all know that consultation by any body, whether wide or relatively narrow, is an expensive process. So already the Bill carries implications of costs—the costs of consultation—which I believe are undefined and unlimited, although I accept that the Bill's reference to "every other relevant authority" is something of a constraint. However, that raises another question.

Is there any implication of a veto? If some of those other authorities say, "What you propose to do to minimise the generation of waste in your area is unacceptable to us and carries with it difficulties," that could render the Bill nugatory. We need some sort of explanation of the nature of the consultation process and whether it carries with it any implication of an ability of another authority in some way to veto what the originating authority proposes to do.

I want to give my hon. Friends a chance to speak, so I shall draw my remarks to a close. I have tried to illustrate that, as things stand, the Bill and the money resolution contain inadequate explanations to support the unconstrained and unlimited wording of the money resolution. Unless I am eventually much better persuaded than I am now, I shall be unable to support the money resolution.

2.50 pm
r. Nick St. Aubyn (Guildford)

I did not intend to speak on the money resolution, but my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) has made the important point that it could become a blank cheque. It is worrying that we should be asked to support a Bill that may become a blank cheque, especially when I consider the problems of waste in the area that I represent in Surrey.

There is tremendous pressure on Surrey from developers and waste disposal companies to provide more waste facilities. Where, for example, sand has been extracted for commercial use, we find waste companies coming in; yet more and heavier lorries drive along our country lanes to dump waste in our part of Surrey—something for which the infrastructure and roads were not designed.

In Shamley Green—a delightful village in my constituency—we are fighting a tough battle against one firm. First, it said that it wanted to increase its waste disposal activities. Then, when it could not get that past the local authority, it said that it wanted to extract more sand from a pit that has been disused for a decade.

If we sign a blank cheque for waste minimisation, moneys could come forward from some source that would make financially viable waste disposal schemes that would not otherwise be financially viable. We have found, to our bitter cost, that the planning system on its own is not capable of stopping waste schemes that we definitely oppose.

There is another example in Seale—another village in my constituency. The matter went to appeal a year ago—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The debate is about the money resolution. The hon. Gentleman is speaking about the principle of the Bill. He should talk about the money resolution.

Mr. St. Aubyn

I am grateful for your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

The thrust of my point is that, if we provide more money for what sounds like a good cause—waste minimisation—we may unintentionally provide incentives to waste disposal companies to make more of a nuisance of themselves in parts of the world where we are fighting hard to restrict their activities.

I notice that the intention is that local authorities should find the money. It is deeply ironic that the Bill has the Government's support, as they well know that, in the most recent revenue settlement, our areas—and all the shire areas—suffered a real loss. More than £100 million was shifted from the shire counties to the metropolitan areas. Where on earth will the shire counties find money for a waste minimisation system? We are under great pressure.

Mr. Forth

My hon. Friend raises a point that I neglected to raise. The implications are clear: the taxpayer will have to pay an unlimited amount to local authorities; local authorities will have to raise more money to pay for what they are doing; or local authorities will have to reprioritise their expenditure under existing powers, to deliver the Bill's aims. It can be only one of those three, and we do not know which one it will be.

Mr. St. Aubyn

In Surrey, the council tax has increased by more than 10 per cent. because of the Government's change in its budget; at the same time, we have had to enforce cuts in social services to meet the Government's targets for increased spending on education. The idea that Surrey will have to find extra money for waste minimisation is appalling. If the Government's intention is that the money should be found by the Treasury, why does the Bill say that the money will be spent by the local authority, without making it clear from where the money will come?

I am concerned about the Bill. I respect the point that has been made, but it is wrong for such a Bill to be introduced by the mechanism of a private Member's Bill, as these should be, by and large, uncontroversial measures. We have already seen today the waste of parliamentary time that can come from controversial private Members' Bills. I am afraid that it is hard to summon the confidence that the Bill requires of us to lend it our support.

2.57 pm
Angela Smith (Basildon)

The hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn) said that private Members' Bills should be uncontroversial. I remind him that this is an uncontroversial Bill which has all-party support. Indeed, it was first brought before the House by the previous Member for Beckenham, who is no longer in the House.

Opposition Members are making heavy weather of the Bill, based on a misunderstanding of what it is about. It is enabling legislation for local authorities to work on waste minimisation. Local authorities are not forced to spend money.

The Bill should be examined fully in Committee and then brought before the House in the proper way. I urge hon. Members to support the money resolution so that the Bill can be examined in Committee.

2.58 pm
Sir Peter Emery (East Devon)

I find the hon. Lady's remarks completely unconvincing. She said, "This isn't going to cost anybody anything." If that is the case, why the devil is there a money resolution? It must be there for some purpose. That is why Opposition Members are highly suspicious. Perhaps the hon. Lady will be permitted to speak again to explain. I am highly suspicious of a money resolution on a private Member's Bill anyway. That is not the way in which things should be done.

If the proposal is not going to cost anything, we do not need a money resolution. When the Bill's promoter, the hon. Member for Basildon (Angela Smith), cannot give us a positive explanation about why the money resolution is necessary, I am not only suspicious, but I find myself wanting to ensure that we do not pass it.

2.59 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Angela Eagle)

I am amazed to find that parts of the Conservative Opposition do not think that waste minimisation is a desirable end, especially as the Bill is a modest measure supported, I thought until today, by all parties. It is clearly not supported by the Conservative party.

I am surprised that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) is against the promotion of waste minimisation as, when he was a member of the Conservative Government, they were anxious to pursue recycling and waste minimisation policies, although they were bad at coming up with results.

Mr. Forth

Will the Minister give way?

Angela Eagle

No.

The purpose of the resolution is to authorise the creation of a charge on public funds for the Bill. The Bill is narrow in scope and concerns promoting waste minimisation activities. Local authorities, as the organisations that collect domestic waste, might want to introduce educative processes to show people who live in their area how to recycle waste properly. The Bill merely enables that to happen.

Without what is a modest money resolution, the Bill would have no effect, which is why the resolution is before the House today. Conservative Members are much too paranoid about the effects of public expenditure. The measure duly authorises—merely enables—money to be used for a narrow purpose; the decision has not been taken. As Conservative Members know only too well, the present Chancellor of the Exchequer would not give an open-ended commitment to funding in a private Member's Bill. Conservative Members should stop exaggerating, come down to earth and treat the Bill as the modest, all-party—as I thought—measure that it is. I am interested to learn from today's debate that the Conservative Opposition seem to be against recycling.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 55, Noes 3.

Division No. 212] [3.1 pm
AYES
Anderson, Janet (Rossendale) King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Arbuthnot, James Lepper, David
Bennett, Andrew F Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Brake, Tom McCabe, Steve
Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E) McFall, John
Caplin, Ivor McIsaac, Shona
Casale, Roger McNulty, Tony
Caton, Martin McWilliam, John
Cawsey, Ian Mallaber, Judy
Coffey, Ms Ann Marshall-Andrews, Robert
Cooper, Yvette Merron, Gillian
Cranston, Ross Morley, Elliot
Dobbin, Jim Naysmith, Dr Doug
Dowd, Jim Norris, Dan
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey) Palmer, Dr Nick
Fitzpatrick, Jim Pike, Peter L
Gardiner, Barry Prosser, Gwyn
Gerrard, Neil Rooker, Jeff
Gilroy, Mrs Linda Savidge, Malcolm
Godman, Norman A Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Gordon, Mrs Eileen Spellar, John
Heald, Oliver Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)
Hill, Keith Timms, Stephen
Hoey, Kate Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)
Iddon, Dr Brian Vis, Dr Rudi
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough) Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth) Tellers for the Ayes:
Kelly, Ms Ruth Mr. Kevin Hughes and
Ms Bridget Prentice.
NOES
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter Tellers for the Noes:
Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot) Mr. Edward Leigh and
Maclean, Rt Hon David Mr. Eric Forth.

Question accordingly agreed to.