Waste Minimisation Bill (Hansard, 6 November 1998)

§ Lord Hardy of Wath
My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.

§ Lord Hardy of Wath
I am extremely grateful to the noble Earl, not least because he has made it clear that he will not press the amendment. The Bill has been around for some time. It is not a partisan measure. Indeed, it was first introduced in the other place by Mr. Gary Waller, who honourably contested my own constituency a long time ago.
452 The noble Earl's amendment serves a useful purpose in that I hope it will allow my noble friend to offer the assurance that he seeks, and to make it clear that the Government expect local authorities to consult. It would have been difficult to find the words within the proposed measure to provide an accurate definition. Thus confusion will be avoided if we leave it to the Government to maintain the policy of issuing relevant and appropriate advice to the effect that they will expect local authorities to consult. That will encourage local authorities to do so. I am grateful to the noble Earl for his agreement to withdraw the measure and look forward to the assurances from my noble friend that he expects.

§ Lord McNair
As I indicated during my brief remarks at Second Reading, the Bill has the support of these Benches. I am sure that the suggestion made by the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, that this provision can be achieved by means of ministerial guidelines is the best one. I therefore look forward to the Minister's reply.

§ Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton
I should like to begin with a few general words on this Bill, which will allow local authorities—where they choose—to investigate and promote methods of minimising the amounts of waste generated within their areas. I thank my noble friend Lord Hardy for taking it forward.
As I have said before, this is a good Bill and a timely one. In the past, local authorities have tended to treat the amount of waste produced as something over which they have no control, and which they simply have to manage. We have not been getting the waste minimisation message across as successfully as we need to. This Bill starts to address that problem—not least by removing the uncertainty about whether authorities can undertake waste minimisation activities. It will allow local authorities, for example, to inform householders about some of the straightforward actions that they can take to prevent waste, such as stopping junk mail.
The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, has proposed that the Bill should require local authorities to consult principal generators of controlled waste before undertaking any waste minimisation activities. I am delighted to be able to give the noble Earl the assurance he seeks. The Government recognise the importance of appropriate consultation and, through guidance, would encourage and expect a local authority to consult interested parties. However, we would want consultation to be appropriate to the type of action planned by an authority. For example, it would not be sensible for an authority to consult every business in its area about a leaflet to be sent only to householders. Such a consultation would cost more in time and effort than the proposal itself and would deter authorities from undertaking the simple measures that we wish to encourage.
Furthermore, the Environmental Protection Act 1990, which the Bill seeks to amend, places no statutory requirement on local authorities to consult businesses or other organisations before reaching decisions on their waste management responsibilities. Any such requirement in the Waste Minimisation Bill would therefore place a stricter and additional onus on 453 authorities than does the parent legislation itself. This would be illogical and inconsistent and we do not believe that it is right.
I hope that in the light of the assurances that I am only too pleased to be able to give, the noble Earl will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

§ Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer
The noble Baroness mentioned of guidelines. I believe that the Bill will work very well in areas which have unitary authorities, but much of the country is served by a waste collection authority being the district council and a waste disposal authority being the county council. In some areas where partnerships have been developed, the two authorities have worked well together. I support the proposal that businesses and others should be consulted, but I fear that where partnerships are not working well, consultation first by the collection authority and then by the disposal authority could make the effect of such consultation and the kind of work the Bill envisages rather weaker. I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to give some assurance that guidelines could include such matters as suggesting that the new development agency for local government should look at the question of authorities working in partnership and at how to improve matters where partnerships do not exist.
Perhaps I may ask that, as a long-term measure, the Government should look again at the financial consequences of having one authority responsible for collection and one for disposal. That does not make for a coherent picture and makes worthy measures such as those provided for in the Bill much harder to put into effective practice.

§ Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton
The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, has rightly identified an issue. There is a requirement in the Bill for the relevant authorities to consult other authorities in the area. It is my experience that the pattern of co-operation is growing in those areas where two different authorities have responsibilities.
With regard to her final point about considering a possible change of functions between the two tiers, I suspect that were we to enter into that debate today it would detain your Lordships for quite a long time.

Earl Attlee
I thank noble Lords who have spoken to this short amendment. I thank the Minister for her reply and I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.