COMMONS AMENDMENT (Hansard, 3 November 2003)

§ Lord Whitty
My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1. I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 2, 3, 9 to 11 and 20 with which it is grouped.
Amendments Nos. 1, 3 and 11 enable consultation— which is required with the devolved administrations or other affected bodies under Clauses 1, 3 and 27 respectively when the Secretary of State exercises certain powers to make regulations—to be satisfied by consultation before, as well as by consultation after, the coming into force of the relevant clause. That group of amendments is relatively straightforward.
Amendments Nos. 9,10 and 20 all relate to the need to make changes to scheme and target years. These three amendments—two to Clause 23(2) and one to Clause 32—would give the landfill allowances scheme the flexibility needed to ensure that the targets set by the Landfill Directive are met in the most efficient way possible.
Amendment No. 9 would allow for regulations to provide for the omitting of scheme years and Amendment No. 10 would provide for a scheme year to be a period shorter or longer than a year.
These amendments are intended to deal with the possibility that not all local authorities may be ready to start the scheme in July 2004. We are committed to starting the scheme as early as possible but we need flexibility.
Amendment No. 20 enables the Secretary of State to make different provision for the countries of the UK in relation to the powers in Clauses 3(6) and 23(2)(a), (b) and (ba). The purpose of this amendment is to enable the start and timing of the landfill allowances scheme to be tailored for each country of the UK. Again, this will ensure that all parts of the UK start the scheme at the most appropriate time. Taken as a whole these three amendments—Amendments Nos. 9, 10 and 20—would provide the flexibility to adapt the structure of the landfill allowances scheme to ensure that all participants get the maximum benefit and that the UK's targets are met in the most efficient way.

§ Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer
My Lords, I must declare an interest as a Somerset county councillor. The council is, of course, a waste disposal authority.
We are disappointed that the targets set do not mention waste minimisation. They do not give it importance in the hierarchy. The Bill does not acknowledge the role that waste minimisation should play as the targets for waste are set. Further, we are still 523 disappointed that the targets seem less rigorous than those envisaged by the directive. At a time when some counties are running out of landfill sites, we really cannot afford to do anything other than our utmost in this. area.

§ Lord Whitty
My Lords, the Bill that left this House did not do everything that the noble Baroness wished, including in relation to waste minimisation. In that respect, the Bill as it has come back to this House is in more or less the same form. The targets are on the trajectory towards meeting those targets under the directive. Of themselves, they will put great pressure on disposal and collection authorities to ensure that part of the solution is to reduce waste, as well as finding more environmentally friendly ways to dispose of it.