Climate Change Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 212: 212: Schedule 5, page 62, line 35, leave out ““or 5”” The noble Lord said: My Lords, when we discussed the waste provisions in Committee a few weeks ago, I mentioned that, as set out in the consultation paper, we would give local authorities powers to be able to charge according to how often residents have their waste collected and in relation to tags or other identifiers which residents must attach to their waste receptacles. I said then that we might bring forward amendments to clarify that these charging methods are available as well as those already provided for in paragraphs 4 and 5 of Schedule 2AA, which is to be inserted into the Environmental Protection Act 1990. These types of schemes are straightforward and have operated successfully overseas. For example, Shell Harbour in the United States introduced a frequency-based scheme which led to a 45 per cent reduction in waste sent to landfill. Meanwhile, a combined frequency and volume-based scheme in Ludwigshafen—I should have considered how to pronounce that name before I said it—in Germany reduced waste levels by around 15 per cent. If an authority thinks it is appropriate for its area, it is right that such a model should also be tested in England. A frequency-based scheme could work by residents choosing how often they wish to have their waste collected. Those opting for a more frequent collection than the standard service offered by the local authority would pay extra. Rebates could then be redistributed to those whose waste is collected less frequently. Alternatively, residents could decide from week to week whether to leave their bin out and then be charged or rebated according to how many times their waste had, in fact, been collected. Under a tag-based scheme, residents would pay for identifying tags or stickers which they must place on their waste receptacles each time their waste is collected. Rebates would then be paid back to residents on a flat-rate basis, with the effect that some households make a net gain—in other words, pay less—and others end up paying more overall. Again, such schemes are already operating successfully overseas. For example, tag-based schemes in other towns in Germany have led to reductions in waste of around 37 per cent. I am now bringing forward government Amendment No. 213, which replaces paragraphs 4 and 5 of the schedule with a new paragraph 4. New paragraph 4 would allow local authorities to charge in any of the ways just mentioned, or any combination of these methods. The other amendments in this group, government Amendments Nos. 212, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218 and 222 are all consequential on government Amendment No. 213. Government Amendment No. 215 is a drafting improvement. It makes it clear that a failure to pay a waste charge under paragraph 4 would not affect the authority’s duty to arrange for waste to be collected. It confirms that powers to run waste reduction schemes are consistent with existing powers relating to a local authority’s duty to collect waste. Finally, to enable tag-based schemes to operate, it is important that the existing powers for local authorities to make sure that residents put their waste in the specified receptacles are extended to these types of scheme. So that this can happen, government Amendment No. 222 builds slightly on Section 46 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. In the same way that an authority can specify whether waste should be collected in bins or bags, this amendment now allows authorities, if necessary, to require residents to attach a specified identifier—a tag or sticker, say—to their waste receptacles. We are also considering proposing a further amendment to make it clearer that once a local authority has asked residents to place their waste in a particular receptacle, normally a bin, the authority need not collect any waste lying outside that bin—so-called ““side waste””. These side waste policies have been successfully operated by a significant number of authorities, with the support of their community, using powers given by the Environmental Protection Act 1990, so this is not new. As part of a good overall service, they have helped householders to reduce the waste they throw away and to increase the amount they recycle. We think that it would be beneficial for local authorities, and for residents, to have a single clear point of reference in legislation. That is why we will be considering bringing forward an amendment at a later stage. I cannot say whether that will be at Third Reading or when the Bill reaches the other place. I should also mention here that we plan to bring forward an amendment at a later stage which will enable the Secretary of State to require certain large retailers to apply a minimum charge when distributing single-use carrier bags. This requirement to charge will come into force next year, unless retailers have by that time already managed to achieve a significant reduction in the number of bags in circulation. The Government are keen to see these measures extend across the whole of the United Kingdom. We will work with the devolved Administrations to establish the most appropriate way to achieve this. Amendments Nos. 213A, 213B and 213C relate to the administration of charges under a waste reduction scheme. I shall take each in turn. Amendment No. 213A would remove local authorities’ ability to ask residents to pay in advance their waste charge for a certain period according to an evidence-based assessment of how much waste they are likely to produce during that period. We have to remember that local authorities will be the bodies running these schemes and they are not going to do that if they do not have the powers and flexibilities they need to make them work well. Being able to charge in advance is a good example. It is a small thing but it could make the world of difference to authorities being able to administer schemes effectively and efficiently. Moreover, it is only fair to give people an idea from the outset of roughly what they can expect to pay or earn under a waste incentive scheme. The existing provisions allow us to do that. Local authorities would be able to issue people with a provisional charge or rebate for the period ahead and make any necessary tweaks or adjustments in the next period. This is a standard approach and people are familiar with it as it is how most utility payments work. For those reasons, we do not think that Amendment No. 213A is a good idea. Amendment No. 213B would prevent local authorities from requiring that charges under a waste reduction scheme are paid on account or by instalment. Instead, it would permit residents to pay in these ways, if they wished to do so. We have been clear that there would never be a case of an authority imposing a waste reduction scheme, or any aspect of that scheme, on residents. Instead, they will need to work closely with their communities in developing proposals which are responsive to local needs and wishes. This would include how charges should be paid. Once a decision has been made on payment methods, though, it is right that local authorities should be able to make that a requirement under the scheme. That authorities can run schemes effectively and efficiently is of the utmost importance. Nobody wants to see a scheme where administration is bureaucratic and costly. Taking away this right to require payment by instalment also potentially undermines the link to council tax, which itself can be paid by instalment. Given the importance of realising efficiencies through linking to council tax—something authorities themselves have asked for—removing this requirement would be a retrograde step. It is also important to remember that paying or rebating by instalment does not make anyone worse off. We are talking about people paying or receiving the same rebate regardless of whether it is once a year, once a quarter or once a month. Removing that requirement, therefore, does not achieve anything besides making the link to council tax more difficult. I want to assure noble Lords that there is no attempt to impose waste incentive schemes on local residents. We want to strive for systems that are embraced by the community work to the benefit of all. Amendment No. 213C would require, first, that charges under a waste reduction scheme were payable exclusively by occupiers of premises included in the scheme. Secondly, it would require that, where people owe outstanding charges, they still have to pay them even if they move house. I can understand why, on the first part, the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, would consider it logical for only occupiers to pay charges relating to how much waste they throw away. In most if not all instances, that will be the case. However, we have left it open to local authorities themselves to determine who is liable to pay the charge. We think it important that they have flexibility. If, for example, the authority wishes to integrate charges and rebates with the council tax system, the occupier is not always the council tax payer. As I said in previous debates, we think that local authorities could realise important efficiencies by making a link to council tax should they wish to do so. In doing so, they may wish to reflect the liability structure that exists for council tax. In general, however, the rule of thumb would always be that the charge should be paid by the person or persons producing the waste. That is what underpins a successful incentivising scheme. On sub-paragraph (7)(b) of the amendment, I appreciate the noble Lord’s concern that people should pay the charges they owe even if they move to a different house and that the outstanding charges should not be transferred to those who move in. That is the situation we would strive to achieve. We would want to encourage local authorities to use their powers to recover outstanding debt regardless of whether people move out of the area. Requiring local authorities to make these precise calculations every time someone moves house is saddling them with an unnecessary burden. Therefore, it should be up to the local authorities, in collaboration with their communities, to decide how they manage people moving in or out. I therefore cannot accept this amendment. Amendment No. 217A proposes to remove our ability to amend the requirement that all revenue raised by local authorities through charges under a waste reduction scheme be returned to residents through rebates. I understand the noble Lord’s concerns and should like to reassure him straight away on two points. First, we do not currently envisage needing to amend the requirement. Secondly, if we did want to amend it at some point in the future, the proposal would be subject to the comprehensive parliamentary scrutiny implied by the affirmative procedure. However, we think it makes sense now to have the scope in the provisions to make any necessary changes in the future. This avoids our having to produce new primary legislation to make small changes which may arise in the longer term as waste incentive schemes progress and evolve. That is simply a prudent and sensible approach which we think strikes the right balance. The Delegated Powers Committee looked at this issue and was content with our proposals. It is the same approach we are taking to other requirements under a waste incentive scheme, including providing a good recycling service and having in place a fly-tipping prevention strategy. All those are prerequisites for being able to have the schemes in the first place. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, will speak to his amendments, but I hope I have given him a positive view of the Government’s approach. We can largely see where he is coming from, and we sympathise with some of the approaches. But—this is the big ““but””—we genuinely want local government to have as much power and flexibility as possible. I think that that is right. I beg to move.