I move amendment No. 9:
In page 4, before section 4, to insert the following new section:
"4.-Section 22 of the Act of 1996 is amended by the substitution of the following for subsections (3), (4) and (5):
'(3) Each local authority shall make a waste management plan. The plan shall clearly indicate:
(a) the processes of import and export of all waste from the local authority’s functional area,
(b) where there is transfer of waste from one local authority area to another, this shall be clearly indicated in each local authority’s waste management plan,
(c) each local authority’s waste management plan shall clearly indicate quantities and types of waste produced, quantities and types of waste dealt with within its functional area and quantities and types of waste exported, and
(d) the waste management plan of the local authority exporting the waste shall clearly indicate how this waste is dealt with by the receiving local authority.
(4) A local authority shall not export waste unless it is satisfied that:
(a) it is necessary to do so,
(b) the local authority to which it is being exported is capable of dealing with the waste, and is using the best available technology to do so and has properly addressed this extra waste in its waste management plan.
(5) A local authority shall review a waste management plan made by it from time to time as occasion may require and at least once in each period of 5 years after the date of making the plan and may, consequent on such a review, make in accordance with section 23 any variations to the plan or replace it by a new waste management plan as it thinks fit or as the agency directs.
(5A) A waste management plan shall, in respect of non-hazardous waste contain such objectives, in line with the operation of the waste hierarchy, as seem to the local authority concerned to be reasonable and necessary:
(a) to prevent or minimise the production or harmful nature of waste,
(b) to encourage and support the recovery of waste,
(c) to ensure that such waste as cannot be prevented or recovered is treated or stored without causing environmental pollution,
(d) to ensure in the context of waste treatment or storage that regard is had to the need to give effect, in so far as it is practicable, to the polluter pays principle,
(e) to ensure where waste is exported to another local authority’s functional areas, the local authority area in which the waste is generated will remain responsible for any environmental damage caused by its transport, treatment, recovery or storage,
(f) to set targets and time frames to reduce waste arising in line with the objectives of a zero-waste strategy, and shall specify such measures or arrangements as are to be taken or entered into by the local authority, with a view to securing the objectives of the plan.’.”.
In an earlier amendment I said that the Bill was a manifestation that the 1996 Act had been tried and found wanting - "failure" was the word I used. While I recognise that, and the Government seems to recognise it also, we differ over what is to be done. I do not want to carry the analogy too far but it is important to recall that in a similar situation where a regional plan has been tried and has failed, the general approach is to see if it would work when devolved and if structures could be put in place to make it work with more accountability so that people are more involved in the devolved decision-making process.
In the Bill as presented, we are not devolving but instead taking away the existing democratic structure and giving power to the manager. This goes back to the 1996 Act when, under a different Government, I pleaded for us not to remove from local authorities the provision for a local development plan. I argued at the time that if local authorities wanted to be regional in their approach, let them be so but they would have to have a local plan as a bedrock provision for their own areas, after which they should be able to operate bilaterally or multilaterally with another local authority to take account of waste that could not be dealt with in that area or which for some economic reason would best be dealt with in a more centralised location for the category in question.
I would appreciate the Minister's comments on my proposal as well as his support for the principle. All I am seeking is that each local authority should make a waste management plan. Then we will start off from a point of knowing what is the waste arising in that area. As things stand, most local authorities do not have a clue what is their waste generation. They simply pool their waste and, as we have seen, focus their attention on trying to get rid of it. That is the ultimate in bad waste management practice. I am asking the Minister to re-examine the way in which we approach the problem. He should take on board the recommendation that each local authority makes a waste management plan. After that, they should indicate the import and export of all waste into their local functional areas. In that way, at least, we will start to see some patterns emerging.
The zero waste strategy, aspirational as it may be, is still valid and should be at the centre of the plan. With a local plan we could measure the progress we are making towards that objective. I am asking the Minister to look favourably on this proposal as an alternative to what I believe is an ill-fated strategy and one which will ultimately end up in court, thus causing further delay and making it more difficult than it is to arrive at a plan in which everybody can be involved. The Minister should consider this alternative proposal.