Title

HC Deb 14 July 1999 vol 335 cc435-46

Amendment made: No. 5, in title, line 2, after 'pollution;', insert 'to make provision about certain expired or expiring disposal or waste management licences;'.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]

Order for Third Reading read.—[Queen's consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.]

5.19 pm

Mr. Meale

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

We believe that the Bill will bring significant improvements to the system of environmental regulation. When it is approved, we shall have a more comprehensive, coherent and flexible set of regimes, and with the integrated pollution prevention and control directive it will be part of a level European playing field for all our industries and communities.

5.19 pm

Mr. Green

As the Bill reaches its final phase, it is a shame that the Minister could not give a more substantive account of its various phases. It is worth noting how rocky its passage has been. The Government's first attempt to introduce the Bill in another place had to be withdrawn after the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation said that it was a skeleton Bill and inappropriate for the delegation of secondary powers. Their Lordships took the Bill radically to task.

It would be churlish not to admit that, since then, the Bill has improved as it has gone through its various stages. It is worth the House acknowledging that, in large part, that is a tribute to the existence of an independent second Chamber, which provides a range of expertise, knowledge and experience, not least from former Members of this House, who improved the Bill as it went through the other place. We tried to improve it in Committee, but of course the Government used their majority to reject our efforts. As we have just seen, they have continued to use their majority, in some cases to make the Bill marginally worse.

Mr. Gummer

Did my hon. Friend notice that the Government's majority was two down on what it might have been, because two senior Ministers in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions were not present for the Division? Might that be because they, too, did not understand the Minister's explanation of his amendment, which was as opaque as any explanation that I have ever heard?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. We are on Third Reading, and we would not want to dwell on amendments that have already been disposed of.

Mr. Green

I shall not dwell, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall merely ponder why Ministers in the Department could not turn up to vote for their own Bill.

Mr. Meale

I feel obliged to comment on that. One of the reasons that Ministers were not present for the vote was that they would have had to travel from Eland house in Victoria. I understand that the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) was partly responsible for the Department moving there.

Mr. Green

I greatly regret that London's traffic jams have become so bad under this Government that Ministers cannot get from their Department to the House to take part in an unexpected vote. That did not happen when my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) was running the Department, because traffic was running better in London then than it is now. I am grateful to the Minister for pointing that out. It is the first honest admission about transport that we have had from those on the Government Front Bench for some time—they have admitted that it has got worse under them.

At no stage have we opposed the principle of the Bill. It was a Conservative Government who signed up to the European directive on which its good parts are based. We recognise that much pollution, particularly air-borne and water-borne pollution, can be tackled only on a supranational level. We were happy to sign up to the directive and supported the Government's intention to put it into effect at national level.

At every stage we have sought to improve the Bill and although we have succeeded to some extent, thanks to their Lordships, we have not done enough for our own satisfaction or, more important, for those who will be most affected by it, including many of the new businesses, particularly farmers, that will be brought under its provisions.

It is appropriate on Third Reading for me to go through our main reservations about the Bill. Perhaps the most fundamental is a constitutional objection. The Bill gives far too much disrcetionary power to the Secretary of State. Under clause 1, he can regulate emissions capable of causing any…pollution. That is an absurdly wide power to give to a Secretary of State.

Of course, we know that most Secretaries of State would not interpret that as widely as the Bill would allow, but it is not a principle of good legislation to write into the Bill such a wide power for a Minister. For example, naturally occurring chemicals such as radon or some dioxins are pollutants. They occur naturally in the atmosphere, but they would fall under the powers given to the Secretary of State. Is he to play God and regulate the natural world? I know that the Deputy Prime Minister has some delusions of grandeur, but I do not believe that even he would go that far. As the Bill is drafted, breathing out could be regulated by the Secretary of State as a polluting activity. I invite the Minister to consider whether this is good legislation.

A secondary point is that too much is left to regulation, and not enough is written into the Bill. Perhaps most dangerous is the fact that, under the Bill, new criminal offences can be created through secondary legislation. That is an extremely dubious constitutional practice.

Most people have a concept of Parliament making law and the citizens obeying the law. They believe that we in Parliament are here to discuss the details of laws and to pass laws. There is a set of law enforcement agencies that enforce them. To allow Parliament to be bypassed in the creation of criminal offences could have serious consequences, which I hope the Government do not live to regret.

My reservations have been strengthened by the paean to regulation offered by the Minister for the Environment on Second Reading, when he spoke lovingly of a flexible, interactive form of regulation"—[Official Report, 8 June 1999: Vol. 332, c. 502.] He became almost lyrical about the type of regulation that the Bill would introduce.

I believe that the right hon. Gentleman is sincerely and passionately devoted to regulating business. I shall quote his exact words, as there was some controversy between us about what he had said. He stated: We do not, in principle, favour deregulation as such."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 17 June 1999; c. 24.] That is what he said and I am sure that that is what he meant. That statement clearly has wider implications, but it has particular implications for the Bill.

We all want an integrated pollution control system, but to gain wide acceptance throughout the community such a system must be respected by those being regulated. If they think that it is unfair or arbitrary, they will object and try to get around the rules. People think that laws are fair partly because they think that the laws have been passed properly by Parliament, after discussion. The Bill allows Parliament, and this Chamber in particular, to be bypassed in the discussion of laws. In the long run, that will not contribute to a good system of integrated pollution control.

Our second main objection is the fact that the Bill gold-plates the European directive to an alarming degree. I have already said that we signed the directive and have no objection to its being put into national law. However, we object to the fact that the Government have taken the opportunity to add wide powers to be taken by the Secretary of State through secondary legislation and in other administrative ways. We do not need such wide powers in order to implement the directive. Clause 1(1)(b) and (c) refer specifically to activities other than those listed in the directive. That is straightforward gold-plating, giving the Secretary of State wide disrcetionary powers.

We have not yet had a convincing explanation why clause 1 is drafted so widely. This is the last chance that we shall have, so we should let the Minister explain to us why the Bill does not do what it purports to do—implement the directive—but goes much further. I should be fascinated to know why the Government think that the Bill needs to be drawn so much more widely than the directive requires.

Many businesses have a reasonable fear that the ground of regulation is shifting in ways that will become increasingly arbitrary. For newcomers to the Bill, that is the great BATNEEC versus BAT debate—the best available technology not entailing excessive costs versus the best available techniques. There is a clear difference. We have had many fairly theological debates about whether there is a difference. Ministers have claimed at various stages that there is no difference, that there is minimal difference, that there is no practical difference, or that there is only a small difference. But the language itself is different.

Not entailing excessive costs is a clear limit on the regulation which business can understand. BAT involves many more weasel words—that the best available techniques should be used bearing in mind the likely costs and benefits of a measure and the principles of precaution and prevention. I should be delighted if the two meant the same thing but, as they stand, they do not. I should be pleased if the Minister took advantage of his last chance to give a detailed explanation of the practical difference between BATNEEC and BAT. It may sound rarefied, but jokes are already emerging about what that will mean.

A parody of BATNEEC has already appeared called CATNIP—the cheapest available technology not involving prosecution. We all hope that businesses will not go down that route. There is a danger that if people do not think that a regulation is fair, they will try to evade it or bend the rules, and that would not benefit anyone. It would not benefit the law nor the environment. We want people to think that the regulations are fair so that they will obey them implicitly, both in the spirit and the letter. My real worry about the Bill is that people will think that the regulation is unfair and, therefore, seek to evade it rather than to apply it enthusiastically.

We welcome the principles behind the Bill and acknowledge that it has been improved on its rather tortuous route through both Houses, but we still have reservations about how it will work in practice. I assure the Minister that we shall monitor its effects with great care to ensure that businesses are not over-regulated and that it achieves its underlying purpose of improving pollution prevention and control. We want to see the Bill work. We hope that it will, but we are not sure that the Government have given it the best chance of doing so.

5.33 pm

Mr. Gray

It is a pleasure to participate in the Third Reading debate of this flimsy little Bill. I followed its progress from its introduction in the other place to its Second Reading here but, sadly, I was unable to serve on its Standing Committee because of commitments elsewhere. However, I have watched its progress with some interest.

It is extremely disappointing that, two and half years into this green Government's hold on power, this is the first environmental Bill that they have introduced—and what a flimsy little thing it is. The Government could have done something about air pollution in a much bigger way, or about water pollution. Their tiny Bill on water charging did not mention water purity. They have introduced no other environmental legislation. That stands in stark contrast to their claims before the general election that they would be the greenest Government ever. I think that the expression was that every piece of legislation would have a green tinge. They said that they would be greener than green, but we have seen only this flimsy little Bill, which merely enacts something which my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) rightly points out was initiated by the previous Conservative Government.

The Conservative Government signed up to the European legislation which requires this Bill. My right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), who is in the Chamber this afternoon, was then Secretary of State for the Environment and I was one of his two special advisers. It should not be inferred from that that we necessarily agreed on the measure. I seem to recall that I advised my right hon. Friend that I thought that his proposed action would not be sensible, to which he said, "That is precisely why I intend to do it." But, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford rightly said, it was the Conservative Government's idea, and this little Bill merely puts that into effect. However, it does so with some significant downsides.

The Bill has not been thought through properly. The original Bill was badly flawed, as was pointed out in a number of procedural ways in the other place, largely by my noble Friends. Some significant amendments were made to the Bill there, so that when it came to be debated on Second Reading in this House it was marginally better. However, having gone through a lengthy and turbulent process in both Houses, the Bill still has some significant flaws, which is a real worry.

First, my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford correctly highlighted the centralising power in the Bill. It gives the Secretary of State extraordinary powers that he has not had before. It is not exactly a Henry VIII Bill, but it is along those lines. It says, "I, the Secretary of State, know what is good for the country and for air and water pollution. I do not need to put it in the Bill and spell out what we intend with regard to regulation. I need only sit in my room and decide what will be regulated and how that will be done." Some of the centralising powers that the Secretary of State accrued to himself were watered down in the other place, which I welcome, but, none the less, the powers given by the Bill to the Secretary of State are typical of new Labour, which says, "We know best. We are the nanny state. We are the bosses. We understand what the world needs. We don't intend to discuss it with the world. We don't intend to go out to consultation. We don't intend to put details in a Bill which can be read and whose processes can be followed in Parliament."

Ministers in their eyrie, high in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, will decide what is best and lay it down by regulation. Admittedly, on this occasion, they will do so by affirmative rather than negative resolution, but it still has the stamp of the control freak so typical of new Labour.

In particular, the Opposition are concerned about a number of detailed effects that the Bill will have on businesses, both large, small and agricultural. Large businesses already largely comply with the Bill. I would be surprised if many did not already do so, although some may not, in which case they will doubtless welcome the strength of the Bill to remind them what they have to do. However, the number of sites to be regulated has been increased from 1,000 to 6,000, and the 4,000 extra sites are largely small businesses. They are the very businesses least able to understand the Bill and to conform with it.

During the Bill's passage through the other place, the Federation of Small Businesses raised its severe concerns about the Bill with the Government but, far from taking note of that and inviting the representatives of the federation in to discuss the Bill's implications for small businesses, the Government failed to acknowledge the federation's letter and it has attacked the Government fundamentally for that.

On Second Reading, I invited the Government to say what they intended to do to ensure that the Bill did not bear down particularly heavily on small businesses. I invite the Minister again today to tell us what he has done during the month or two since Second Reading to consult the Federation of Small Businesses and others. I would be interested to know if they have had a meeting. It would be useful if they had. I hope that he has invited its representatives in and, if so, I welcome the fact that he listened to the Opposition's recommendation. I should like to know what he said to them and what they said to him, and what, in particular, he intends to do when the Bill becomes law to ensure that it does not bear down particularly heavily on small businesses.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ashford raised the issue of the difference between BATNEEC, or best available technology not entailing excessive costs, and BAT, or best available techniques. I certainly feel that nothing could be more sensible than to provide the best available techniques without excessive expenditure. It must be sensible to say, "Let us work out the cost-benefit analysis. We are not going to gold-plate our environmental provisions. We want the country to be as clean as it can be, we want the air to be as clean as it can be, and we want the water to be as clean as it can be. However, we will be cautious in implementing that. We will consider how much this will cost business, and how much the economy will be damaged by the achievement of demonstrably worthwhile environmental ends."

I enjoyed my hon. Friend's reference to CATNIP, an acronym that I shall use in the future. I do not think that the Government are considering the damaging effect on business; they are merely paying lip service to environmental benefit. Cost-benefit analysis should be involved in all environmental legislation, but I suspect that the Bill tends towards gold-plating.

I am concerned about the effects of the Bill on certain businesses. The small businesses on which it will bear down are not belching fumes into the air. We are talking about, for instance, small landfill sites and small farmers. On Second Reading, the Minister suggested that the chicken and pig farmers that the Bill would affect were large farmers. By no means are they large farmers; they are very much towards the small end of the spectrum. The average chicken farm and the average pig farm will be affected.

What consultations has the Minister had with bodies other than the Federation of Small Businesses—the National Farmers Union, and the Country Landowners Association—to discuss the effect on our hard-pressed farming industry? Thanks to what the Government have done to them, these people are on their knees in any event; this may be the straw that breaks their backs. It is easy to knock the landfill operators, but many are struggling to provide a worthwhile service, and the Bill will bring extra pressures to bear on them.

The effect of the Bill on farmers involves a curious conundrum. The Labour party is in favour of outdoor farrowing, because it thinks that it is green and more organic. It would also like more free-range hens, because that system sounds better and suits it better. I am not sure that the party understands the implications of either system. The truth is, however, that if pigs are outdoors, it is almost impossible to control what happens to their dung. The only way to control a pig's dung is to keep the pig indoors, standing on slats. The dung falls through the slats on to the concrete floor below and is easily removed.

The same applies to chickens. If chickens are out of doors or in barns, it is almost impossible to separate their dung from the earth, or from the soil at the bottom of the barn. The conditions laid down by the Bill are therefore difficult to apply. The fact is that the less animal-friendly farms are, the easier it will be to comply with the conditions and terms of the Bill. We must think carefully about this. What effect will the Bill have on the pig farmers and chicken farmers in my constituency? Are we, perhaps, driving them towards the establishment of conditions on their farms that, by many other standards, would be considered non-animal friendly?

We must also consider the conditions that we are imposing on our farmers—in the Bill and elsewhere—to which overseas countries do not conform. It is hardly known that most of the chicken that we eat here is bred in Thailand.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman is straying from the subject of the debate.

Mr. Gray

I accept your admonition, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My point was that, if we bear down heavily on chicken farmers in this country without bearing down equally heavily on chicken farmers in Thailand and France who are competing with ours, we are doing our chicken farmers a disservice.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. That is what I was trying to explain to the hon. Gentleman. What he is saying is wide of the Third Reading debate.

Mr. Gray

I understand your admonition, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am simply saying that, if we are considering allowing the Bill to become law, and if it affects pig and chicken farmers in my constituency and elsewhere in England—I am certain that it will, because of the constraints involving the clearing up of dung—we should surely consider whether the same provisions will apply to the overseas farmers with whom we are competing.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I am trying to explain to the hon. Gentleman that this is the final stage of the Bill's passage. If he was concerned about these matters, he could have raised them in amendments or on Second Reading. What he cannot do is go wide of the Third Reading debate.

Mr. Gray

I happily accept your admonitions, Mr. Deputy Speaker, not least because I assume that my colleagues will take part in our next debate on the subject. [Interruption.] Of course, they may well take part in this debate in the meantime.

Conservative Members have no difficulty with the broad principle of the Bill: indeed, we wholeheartedly support it. After all, it was our idea in the first place. None the less, we feel that it has a number of flaws that prevent it from achieving the high standards that we would normally expect of legislation produced by my erstwhile colleagues in the Department. They desrcibe this as a tiny little Bill, tidying up a few loose ends, but I believe that it will have significant consequences for small businesses, for landfill sites and for both chicken and pig farmers.

This is a gold-plated Bill. It is, as it were, a gold-plated bath, and we are in danger of throwing a number of babies out, along with the gold-plated bath water. Doubtless it will be passed, as will all other Bills in this place; but it is worth recording at this stage that Conservative Members have significant reservations about the way in which it will affect our constituencies.

5.47 pm

Mr. Brake

The Liberal Democrats welcome the Bill, which will be of major assistance in pollution prevention and control. It has been much improved during its passage through the other place and this House. I am disappointed that the Opposition have not felt able to be more supportive, although I am not entirely surprised. The hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) does not believe in climate change, and the shadow Secretary of State does not believe in traffic calming because it constitutes an impediment.

I should like the Minister to consider two points. First, I remind him that I am expecting a letter explaining to me whether the arrangements for offshore installations will cover the storage of nuclear waste at sea. That has been discussed in the past. Secondly, I feel that the Bill has missed the opportunity to deal with flawed legislation in the Environment Act 1995, which introduced a new section 2A into the Environmental Protection Act 1990 to deal with contaminated land.

Unfortunately, the 1995 Act also introduced an anomaly, whereby certain types of environmental harm that are currently the subject of statutory legislation fall outside the scope of existing or new controls. In practice, that applies to circumstances in which significant harm is caused. The new definition will exclude many types of nuisance that are currently controlled, and which do the most harm to the environment and to ecosystems. The Chartered Institute of Environmental Health and my local authority, the London borough of Sutton, believe that simple amendments to the Bill could have dealt with the problem. I hope that the Minister will be able to respond, although I realise that an amendment is no longer possible. I wish that I had received the information on Second Reading, because the Minister has been receptive to amendments. It was identified as early as 1996 by the Environment Select Committee. I hope that the Minister will pick up that point, or perhaps provide some information on it in the near future.

I am pleased that the Bill has made swift progress. I look forward to its receiving Royal Assent.

5.50 pm

Mr. Gummer

I will not detain the House long, although I am surprised that no Labour Member has bothered to detain the House at all on Third Reading.

The Bill is important. I congratulate the Government on introducing it. It is largely sensible and intelligent now that it has gone through both Houses. I commend in particular the work in the other House to make the Bill sensible.

It is important to recognise that pollution is no respecter of national boundaries. There is no possibility of having a national environment policy that could work; we have to work on a larger basis. We contribute half the air pollution that we produce to the rest of Europe, and half the pollution here comes from the rest of Europe, so policy has to be based on the European directive, to which I agreed and which was moulded by the United Kingdom in our role as leader in the environmental world. I am pleased that the Minister has introduced the Bill.

I found the Minister's explanations of some things incomprehensible; they were rather difficult to follow. I suspect that the Bill has been cobbled together as we have gone along. What saddens me is that it could have been much clearer. I say in a spirit of support, rather than opposition: if the legislation is not well founded, we will do great harm to the environmental cause.

If people are frightened by broad powers that are ill defined, they will not believe, as I want them to believe, in the importance of the environment, but will view it as a heavy burden on them. I therefore beg the Minister and his colleagues to try to be clearer about such Bills, so that people can feel that they want to work with them rather than that the provisions are filled with hidden dangers and hidden fears.

Some of the concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) are not as worrying as he may believe them to be, but he is right to raise them. Those are precisely the concerns that arise from so weak a Bill that is so poorly drafted.

None of us could take much from the comments of the Liberal Democrat spokesman on climate change. As someone who has been fighting for recognition of climate change ever since I have been in politics—I have done so ever since we started to see it—

Mr. Brake

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Gummer

I should like to finish the point first.

I take it ill that the hon. Gentleman's party refused to support proper efforts to reduce domestic consumption and wastage of energy when that is responsible for 38 per cent. of the energy that is used in this country. The one party that can say nothing about climate change is his party, which has constantly taken the populist view and never done anything that might damage it electorally. That has been not only my view but that of all environmentalists. [Interruption.] I understand very well, so we do not want to hear lectures from the Liberal Democrats.

All we are saying to the Government is that it is the right Bill to introduce. It is a sensible policy. It is based on a European approach that is exactly right, but can they get away from legislation that frightens people unnecessarily, so that the legislation clearly defines what people's responsibilities are and does not give Governments powers that could be used—not, I am sure, by the Minister—in far too draconian a manner?

It is not a big thing to ask, but anyone reading the debate, particularly the Minister's answers both in Committee and now, would have to say that ease of understanding is not notable. Indeed, some people have been unkind enough to wonder whether he understood his answer to the House. I would be the last person to say that, but I have read many of the debates and I find it pretty hard to believe that he actually understood the point that he was trying to explain because no one reading the explanation could possibly understand it.

I ask him very carefully about that simply because, out there, many people want to support the Minister's environmental policy, but can do so only if they feel that he understands their problems, doubts and difficulties and is prepared to reach out to them with an explanation that is comprehensible. In that spirit, I support Third Reading, but I hope that he will try better in future.

5.55 pm

Mr. Meale

I shall try to answer the range of queries that were raised. I apologise to the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake). He was promised a letter on nuclear storage in the sea. I will ensure that that is followed up as quickly as possible. I assure him that the United Kingdom is under an international obligation not to dump nuclear waste at sea. We are consulting on other matters, but I will reply as soon as possible.

In relation to the hon. Gentleman's query on contaminated lands, I knew nothing about the amendments. I am surprised that they were not tabled. Nevertheless, I understand the point about the lateness of the day. I will take the matter up and write to him on the matter.

I do not want to disillusion the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green). He said that, shortly, breathing would have to be regulated. That could already be done under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, which was introduced by a Conservative Government.

I found absolutely amazing the comment of the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) that the Government had done very little on the environment; I hope that the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) would agree with my analysis. Days after coming into office, the Deputy Prime Minister called a water summit and, from that, laid down a plan of action, which has built on the successes of the previous Government in achieving high-quality water standards. It has enabled the water industry to plan a multi-billion pound investment programme, which will proceed over the next few years.

Mr. Gray

May I clarify that point? I was not saying that the Government were not green. I wholeheartedly support a number of the things that the Government have done: for example, some of their policies following the Kyoto negotiations. The point that I made was specific: it is the first and only environmental legislation. I was criticising not what the Government have done, but the amount of legislation that they have introduced.

Mr. Meale

If the hon. Gentleman looks at some of the joined-up government that has been undertaken, and some of the decisions that have been made, he will see that environment policy is having an effect across the board. I remind him—the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal will agree because he attended some of the conferences—that the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister, with others from all parties, supported all the efforts at the world conferences in Rio and Kyoto, where we reached a level of agreement, and Buenos Aires.

Mr. Gummer

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the Deputy Prime Minister has been commendable in his fight on climate change, particularly in Kyoto and Buenos Aires. The thing that my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) was pointing out was that many of us have been waiting for legislation to implement the necessary actions that the conferences recommended. We keep asking for that; it has been two and a half years. I hope that the Minister will be able to find time for such legislation. It is not his fault; it is the Chancellor's fault—we know whose fault it is. The Minister is very green. It is just that the Chancellor is not.

Mr. Meale

All I can say is that we are gaining some momentum in trying to achieve our policies. We are a little quicker in our resolve in relation to the environment than the previous Government, who were in power for 18 years.

The hon. Member for Ashford said that more small business would be controlled under the Bill. That is because of the coverage of the integrated pollution prevention and control directive, which the previous Government accepted.

The hon. Member for North Wiltshire asked various questions, the first of which was on the National Farmers Union. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has held extensive discussions with the NFU and raised the issue that the hon. Gentleman raised today—on outdoor pigs, and the Bill's effects on that type of farming. Outdoor pigs will not be controlled under the Bill's provisions.

The hon. Gentleman also asked about the Small Business Federation and the Country Landowners Association. The Small Business Federation was consulted on the Bill on three occasions, on each of which it was very constructive. I am not quite sure how many times similar contact has been made with the CLA, but departmental officials regularly contact that organisation. However, I shall write to the hon. Gentleman and provide some details on the matter.

I tell the hon. Member for Ashford that the Bill was not withdrawn, but recommitted because of some fairly substantial Government amendments to it, which we tabled to meet the points made by the House of Lords Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee. I should also tell him that the previous Government, in the Environment Act 1995, conferred powers on the Secretary of State to create criminal offences by regulation. I am sure that the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal will remember that Act.

As for claims that the Bill will confer too much power on the Government, we have ensured that proper parliamentary control will be retained. The regulations will be subject to affirmative procedure when they are first made, and thereafter for certain important amendments. The Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee thought that such provision would be adequate when it considered the Bill. We have also given an undertaking that any future amendments to the regulations that change their provisions and that were previously included in the Environmental Protection Act 1990 will be brought before Parliament for consideration under the affirmative procedure.

There are, moreover, instances in which it is right to replace primary legislation with regulations, as a set of regulations is a much more flexible instrument than primary legislation. It is also clearly in the interests of those being regulated that any problems can be resolved.

As for claims that the directive is being gold-plated, the Government think that the situation is quite the opposite. We have repeatedly made it clear that the Bill's purpose is to allow coherent implementation of the IPPC directive. Industry would clearly suffer extra costs if it had to continue with two separate pollution-control systems.

Claims have also been made in the debate that business is worried about additional VAT costs. Labour Members believe that it is a complete myth—it is scaremongering to say—that the directive's use of the term "best available techniques" entails less regard for cost-effectiveness. The United Kingdom's use of the term "best available techniques" includes "not entailing excessive costs". Hon. Members who served in the previous Government, who negotiated that particular directive, should know that.

The directive clearly states that "available techniques" should mean those developed on a scale allowing implementation in the relevant industrial sector under economically and technically viable conditions, taking into consideration costs and, of course, advantages. Moreover—as the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal will be aware—if we do not implement the directive, in legally identical terms, we would be subject to infraction proceedings.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.