Lords Sitting of 17 January 1974

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Saint Edmundsbury and Ipswich.

VIETNAM: IMPLEMENTATION OF CEASE-FIRE AGREEMENT
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, as a signatory to the Paris Agreement for a cease-fire in Vietnam, they will take the initiative in recalling the Governments and parties concerned with a view to securing the implementation of the Agreement.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE): My Lords, the Paris Agreement on ending the war and restoring peace in Vietnam was signed by the United Stales and the Vietnamese parties to the war. Her Majesty's Government attended the subsequent International Conference. There is no evidence that other Governments concerned think it would be useful to recall the International Conference at this time.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, while thanking the noble Baroness for that reply, may I ask her whether she would not agree that there is a grave danger that this may become the forgotten war? There is continued fighting on both sides, with an estimated 50,000 killed during the last year; and thousands of prisoners, who are due to be exchanged next Wednesday, are still kept in confinement. Cannot Her Majesty's Government take some initiative to bring this to an end?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, the International Conference has of course no power to enforce its views, and it is above all for
1056
the four parties who signed the Paris Agreement to make the Agreement work. So far as prisoners are concerned, I understand that agreement has been reached in principle for the resumption of the exchange of prisoners this month. It is only the mechanics of operating this exchange that are now causing difficulty.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, while again thanking the noble Baroness, may I ask her whether Her Majesty's Government could not exert some influence on, or attempt some persuasion of, the Government of the United States of America, which is escalating its arms supplies to Saigon, including 71 new F.S.E. fighter bombers? It is estimated that its arms supplies to Saigon and Laos in the present year, July, 1973, to June, 1974, is costing 1,800 million dollars; and when arms are being poured in in this way, what hope is there of bringing an end to this war?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, the United States Government has carried out its obligations under the Paris Agreement, withdrawing all troops and refraining from any military intervention in Vietnam; and it has recently sent a Note to the North Vietnamese denying violating the Agreement. As I said earlier, there is provisioin for this Conference to be reconvened, but this is not our responsibility.
LORD BOURNE: My Lords, does the noble Baroness realise that if it were not for the heavy supply of arms which the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, has mentioned going into Saigon, there would be a Communist Government in Saigon now?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, it is true that there have been violations of the cease-fire on all sides, but nevertheless the parties who signed the Agreement continue to proclaim their support for it.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, apart from the appalling military losses on both sides, is the noble Baroness aware that the civilian population continues to suffer and to endure enormous hardships? Could the British Government renew their offer of voluntary aid in some form to the civilian population?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, we have given relief aid to the Saigon Government, to the Save The Children Fund and to the Indo-China Operations Group of the International Red Cross. We have no plans at the moment to step up this aid.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness whether there is now any reality at all in our position as co-Chairman under the 1954 'Geneva Agreements by which we were designated co-Chairman with Russia under the Agreement worked out by the then Prime Minister or the then Foreign Secretary, Anthony Eden?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, much has happened since 1954. We have, of course, the Paris Agreement of 1973, and we have the International Conference which succeeded that.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, does the noble Baroness imply, then, that there is no reality now about our situation as co-Chairman, as there was in those days?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I think the reality lies in the Paris Agreement; and, of course, the Conference can be reconvened upon a joint request by the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam on behalf of the parties signatory to the Agreement.

OIL SUPPLIES TO POWER STATIONS
3.11 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government to what extent it was found possible to increase the use of oil to fire the electricity generating stations during the 1972 mining dispute, and to what extent a similar policy has been followed during the current energy crisis.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR ENERGY (LORD CARRINGTON): My Lords, during the 1972 mining dispute
1058
oil was plentiful. Oil-fired power stations were operated to the maximum, and burnt about 10 per cent. more oil than had been planned earlier. Conditions are different now. Oil is in short supply, and the Board are making the fullest possible use of the quantities allocated to them. The Government have taken special steps to increase the supply of fuel oil to the power stations to the maximum practicable extent.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord for that Answer. While accepting the fact that there are of course differences between oil supplies in 1972 and those now, may I ask him whether it is not a fact that the C.E.G.B. could burn more oil if it were made available to them; and is it not a fact that at the present time they are getting only 75 per cent. of the oil which they had in January of last year, whereas in fact they could burn 112 per cent. of what was made available to them last year? While the noble Lord may still say that that additional amount has to be found, could it not be found by reducing the amount now made available to the private motorist?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, it is not really quite as simple as that. Because of the plan made by the C.E.G.B. for this year, because of the agreement reached about coal and the extra coal to be burnt at power stations, the C.E.G.B. had planned to use, in 1973–74, 30 per cent. less oil than in 1972–73; and so we were faced not only with a shortage of oil but also with the fact that there had been no plan to bring in oil on any basis other than a 30 per cent. lower burn in the C.E.G.B. oilfired power stations. Consequently, what we have tried to do is allocate them more oil and at the present time we have managed to supply them with 87 per cent. of the amount of oil that they burned last year. If one tried to do more it would be at the expense of somebody else, and it would really be robbing Peter to pay Paul. Although it is possible to a certain extent to alter the mix in the refineries, it does not add more than a few per cent., and one has to take account of the economies and the use to which the other products are put.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I am aware of the plans which, in a sense, the noble Lord has inherited. But does it

1059
not still remain the case that even though, as the noble Lord now tells us, the allocation has gone up from 75 to 87 per cent., the C.E.G.B. could within a day or two, if required, burn 112 per cent. of what they were burning in January of last year? Although I accept what the the noble Lord says: that the oil has to be found from somewhere, may I again put to him the question why is it not taken from the amount now allocated to the private motorist?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, power stations do not burn petrol; they burn fuel oil: and there is a mix that comes from the refineries. The position is that there is not enough fuel oil in this country, however the capacity of the refineries is varied, to give the oil-fired power stations enough oil for them to use the capacity that they have. The Government have to make a judgment as to how far they allocate the oil available in the country between power stations and industry.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord to accept that I know what is burned in the generating stations? Would he not also say that the C.E.G.B. could, if they were so required, so adjust their jets that they could burn lighter oil—although, of course, not high octane motor fuel? Is it not the fact that the oil companies, if so required, could produce more heavy fuel oil and less of the high octane motor fuel? If either of these two courses were adopted, could we not make more fuel oil or more burnable oil, available to the power stations, and thus make it unnecessary to have the present rate of cuts?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, to a very small extent that is true; the mix can be altered to a small extent. But one has to take into account the general economy of the country and the general proportion of the fuel that you get from your refineries.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, can my noble friend explain to the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, exactly what is petrol for private motorists? Is a car used for essential business purposes a private motor, or a business motor?
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, is it not the case that from a given barrel of crude a massive amount of fuel
1060
oil could be obtained; and that also there is an inevitable balance of middle distillates, and that you cannot raise the one and get rid of the other at a stroke?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, that is the point. You can adjust it up to a point, but you cannot adjust it all that much. This is a decision which the Government have to take.
LORD HALE: My Lords, can the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, say whether we were exporting very large quantities of crude and fuel oil in October and November, 1973, mainly because of the Esso Company's policy, and that there was a very great shortfall in deliveries by Esso to the C.E.G.B. in December, 1973? And can he say whether or not that was due to the domination over Esso policy by the American principal company?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, that is rather outside the Question which has been asked. If I may seek to answer the noble Lord's supplementary question in very general terms, it is, as I have discovered in the last ten days, extremely difficult to get to the bottom of all oil figures. I am seeking at the present time to see the chairmen of the big oil companies of this country and to get to the bottom of what is happening.
LORD POPPLEWELL: My Lords, will the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, pass any comment on the observation which appears on the front page of the Daily Telegraph this morning, where it, says that members of the Electricity Council state categorically that there are sufficient supplies of raw materials to keep electricity going until the end of April? How does this compare with what his junior colleague has said—that we should brush our teeth in the dark? Is there not some need to make clear what is the true position?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, that is going a very great deal wider than the terms of the Question on the Order Paper. If the noble Lord, Lord Popplewell, would put down a Question, I will willingly answer it.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that we should contemplate going into March or April under the present difficulties? We recognise that

1061
the noble Lord has just taken over a new and heavy responsibility and that he is to have consultations with the leaders of the petroleum and oil groups in this country. Would he also look at what the Dutch are doing? As no doubt he will find, they are adjusting the refinery processes to ensure that the heavy oils are available for the generating stations, even though this is at the expense of lighter fuels, which means rationing for car owners?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, of course I will do that. One must get one's priorities right.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the C.E.G.B. have been "spoon-fed" for years on a certain category of coal? Would he make inquiries as to whether the Board could use other coal which is now available and being stocked at the pithead in various parts of the country? Would the noble Lord look into that question?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, the noble Lord did not know about it. Now that the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, has told me, I will look into it at once.
LORD BALOGH: My Lords, does the noble Lord realise that the difference between this country and America in the pattern of refinery is up to 20 per cent., and would he call 20 per cent. a very low figure?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, would the noble Lord be kind enough to repeat that question? I am afraid I did not hear it.
LORD BALOGH: My Lords, I quite see that. I merely wanted to ask whether the noble Lord realises that the American pattern of refinery output and our own pattern differ by about 20 per cent.? Does the noble Lord call 20 per cent. a negligible figure?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, it depends on what the refinery output is. I should like to look at the figures.
LORD SLATER: My Lords, could the noble Lord say how many of the dual-fired power stations in this country are running with a short supply of our own indigenous fuel, as against oil? Further, following the supplementary question of my noble friend Lord Shinwell, is the
1062
noble Lord satisfied with the figures that have been given to him as to the amount of coal lying on the ground at the moment waiting to be used? Can he say what is being done about it?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I am afraid I really could not answer the first part of that question without notice. The answer to the second part is, "Yes".
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I ask the noble Lord to accept that I personally have very great faith that he will get to the bottom of these things. Might I ask him whether he is satisfied that the question of priorities was settled correctly in November of last year when the advice of the civil servants was that we should ration motor spirit and allocate additional fuel oils to the generating stations? Would he accept that the Government then made a serious misjudgment?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I really do not think that the noble Lord has any reason to suppose that he knows what the advice of the Civil Service was.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that among the great mass of the public is a blind groping for the truth? We are grateful to the noble Lord for his statement that he will do his best to get to the bottom of these things. The public needs to be informed. May I ask the noble Lord whether he will ultimately be able to confirm that to convert an oil-burning power station to coal takes two months and, consequently, in this transition period whether to say that they are short of oil or coal is really an answer to the question?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I will of course look at all these things, but perhaps I might suggest to your Lordships that you should look at the Question which was asked on the Order Paper and ask yourselves—perhaps I might ask you myself with the greatest possible deference—whether or not one is not getting rather wide of the Question and entering into a debate on fuel and power.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord to accept that we are now privileged to have the Minister for Energy in your Lordships' House? We are allowed only four Questions a

1063
day and no doubt other noble Lords take up other subjects. Therefore I would hope that the noble Lord will understand why, having got the Minister for Energy in this House, we do tend to go a little wider.

OIL SUPPLIES FROM SAUDI ARABIA
3.24 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government to what extent the Saudi Arabian assurances to maintain oil supplies to the United Kingdom on the same basis as between January and September of last year have been fulfilled by actual deliveries to this country.
LORD CARRINGTON: Here we go, my Lords! Imports of crude oil from Saudi Arabia have been continuing at or above the average level of the period from January to September, 1973.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, if that is the case may I ask why it is that the Esso Company are unable to supply more heavy fuel oil to the generating stations?
LORD CARRINGTON: Because, my Lords, we were expecting 35 per cent. more oil than in the 1972 period.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, the noble Lord really cannot ride away on that. I am asking: if the Esso Company are supplying us with the same amount of oil as in the comparable period last year, why are they not able to make available to the C.E.G.B. the same amount of oil as they did then?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I think I ought to explain to the noble Lord—and I am sorry if this means I shall take a moment or two longer to do so—the increase in the amount of fuel oil used in the last year has been quite marked and we were expecting a very large increase in production. It is no use the noble Lord shaking his head; it is true. We were expecting a very large increase in the output from Saudi Arabia: 35 per cent. As it was, the
1064
figures were cut back initially to the average taken between January and September, 1973. This meant we were getting only an average of what we had got in a period of the year when oil is not used very extensively in industry: it is the light period of the year. At present we are in the heavy period of the year. Consequently, the monthly average we were receiving in November, December and January is very much less than we would be having and needing in the winter months this year and, together with the increased demand of other industries for oil, there was a need for rationing or a national cut-back of 10 per cent. so that there could be fair shares all round.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, might I ask the Minister whether he could possibly give us comparable figures for imports received over a similar period from Kuwait, and whether we are getting as much as we expected from Kuwait?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I think possibly not quite as much, but probably not very far off.
LORD TANLAW: My Lords, would the Minister explain why, as the Government last year were predicting a 6 per cent. growth rate, no allowance was made for an increase in demand for all fuel oil from all industries at that period in time? If such allowance had been made and as the growth rate was not anything like 6 per cent., there should be a surplus of oil in this country at the present time.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, before the recent Emergency there was no question of planning for oil. All that happened was that you expected to get the oil you wanted.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, would the noble Lord deal with one point which has been well reported in the newspapers? —indeed, it may be the reason for my noble friend having asked a question about Esso. It was reported that Esso were short by 25 per cent. of their promised allocation to this country as a consequence of sending non-Arab oil to other parts of Europe. Would the noble Lord confirm whether Esso are or are not maintaining their allocated supply to this country?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, the Esso Company have said quite specifically that they have been giving us all the crude they have—they themselves are short of crude. These are, as I said earlier, the sorts of questions I must obviously go into with the people concerned.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the Saudi Arabian promise was taken from their declaration in November of last year, and since then Sheikh Yamani has gone rather further and has said that Britain can have more oil if she wants it? Is that promise being fulfilled by the deliveries of the Esso Company?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, it is too early to say whether that is happening because the oil would not in any event be landed in this country until next month, but we are actively exploring the point wth the Saudi Arabian Government and with Esso.
LORD MAYBRAY-KING: My Lords, can the noble Lord confirm that our trading relations with the Iranian Government have meant that our good friends in Iran are providing more petrol as a result of this agreement?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, if I may answer that question—which is not on the Order Paper—the agreement with Iran is not yet signed but is still under negotiation.

WEST LONDON AIR TERMINAL CHECK-IN FACILITIES
3.30 p.m.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in view of the decision taken by this House on December 20 last, they will make a Statement on the position of the check-in facilities at the West London Air Terminal.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (LORD WINDLESHAM): My Lords, as a result of the debate in your Lordships' House on December 20, I met my Ministerial col-
1066
leagues the following day to discuss as a matter of urgency the conclusion reached by the House. My honourable friend the Minister for Aerospace and Shipping wrote to the British Airways Board on December 21, to request them to consider the views of the House. The Minister's letter was considered at a meeting of the Board on December 28, when the Board decided that there was a compelling case for implementing their decision to withdraw the check-in facilities at West London Air Terminal on January 1, 1974. I have already made the terms of the Minister's letter and of the Board's reply known to a number of noble Lords and, with the Leave of the House, I will arrange for the correspondence to be published in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
Following is the correspondence referred to:
Letter from the Minister for Aerospace and Shipping to the British Airways Board.
21st December, 1973.
Dear Henry,
You will, of course, have seen the outcome of yesterday's debate in the House of Lords about the proposed withdrawal of check-in facilities from the West London Air Terminal. Their Lordships approved by a majority of 82 to 28 a motion in the following terms:
To move to resolve, That this House deplores the declared intention of the British Airways Board to withdraw the check-in facilities at the West London Air Terminal on 1st January next; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government in the national interest to direct, if it is in their power to do so, or otherwise to request the Board to defer the proposed withdrawal until such time as—

(a) the effects of the present fuel crisis on the drastically revised flight schedules and the future pattern of access to Heathrow can be fully assessed; and

(b) a Select Committee of this House has enquired into and reported on the merits of the proposal, the Government have commented thereon, and Parliament has been given the opportunity of expressing an opinion on both.

We have, of course, discussed this subject on a number of occasions in the past. I understand very well the reasoning behind your Board's decision. Together with my colleagues in the House of Lords I have explained and defended your decision to Parliament. We have also made it clear in both Houses that I have no power to direct your Board to take a different view.
These arguments were, no doubt, considered by members of the House of Lords before they gave their approval to the motion I have quoted. In view of the terms of that motion,

1067
I am sure you will understand why I must now ask the Board of British Airways to give earnest and urgent consideration to the request that the proposed withdrawal of the service should be deferred until their Lordships' conditions have been fulfilled.
Yours sincerely,
Michael Heseltine.
BRITISH AIRWAYS BOARD
31st December, 1973.
M. R. D. Heseltine, Esq., M.P.,
Minister for Aerospace and Shipping,
Department of Trade and Industry,
1 Victoria Street,
London, S.W.1.
Dear Minister,
WEST LONDON AIR TERMINAL
Thank you for your letter addressed to Henry Marking following the debate in the House of Lords on 20 December. You asked my Board to give earnest and urgent consideration to the request that the proposed withdrawal of check-in facilities should be deferred until their Lordship's conditions had been fulfilled. I at once arranged for the decision to withdraw check-in facilities to be reviewed at a Board meeting held last Friday. The results of our deliberations are as follows.
It will be recalled that ever since 1946 BEA has checked-in passengers at the Air Terminal and this practice continued when WLAT was opened about 15 years ago. Check-in involves going to the desk, presenting one's ticket, having one's baggage taken into the custody of the airline, and being accepted for the particular flight on which one is hooked. It has also been the BEA practice that, once one has been accepted and has boarded the coach allotted for the particular flight, one's connection with that flight is guaranteed and the flight does not leave until passengers from the connecting coach have boarded.
I should, however, make the point that although I refer in this letter to a "guaranteed connection" there is in fact no legal entitlement under international conditions of carriage to a connection or, indeed, for a passenger to be carried on any particular flight.
Two years ago BEA felt it right to follow the general international practice of providing only a coach service from January 1974. The matter was considered several times by the BEA Board before a final decision was taken because the Board wanted to be assured that the new arrangement would be satisfactory for passengers. Other European airlines using WLAT have already withdrawn check-in at the Terminal and from 1 October last have provided a coach service only.
Under the new arrangements coaches will leave the Terminal and the Airport in each direction at 10 minute intervals with additional coaches whenever traffic warrants.
Measures decided upon to ensure that the interests of the public travelling on our European Division's services using WLAT are safeguarded include:
1068

(a) With tickets sold in the U.K. we shall make plain in writing the time by which we advise passengers to catch their coach if they are to be reasonably sure of catching their flights.

(b) We shall arrange for a uniformed supervisor to be permanently stationed at the coach arrival point at No. 1 Terminal Heathrow to make sure that the unloading of passengers' baggage from the trailers towed behind coaches is satisfactorily done, that porters are available to help passengers, and that there are adequate luggage trolleys available. It will, of course, be one of the supervisor's primary duties to be on the alert to help passengers who may be anxious because they had arrived at the last moment. The BAA are providing a lift to make it easier for passengers at Terminal 1, and we are making sure that there will be sufficient check-in desks at Terminal 1 to avoid unreasonable queues even at times of peak demand.

(c) We shall undertake that if any passenger should miss his flight as a result of exceptional delay—in spite of having followed our advice as mentioned in paragraph (a) above—in the arrival of the coach from West London Air Terminal he will be looked after as regards meals and accommodation at the expense of British Airways, and arrangements will be made for him without financial penalty to travel on the next flight on which accommodation in his class of travel is available.

We estimate that the new arrangements will produce a substantial net annual saving of cost to the European Division This largely arises through reducing the staff at WLAT to 260 in the first year and by reducing the number of coaches used. Furthermore to abandon or delay the project at this stage would involve further capital expenditure which could not possibly be justified in view of the short period of time before the London Transport rail link to Heathrow becomes operational.
These then are the facts. At its meeting on Friday, 28 December the Board reached the conclusion that on commercial grounds—and this phrase covers both the financial aspects and the obligation of the Board as a public transport operator to have proper regard to the public interest—there is a compelling case for implementing the decision on 1 January as originally intended. We believe that the new arrangements will enable us to provide a better service to the average passenger which is a most important consideration in the competitive environment within which we operate. In accordance with the principles referred to in paragraphs 8 to 12 of our First Report on Organisation, my Board has the fundamental responsibility to act in accordance with its commercial judgment and, having taken the view of the facts referred to above, it is our clear duty to continue with this project as planned.
We have noted with close attention the criticisms of our proposals that have been voiced in the House of Lords. My Board readily accepts that criticisms and anxieties voiced in the debate reflect a serious concern

1069
and this is something my Board has taken most seriously into consideration. We believe, however, that their fears will prove to have been exaggerated and that in practice the new arrangements will find acceptance by the public we noted particularly the experience over the last three months of foreign airlines using similar arrangements as a result of which there has been, so the foreign airlines tell us, no adverse reaction at all, and also so far as they know no passenger has missed his flight following withdrawal of the guaranteed flight connection between the airport coach and a particular flight.
I have referred above to the various measures we have already decided upon in order to meet as far as possible the anxieties that have been expressed. Moreover, we offered to afford the Airline Users Committee an opportunity to participate with us in monitoring the working of the new system after its introduction on I January, and I am glad to be able to tell you that this offer has now been accepted. I now propose—and we shall be writing to the Chairman of the Airline Users Committee—that after the initial six months of working of the new arrangements there should be a meeting between British Airways and the Airline Users Committee when experience then gained can be reviewed and improvements in the new arrangements, if any are thought to be necessary, can be discussed.
I hope the Airline Users Committee will also accept this further proposal as a constructive initiative to work in concert with them to ensure that the interests of the travelling public are fully considered and that proper attention is paid to those interests.
Yours sincerely,
HENRY MARKING,
for David L. Nicolson, Chairman.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord, the Lord Privy Seal, for answering this Question, may I ask him something as the Leader of the House? Does his reply mean that when one of the Houses of Parliament, in this case our own, records a decision by an overwhelming majority the Government are powerless in its implementation even if they wish to see the policy carried out?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I willingly answer that question in my capacity as Leader of the House because have been concerned with this topic. At the end of the debate on this matter I was asked by the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition what action the Government would take. I said I would consult urgently with my Ministerial colleagues who were responsible, and I did so. The letter sent by the Minister for Aerospace and Shipping which, with the leave of
1070
the House, will appear in Hansard tomorrow, stated:
"…I must now ask the Board of British Airways to give earnest and urgent consideration to the request that the proposed withdrawal of the service should be deferred until their Lordships' conditions have been fulfilled."
That was the request put to the Board by the Minister. It has been made clear on a number of occasions that the final decision rests with the Board but that also it was most important that the views of your Lordships were taken fully into account; and that, I believe, has happened.
LORD GREENWOOD OF ROSSENDALE: My Lords, will the noble Lord accept the fact that your Lordships' House will have heard with regret that the Airways Board treat the Government with the same arrogant contempt as they treated this noble House?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I regret the use of those words. I know that the Group Managing Director of the British Airways Board has taken a great deal of care and thought over this matter. He has written to most, if not all, noble Lords who took part in the debate to try to answer, on behalf of the Board, the points they raised. It will also be seen in Hansard tomorrow that the reply from the British Airways Board is an extremely long, considered and reasoned one. I do not think that the comments which the noble Lord has just made will be upheld by the House when noble Lords have seen the correspondence to which I have referred.
BARONESS EMMET OF AMBERLEY: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether we are likely to have a report (shall we say?) within a month or two months as to how the new arrangement is working?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I understand that the British Airways Board have agreed to co-operate with the Airline Users' Committee in monitoring and reviewing these arrangements in order to see how they work out.
BARONESS EMMET OF AMBERLEY: My Lords, shall we have a report in your Lordships' House?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I ought to give consideration to that point.
LORD MAYBRAY-KING: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that our quarrel is not with the Leader of the House but that the British Airways Board seem to have treated with contempt the wishes of this House, as expresed in December by an overwhelming majority, and that the Board's letter in January to noble Lords concerned merely adds insult to injury? Will he ask the B.A.B. to consider that hurting a million customers is bad business?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, the Board have disagreed with the House. They have the responsibility to take this decision and they have reached a different decision—we must be frank about it—from that which a majority of your Lordships reached. That is not the same thing as "treating with contempt". I think that is really going too far.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that there is a conflict of obligations here? First there is the obligation of the Board to respond to the wishes of this House, but is my noble friend also aware that there is a responsibility on Parliament to support the constitutional independence of this national corporation for the day-to-day management of its affairs? In this difficult conflict would it not be right now to allow the Board the independence of management of its affairs which Parliament has given it? May I ask, that, as my noble friend has suggested, we should have a report, say in six or twelve months' time, as to how this arrangement is working to ensure that the interests of the customers, which the noble Baroness has so ably expressed, are being catered for properly, and so that we can then judge the situation again.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, my noble friend has touched upon the matter of principle. The proper relationship between Parliament and the nationalised corporations is laid down by Statute. It is clear where the responsibility lies, although sometimes criticism arises where a House of Parliament disagrees with a corporation. However, I am sure the advice we have just heard from my noble friend, who speaks with such experience, is wise and it will be helpful in the review of the new arrangements to see what the outcome is in practice.
LORD POPPLEWELL: My Lords, would the noble Lord agree that the Minister concerned has power to give a directive to the Board concerned? Is it in the opinion of the Government that the wishes of this House, expressed in the way they were on an earlier occasion, are not sufficient for the Minister to exercise his powers?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, this matter has been gone into with the greatest care by the Treasury Solicitor and the solicitors advising the Department of Trade and Industry. They have satisfied the Ministers concerned, and me, that the power in Section 40 of the Civil Aviation Act 1971 does not apply to circumstances of this kind.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, as a matter of constitutional principle has been raised, is the noble Lord aware that the British Airways Board are not bound to accept a decision of your Lordships' House, or even the other place, but where it is a matter of public interest, not a matter of day-to-day administration, the Minister can direct the Airways Board under the Act itself? This power applies not only to civil aviation but to coal, electricity and transport. I had something to do with the preparation of the legislation and piloted it though the House of Commons. Is the noble Lord aware that if the Minister decides that this is a matter of public interest and takes note of what the decision of your Lordships' House was, and perhaps an expression of views from another place, he is bound to direct the Airways Board? That is the constitutional position.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, that is not quite so. I do not want to go too much into the detail of this matter because it has been discussed so often before. The situation is that the Minister has a power to give directions of a general character as to the performance of the Board's functions in relation to any matter appearing to the Secretary of State to affect the national interest. But, as I said in reply to the last question, the considered legal advice the Government have had is that it would not have been a direction of a general character for the Government to tell the British Airways Board to keep check-in facilities at an air terminal.
LORD ROBBINS: My Lords, would the noble Lord agree therefore that the point at issue is the definition of what is a matter of day-to-day administration?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, it is a matter within the commercial judgment of the Board. The Minister has a power to give a general instruction on a matter of public interest. The legal opinion is as I stated in reply to an earlier question.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: My Lords, may we know whether, after this lamentable event has taken place and when we have the report in three months' time, it would be possible, supposing the Board is considered by your Lordships' House to be unfavourable to the consumer, to the public, it will be possible for us to do anything about it; or are we simply at the mercy of British Airways Board?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, the British Airways Board of course will want to work closely with the Airline Users' Committee which has been set up, and I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry, can take some credit for the setting up of that Committee. This is something positive, good and constructive which has come out from her campaign. I am sure the Airways Board will want to pay the closest possible attention to what the Committee advise them to do.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, I wonder whether I may ask the Minister something which I think is very fundamental and of which this is merely an example. What is the value of consumer councils to nationalised industry if their recommendations are to be disregarded, even when supported by votes in Parliament and by the consumer body concerned?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, this is a new Committee, and this must be one of the first matters that the Committee considered. As it happened, the Airways Board, in their commercial judgment—and it is their job to take this decision—disagreed with the advice both of the Committee and of this House. Let us hope that on other matters there will be no disagreement; that the Board and the Committee will work closely
1074
together and that a mutually advantageous relationship will be built up in the future.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that, if the report in 6 or 12 months' time after review was unfavourable, it might very well have moved this issue into an area on which it was a matter of public policy for the Minister to give a direction?
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, would the noble Lord the Leader of the House agree that this is really a question of law, and that in the end it will, if necessary, have to be resolved by a reference to the Supreme Court?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, we are going rather wide of the Question now. I notice that it is 35 minutes since Question Time began. I do not complain of that because, as the Deputy Leader of the Opposition said, this is the first time that there has been an opportunity to question the Secretary of State for Energy on his new responsibilities. We all know how very strongly the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry, feels on this issue of the West London Air Terminal. I felt that it was right to give a full report on what had happened since our last debate. But if we could now move on to our next business, I think it would be more in accordance with our normal procedure.

FUTURE BUSINESS
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, not only is it the first time, but it may indeed be the last time that we have an opportunity of questioning the noble Lord. May I ask the noble Lord the Leader of the House, since we are all—I will not use the word "agog", but as the situation is desperate, what is going to happen with regard to future business? We understand that in another place the Prime Minister has said that further consideration is being given to the very remarkable offer and undertaking by the T.U.C. It would not be fair to ask the Leader of the House, who may not know what the Prime Minister has been up to in another place, to comment on this. But it would be helpful if, in the course of to-day's debate, he could give any indication to the House, in view of the deep seriousness of the situation and the fear that

1075
many of us have, as we work through Committee stages of Bills, that the effort will be wasted when more serious things are afoot.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I do not know whether that arises on the question of the West London Air Terminal—
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, it arises from the noble Lord's last statement.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, the next business is the business on the Order Paper. If I can help the House in any way, naturally I shall want to do so. When formal Statements are made by the Prime Minister in another place, it is normal that I repeat them here. But what is said in answer to a Question to the Prime Minister of course is not raised here, unless the same Question is put down, or unless there is some relevant opportunity to raise it. We have the Committee stage of a Bill this afternoon, and I really do not think it would deal with the current economic or energy situation.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, if I may say to the noble Lord, we do not often harass him on business, nor do we know—nor apparently does he know—what the Prime Minister is likely to say. We depend on him, and he has been very good at getting us information in this House. All I am asking is that if anything emerges which bears on future business he will be willing to interrupt proceedings and let us know. That is all I am asking. And knowing?his willingness to serve the House, I am sure that he would be prepared to do so. If I may say so, if the Leader of the House is getting bad advice from the Government Chief Whip, I would point out that it is perfectly normal to ask questions on business at any time in this House.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I was getting excellent advice from the Government Chief Whip, who was saying that he thought there was no reason why I should not do what the Leader of the Opposition said.

ZETLAND COUNTY COUNCIL BILL
Read 2a, and committed to a Select Committee.

HORTICULTURE (SPECIAL PAYMENTS) BILL
3.45 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD (EARL FERRERS): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The Horticulture (Special Payments) Bill, which we are considering to-day, received all-Party support in another place as being of potential importance to the horticulture industry. I stress the words "potential importance" because the Government are much encouraged by the confidence in the future which has been shown by horticulturists in all sectors of the industry, and we shall be delighted if the powers which we seek in this Bill are little used.
Our entry to the European Economic Community involved some changes for our horticultural industry, particularly in our traditional system of support through market protection. The Government have always acknowledged that this might result in problems to some sectors of the industry. We are meeting this with the Bill before us which enables Ministers to make schemes to help growers in specific circumstances. The various sectors of the horticulture industry which may prove to be particularly adversely affected following our entry into the European Economic Community could be helped under this Bill. Climatic conditions vary widely within the Community; some areas have conditions which are more favourable than ours to the production of certain varieties of fruits and vegetables. The relaxation of our protective measures against other Member States will increasingly expose growers in the United Kingdom to competition from producers in other parts of the Community. Weather conditions are not, of course, the only consideration, and some United Kingdom growers have got advantages. For some horticultural crops, for example, the costs of transporting produce from other parts of the Community could prove to be a disincentive to imports.
British growers are producing goods of high quality and we are confident that the great majority will be able to compete efficiently. Indeed, some sectors foresee

1077
increased export opportunities as a result of our entry into the Community. But, my Lords, we are concerned in the Bill with a minority of growers who may find it difficult to produce profitably in the changing conditions of competition. For example, growers of dessert and culinary apples and pears have for a long time been regarded as being at a disadvantage compared with the French and Italian growers who have the climatic advantages to which I have referred.
Following our entry, the import quotas on apples and pears, which used to form part of our protection, have in fact been replaced by compensatory amounts which are being gradually phased out. This will increase the competition for our own growers. We have therefore already introduced, under the authority of the Appropriation Act, a scheme of special payments to compensate apple and pear growers who feel, during the period for adjustment which is provided by the phasing out of protection, that they cannot compete in the gradually changing conditions. If the legislation before us is enacted, the earliest opportunity will be taken to make a scheme, under the powers in this Bill, to put the present apple and pear scheme on to a proper footing. My Lords, it is our view that at present there is no other sector of horticulture which is likely to be affected to the same extent. Other cases may, however, emerge in the passage of time, and if they do this Bill will give us the power to take some action.
The main aim of the Bill, which is an enabling Bill, is to provide powers to make schemes under which financial assistance may be given to growers to stop growing specified horticultural produce. This assistance may include a contribution towards the cost of operations necessary to make the land available for other agricultural use. The powers will enable Agricultural Ministers to determine those categories of horticultural produce whose producers face special difficulties, the level of payment to be offered, and the conditions of payment, including the restrictions on the future use of any land which may be released from a particular production. Schemes made under this Bill would be made by Statutory Instrument and would be subject to Affirmative Resolution in each House. My Lords, I hope that I
1078
have said enough for your Lordships to consider that this Bill merits support. I should be pleased personally if it turns out that in the end little use needs to be made of its powers, but I think it right that this provision should be made. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Earl Ferrers.)
3.52 p.m.
LORD HOY: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Earl for explaining the contents of this Bill. It may well be that I shall have to leave before this debate concludes. As the noble Earl knows, I am expected in Edinburgh later in the evening—or, if he does not know, may I tell him that I am? This is a most unusual Bill because Clause 1 makes a provision which I have never seen before. It says, in effect, "We are going to make financial provisions to an industry provided it does not work." I do not think anybody in your Lordships' House can ever remember a Bill being introduced to compensate people for not working, but this is in fact what Clause 1 of this Bill does. It deals with certain decisions reached in Europe which will make it rather uneconomic for parts of our horticultural industry to produce in their own right, and as a consequence of that they will be compensated for not doing it. But part of the compensation, as I understand it, will have to be paid so that they may go on and produce something else. I think that that is putting the situation in a nutshell, but it is a little difficult to understand.
Secondly, do not let us misunderstand what this Bill is all about. In Europe they are in fact saying that they can produce these commodities at a cheaper and better rate than we can in this country; as a consequence this money must be provided to compensate the industry. But I then looked at Clause 2 of the Bill, which I also found a little difficult to understand. It says that, having reached this decision, we had better give the Minister power to take the money back again. As I say, I find this procedure difficult to understand. It is said that the appropriate Minister is given power to revoke payment, an Order having been made. I assume, I hope correctly, that what the Minister is saying through this Bill is that somebody may have given evidence in support of

1079
his case which turns out not to be quite correct. The Government are saying to the Minister, "We are going to give you the right to take the money back again." I think that that is all that this provision means. Thirdly, under Clause 3, as I see it, what the Minister is saying is that there may well be people in the horticulture industry who supply information which is not correct, and as a consequence of that they may be fined up to £400 for so doing.
Clause 4 is very simple but it is a provision which caused great trouble not so many years ago when the Government at that time were taking powers to allow Government servants to enter either horticultural or agricultural establishments to make sure that what the occupier was doing and the information he was giving were absolutely correct. There used to be a great cry about this, about "snoopers" and so on who apparently appeared under a Labour Government. But I notice that the present Government are taking power to do exactly the same thing. I am not objecting: I think it is the correct thing to do. But I hope that in future, when others have to make Orders of this kind, this criticism will not materialise. On the whole, I would not object to this Bill, because I should not like to see people lose their livelihood by order of Government, without being compensated for it.
3.56 p.m.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My Lords, I hope that I may be excused if I intervene for a very short period in this debate. I should immediately declare that I am a horticulturist, and as a grower of apples and pears I take a close interest in this Bill. Perhaps the opportunity might be taken to assure your Lordships that apple growers and pear growers in this country do not consider themselves to have lost their future. I think that when we entered the Common Market those of us involved in this branch of horticulture were well aware that for a number of years—about 10 years, or even 15 years—there had been chronic structural surpluses of apples in France and pears in Italy arising from irresponsible planning of these commodities in these two countries. It is for this reason, I would suggest, and not because of the climatic conditions—which, if anything
1080
thing, for apples and pears lie to our advantage—and because surpluses still obtain on the Continent, that the prices within the Common Market have been deplorably low.
Of course, these measures will afford some support to growers in this country who may be of only marginal significance in the industry. My noble friend Lord Ferrers indicated that he will be well satisfied if the allowance in this Bill is not fully taken up. This may well be the case because there is great optimism within the industry that so far as apples are concerned we can grow a commodity which is second to none, both of the dessert variety, such as Cox, and the culinary variety, such as Bramley, which those on the Continent know nothing about at all. I would therefore assure your Lordships that there is nothing to worry about, in that the apple and pear industry will be able to provide what the housewife wishes at a price that will be competitive.
Therefore, while welcoming the provisions of this Bill I would say that they go some way, perhaps, to redressing the damage done by the French and Italian growers some 10 years ago in planting irresponsibly, well beyond the requirements of their own markets. The longterm solution lies not in our powers but in the hands of the French Government and the Italian Government to try to bring their own production some way into line with their own consumption.
3.58 p.m.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lords who have spoken. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, really welcomed this Bill but found it difficult to understand because it was unusual. I suppose it can be said to be unusual, in so far as it is dealing with an unusual set of circumstances, but one which was always recognised to exist. When we were considering going into the Common Market one of the sectors which gave rise to concern was the sector of the horticulturists; and it has always been considered, for the reasons I gave in my opening remarks, that some parts of the industry could be subject to such competition as to make their present livelihood very difficult. That is the reason why this Bill has been brought forward.

1081
The noble Lord said he had difficulty in understanding Clause 2, because Clause 1 enabled the Minister to pay money out while Clause 2 permitted him to take it back again. If the noble Lord reads the provisions carefully he will see that they are not quite so stupid as that. Clause 2 says that if at any time the appropriate Minister has approved any proposals under the scheme and it appears to him,
"that any condition subject to which the approval was given or any payment has been made has not been complied with",
he may then take back any money which he has given to the person who made the application and who then did not carry out the terms of the application. That is really the only point about Clause 2.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Selborne for what he said. It is perfectly true that large sectors of the horticulture industry, and indeed of the apple growers and pear growers, will do perfectly well in the present circumstances. It is only certain people, those who happen to grow certain varieties, who may come unstuck. My noble friend said that the Cox and Bramley are particularly good varieties which will have a great future. I would confirm that. Indeed, to give my noble friend evidence of that, I would tell him that my honourable friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry in another place only yesterday went down and officially planted a Cox, to show at least her conviction that Coxes will have a reasonable future. I am quite sure that that Cox, at any rate, will not be one that is grubbed up under the Apple and Pear Scheme. My Lords, I am grateful to both the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, and my noble friend Lord Selborne. I ask your Lordships to give this Bill a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

PROTECTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT BILL [H.L.]
4.0 p.m.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lady Young, I beg to move that this House do again resolve itself into Committee.
1082
Moved, That the House do again resolve itself into Committee.—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House again in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF LISTOWEL in the Chair.]
Clause 4 [Licences to dispose of Waste]:
LORD GARNSWORTHY LORD GARNSWORTHY moved Amendment No. 34:
Page 6, line 20, leave out second ("and") and insert ("a collection authority or")
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 34 I should like to speak at the same time to Amendment No. 36 which is consequential. Clause 4 enables a waste disposal authority—in England of course the county council—to issue licences to dispose of waste to other disposal authorities or to the producers of waste or to private operators—a mixed bag. Subsection (2) of the clause deals with the matter of planning permission and that brings in the district council—which is also, it is as well to remind ourselves, the collection authority—as planning authority. I mention that because I appreciate that there can be no question of using the site licensing system as a way of getting a second crack at the planning aspects of a planning application. Nevertheless we need to bear in mind that
"… provision may be made by regulations for an application for a disposal licence to be considered while an application for any relevant planning permission is pending and for any proceedings connected with either application to be conducted concurrently with any proceedings connected with the other application."
I think that quotation is relevant. Subsection (4) lays down—
"Where a disposal authority proposes to issue a disposal licence, it shall be the duty of the authority before it does so—
(a) to refer the proposal to the water authority and any collection authority of which the area includes any of the relevant land …"
I think your Lordships will appreciate that while the district councils should not, as I have already said, have two bites at the planning cherry they ought to enjoy at least the same rights as the water authority as to the conditions to be specified in the licence. The clause provides as follows:
"and if the disposal authority and a water authority disagree as to the conditions to be

1083
specified in the licence either of them may refer the matter to the Secretary of State and the licence shall not be issued except in accordance with his decision."
Amendment No. 34 would make that sentence read—
"and if the disposal authority, a collection authority or a water authority …"
The collection authority, as I have said, is the district council, and as such is concerned with the totality of the environmental aspects and influences which will extend beyond planning—considerations of the manner in which a site may be operated and all the issues raised in subsection (7) of this clause.
I would stress that the object of the Amendment is to ensure that should a dispute arise between the district council and the county council in their roles as collection and disposal authorities, the district council should have the same opportunity as a water authority to require that the dispute be referred to the Secretary of State. The same position arises in regard to variation of licensing conditions; that where there is a dispute in regard to variation of conditions that dispute also should be settled by the Secretary of State. I think I am voicing here the views of the Association of Municipal Corporations and the District Councils Association at the same time. They feel quite strongly on the matter, and I think the Government would do well to appreciate that there is genuine concern that the district councils should have rights equivalent to those being conferred on water authorities. In fact when listening to the noble Lord, Lord Henley, the other day, when he was pleading the case of water authorities, I thought that perhaps when we came to this Amendment he would appreciate that if we are going to have balance in the matter this Amendment is desirable. If I may say so, Amendments Nos. 65 and 66 cover much the same point in regard to sites occupied by a disposal authority on which that authority proposes to carry out disposal operations. I mention this now to avoid repetition of the argument when we come to those Amendments. I beg to move.
4.6 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT (BARONESS YOUNG): I can well understand the feelings of the noble Lord,
1084
Lord Garnsworthy, when he is putting very strongly the case of the district councils in this matter of consultation with the disposal authority on the question of site licensing. He has asked in these Amendments that the same right of consultation and, if necessary, the ultimate taking of a dispute to the Secretary of State which is granted to water authorities, shall be given to district councils. He has said very clearly that it is the view of the Association of Municipal Corporations and of the urban districts that they should be treated in a similar way to that in which water authorities are being treated. It might therefore be helpful to explain why we believe that there is, or could be, a difference between the relationship between the water authority and the disposal authority in this matter, and that between the collection authority and the disposal authority.
The major issue which could arise with the water authority over the question of site licensing would be the extremely important one of risks of water pollution and the consequent safeguards that would be required. Obviously, it is essential that the water authority must be satisfied that nothing that the disposal authority is prepared to allow could in any way endanger the purity of water; and equally clearly, the disposal authority must be satisfied that it has met the requirements of the water authority. Therefore, should there be a dispute, this could be a very important matter with regard to public health. That is the kind of issue we see as being ultimately determined by the Secretary of State.
Having said that, I do not wish to suggest that I think there could be no disagreement between the disposal authority and the collection authority on the question of site licensing, but the kind of issues that are likely to arise are those which should be resolved at local level. For instance, the kind of issue could involve the routes which lorries might take to a site which would all be part of the licensing, or the number of deliveries of refuse to a site or matters regarding environmental health; matters of litter, perhaps insects, flies on the site or something like this. There would be many other matters as well but we do not think that they would be of the same kind as a major pollution

1085
risk that could be caused by pollution to water. Because of this, we feel it is only right that where there are disagreements between the collection and the disposal authorities these should be resolved at local level and are not matters in which the Secretary of State should intervene.
LORD BRAYE: I am not quite sure whether I understood the noble Baroness to say that the district councils would now have a say in the running of the water boards, or that they would not.
BARONESS YOUNG: This is a quite separate matter. The water authorities to be consulted are those established by the Water Act. They include local authority representatives but not necessarily representatives of every district council.
BARONESS WHITE: I should like to raise a small drafting point. Reference is made here to disagreements on conditions. But supposing the water authority was opposed in total and did not wish to have any permission given at all? This is purely a drafting matter, but I think it is possibly worth looking at.
BARONESS YOUNG: I do not like to give an off-the-cuff answer to this question on a matter of drafting, but I will certainly look at it and will write to the noble Baroness, Lady White, if there is something which should be put right in this respect. I imagine that if the water authority gave categorical advice that some condition of the site licence was such that water would be polluted, the disposal authority would, without question, review the whole matter. I take the point and I will write to the noble Baroness about it.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: I thank the noble Baroness for her reply, but I cannot understand the reluctance of the Government to concede this. Under the Bill, collection authorities are to be consulted by the disposal authority. When it comes to the final stages with regard to conditions, water authorities, which enjoy the right to be consulted at the outset, are given the opportunity (in the event of failure to resolve at local level) to have the matter referred to the Secretary of State. Of course we all hope that these matters will be settled at local level, but this, surely, is the time to provide
1086
that where they cannot be so resolved the collection authority—the district council—should enjoy exactly the same rights as the disposal authority in being able to take the matter for decision by the Secretary of State.
If I recollect something of the argument put by the noble Baroness when I was moving a somewhat similar Amendment, she suggested that if it was written into the Bill it would encourage district councils to develop disputes. I hope I am being fair to the noble Baroness in quoting what she said. Perhaps she put it another way: that what the Government wanted to do was to discourage as much as possible disputes being carried on between district councils and county councils. But there is no provision in the Bill for dealing with a situation where disputes cannot be resolved at local level. I believe that in the overwhelming majority of cases district councils and county councils will want to settle things locally, but what harm is there in accepting this Amendment?
I press the matter, because I know that the associations feel quite strongly on this, and I think that by accepting the principle of this Amendment the Government could do a great deal to make the associations feel much more content about the whole situation. Of course, the noble Baroness knows that there has been considerable feeling with regard to the division of responsibility. I do not want to press her to consider too many things before the Report stage, but I ask her whether she will not cause another serious look to be taken at this matter. I really do not think we ought to let it go without the Department giving perhaps a little more thought than it has done to the position of the district councils. It is terribly important to secure maximum good will and I believe that the way to get it is to move in the direction of the Amendment.
BARONESS YOUNG: I would not want there to be any feeling in the Committee, or indeed any misunderstanding, that somehow the Department, or I were not considering very carefully the role of the district councils in respect of waste disposal plans. We have considered this very carefully, and indeed those of us who took part in the debate on the Local Government Act will be well aware of the extensive discussions that there

1087
have been between the two authorities in the waste disposal field.
I can only say that in the interests of local government independence and strength we feel that as many matters as can be left to local government to decide should be so left, and in this context we feel that the kind of issues which could arise between the disposal authority and the collection authority over the issuing of a disposal licence are those matters which they should resolve and that it would not be in the best interests of local government for the Secretary of State to be asked to intervene in these disputes.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: In view of what the noble Baroness has said, I shall not attempt to press her any further, and I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.18 p.m.
LORD HENLEY LORD HENLEY moved Amendment No. 35:
Page 6, line 20, at end insert ("whether a disposal licence should be issued or as to").
The noble Lord said: This Amendment tries to put right something which may have been overlooked. As the Bill reads at the moment, it says:
"… if the disposal authority and a water authority disagree as to the conditions to be specified in the licence …"
then either of them may put it before the Secretary of State. My Amendment adds:
"whether a disposal licence should be issued or as to".
the conditions to be specified in the licence. This means that the clause as drafted provides only for disagreements to be referred to the Secretary of State when they refer to the conditions to be specified in the licence and not where the water authority is opposed to the grant of a licence at all. I think that must be wrong. Obviously, one hopes that the number of objections will be minimal and that they will be resolved as they arise, but there may occasionally be a fundamental objection and it seems to me that it would be absurd if the water authority could not refer that fundamental objection to the Secretary of State but could only refer a disagreement about the conditions of the grant of the licence.
1088
It seems to me that this is a point that might have been overlooked when drafting the Bill and that it would be reasonable to insert these words. I beg to move.
BARONESS WHITE: I should perhaps apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Henley, because he is making the same point in a substantive way that I made earlier on.
LORD MERRIVALE: My understanding of this Amendment is slightly different from the noble Lord's. As I see this Amendment, it would allow a water authority to veto the decision of the disposal authority that a disposal licence should be granted. The water authority is already empowered to disagree with the conditions attached to a licence and to refer the matter for determination to the Secretary of State. I imagine the noble Lord would agree with this. Therefore, it has not been necessary to prevent the disposal authority issuing the licence in the first place. As the disposal authority will be responsible for all the wastes arising in and imported into its area, I think it is only right that it should retain the ultimate responsibility for issuing a disposal licence. So I hope that, in effect, the noble Baroness will agree to this point of view. If I am wrong, then the noble Lord may be right.
LORD HENLEY: I should not have thought that the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, was right. There is no veto on either side. I am suggesting that under certain circumstances where there may be a fundamental objection, the water authority may put it before the Secretary of State. At present, where there is a fundamental objection, the water authority cannot put it before the Secretary of State. All it can do as things now stand is to put disagreement as to the conditions of the licence before the Secretary of State. It would be absurd if they could do only that, and not refer a fundamental disagreement itself.
BARONESS YOUNG: I think the noble Lord, Lord Henley has a real point. The noble Baroness, Lady White, is right; it is the same question that she asked, and it is something we should consider, and we shall be glad to do so. I would have interpreted the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Henley, as expressing concern that there should be a right of appeal to the Secretary of State where there is a

1089
fundamental disagreement between the water authority and the disposal authority. I think this is the interpretation we will give to it.
LORD HENLEY: I am much obliged to the noble Baroness, Lady Young. I hope that by looking at the matter and in asking leave to withdraw this Amendment, that also satisfies the noble Baroness, Lady White. That being so, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.24 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR DEFENCE FOR THE ROYAL AIR FORCE (LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL)THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR DEFENCE FOR THE ROYAL AIR FORCE (LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL) moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 7, line 8, leave out from beginning to end of line 12 and insert ("as to the conditions specified in a disposal licence which shall be disregarded for the purposes of sections 3(1) and 23(2)(a) of this Act.
(7) Subject to regulations made in pursuance of the preceding subsection, a disposal licence may include such conditions as the disposal authority which issues it sees fit to specify in the licence; and without prejudice to the generality of the preceding provisions of this").
The noble Lord said: On behalf of my noble friend Lady Young, I beg to move this Amendment. It may be for the convenience of the House if at the same time I speak to Amendments Nos. 43, 53 and 97. These are on a quite important but slightly technical point. For the sake of brevity, perhaps I should confine myself, unless any noble Lords wish me to take this further, to saying that this separates the serious offence of tipping in an improper place—which I believe is known in the trade as "fly-tipping"—from the more technical and minor offence of failing to operate a tip according to the proper conditions. At the moment, perhaps I can confine myself to that.
LORD STOW HILL: I should like to explore a little further with the noble Lord who moved this Amendment the language which is embodied in it. I respectfully submit that it is not quite as clear as it might be. I approach the matter in this way. When one looks at subsection (6) of Clause 4, to which this is an Amendment, one finds it begins by saying that:
1090
"Provision may be made by regulations as to the conditions which are or are not to be specified in a disposal licence …".
That in its ordinary connotation, I suppose, means that when one is preparing a disposal licence, there are some conditions one must specify. Equally, there are some conditions which one is not allowed to specify, and not allowed to have them there at all, so one starts off with a licence in which one has specified certain conditions.
Then one looks at Amendment No. 37, and finds that it is designed to omit lines 8 to 12 and to substitute language which includes the following:
"('as to the conditions specified in a disposal licence which shall be disregarded for the purposes of sections 3(1) and 23(2)(a) of this Act.)"
For the sake of brevity, I leave out the reference to Clause 23(2)(a) and confine myself to Clause 3, subsection (1). I would submit to the Committee that it is very important to make sure that the language is simple and easily intelligible to the subject, when one bears in mind that the effect of Amendment 43, to which the noble Lord also spoke, is that the holder of a disposal licence who, without reasonable excuse, contravenes a condition of the licence which is to be disregarded for the purposes of Clause 3(1), commits a criminal offence which may be visited on him with a very heavy penalty, a fine not exceeding £400. I am sure the Committee will agree that in those circumstances it is essential one should know what is the offence which the subject is not to commit, which he has to beware of committing. I am sure there is a simple explanation, but when one sees in Amendment 37, the language:
"… conditions specified in a disposal licence which shall be disregarded for the purposes of sections 3(1) …",
one is led to ask oneself, what are those conditions? Where does one find them referred to? What is contemplated by conditions which—and this is mandatory—must be disregarded for the purpose of Clause 3(1)?
If one goes back to Clause 3(1), one finds it is followed by subsection (2) which equally creates a very serious offence, carrying with it serious penalties, which I suppose is constituted by the act (a) of depositing waste without a licence; or (b) depositing waste in contravention of the provision of a licence.

1091
I suppose that is the effect of it. So one has a two-fold approach. If one commits the offence that I have described, one is severely punished. If one commits the offence of disregarding the condition in a licence which is to be disregarded for the purpose of Clause 3(1), equally one commits an offence. Where is the unfortunate subject left? I should have hoped that somewhere—and I have searched for it but may have missed it—I should find in Clause 3 a provision which indicates, whatever the language means, that one may disregard certain conditions in the licence for the purpose of Clause 3(1). I would not understand what that language meant even if I found it, but I did not find it. I do not know how one is to go about the mental exercise of saying to oneself: "Here is a condition in a licence. I know that if I contravene it I shall be fined up to £400, but at the same time I am told by Amendment 35 that it has to be disregarded for the purposes of Clause 3(1)."
I hope I am not just wasting the time of the Committee by cavilling on a drafting point. I venture to ask the Committee to deal with it because we are here dealing with a criminal offence. We have always been extremely sensitive in our legislation, and quite rightly so (and I am sure all noble Lords are quite convinced that this is right), to frame our legislation in the clearest possible terms so that persons know what the law allows and what it forbids in a criminal sense. All I am asking the noble Lord to do is to give consideration to the points that I have made, and to indicate to the Committee, not that he will try to re-draft standing on his feet (that would be very difficult to do), but that he will be so minded as to bear in mind the criticism which I venture to suggest, and take the language back and look at it again with his advisers, to see whether it might be susceptible to some alteration. I always hesitate to advance criticisms of this sort. I know that when they are preparing these very complicated schemes learned Parliamentary Counsel burn the midnight oil. Perhaps that is an expression I should not use in the present context. They very carefully think them out and no doubt they have given intense thought to this matter. But I would ask the noble Lord to look at this language again to see whether it cannot be made clearer to the
1092
subject what he may and what he must not do.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: I am sure that the Committee is extremely grateful to the noble Lord. On this kind of issue his contributions are certainly not a waste of the Committee's time. I have to confess that I am mightily relieved that he does not expect me to redraft on my feet, or indeed in any other position, because I really do not believe I could do that. May I make one general comment which might be helpful. The purpose of these Amendments would be to enable the Secretary of State by regulations to specify certain conditions or types of conditions breach of which would not constitute the main offence under Clause 3. A breach of these conditions would be the subject of the lesser penalty of £400 on summary conviction rather than the higher penalties specified in Clause 3(2). I quite accept that that does not answer the noble Lord's main point. I think if we let the Amendment go through we certainly ought to agree, and we are grateful to the noble Lord for his help.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
4.32 p.m.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL moved Amendment No. 39:
Page 7, line 23, at end insert—
("(dd) the steps to be taken with a view to facilitating compliance with any conditions of such planning permission as is mentioned in subsection (2) of this section;")
The noble Lord said: On behalf of my noble friend Lady Young, I beg to move Amendment No. 39. The noble Lord, Lord Henley, will recall the Committee's discussion on his proposed Amendment No. 8 to Clause 2, where his proposal was to ensure that disposal authorities included information in their plans as to the after-treatment of disposal sites. This Amendment is intended to clarify that point. I think my noble friend at that time explained that the Government did not consider that it would be appropriate to include in waste disposal plans provisions governing the management of individual disposal sites. We did, however, say that we would be bringing forward an Amendment to Clause 4 to relate the operation of disposal sites to the planning permission in force so that

1093
suitable controls could be applied to ensure the restoration of the site after it had been used as a waste deposit. I therefore propose this Amendment to Clause 4.
Its addition to the topics which may be covered by conditions attached to the site licence is intended to clarify the relationship between the planning control and the site licensing for waste disposal operations. Planning permission will in all cases come first, or at least simultaneously, and will settle the basic question of whether the disposal operations ought to be permitted on the site in question. It may also lay down conditions about, for instance, the landscaping or the screening of the site or the access to it. In the case of tipping operations it may also specify the eventual end use for the site after tipping is completed. The site licence will then lay down more detailed operating conditions within the general framework established by the planning permission. Generally these site licence conditions will not be concerned with the after-use of the site, but in the case of tipping it may be useful and indeed appropriate for detailed conditions to be imposed while tipping continues, designed to procure the progressive restoration of the land to its eventual after-use in accordance with the planning permission. The proposed Amendment indicates the links there will need to be between planning permission, the basic decision, and the detailed planning application of the site licence. I beg to move.
LORD HENLEY: May I thank the noble Baroness for having looked at my Amendment in the first place and come back with this Amendment put down by the Government. When I first read it I am bound to say that it did not seem to me to cover all that I understood by after-treatment of the site. Having heard the noble Lord, I am inclined to believe that it does and that it does so fairly effectively. I should be quite interested to hear what other noble Lords have to say, because, as I say, my first impression was that it would not do what I wanted. I do not know what the noble Baroness, Lady White, may have to say, but I shall be very glad to have some confirmation that the noble Lord's explanation of what this Amendment does will in fact be effective.
BARONESS WHITE: As I have been asked for an opinion, so far as I can see it will; but I must say that I shall read carefully in Hansard exactly what the noble Lord said. If we find that it does not, then we shall have an opportunity to come back to it.
LORD MERRIVALE: May I seek clarification of the Government's Amendment? Planning conditions are required to be drafted so as to be enforceable, and there are enforceable conditions in the planning laws. If it should be the case that they do not work, I cannot see how the duplication of enforcement procedures in this Bill, by means of conditions of consent under this clause, will achieve any more. Moreover, I understand that in 1968 there was a revision of the planning law and there was then introduced the concept of stop notices, which means that where there is a breach of condition, operations can be halted almost at once. If there is in fact any duplication of enforcement by the introduction of this Amendment, as I believe there is, would not stop notices, which were introduced in 1968, be effective? If so, is this Amendment absolutely necessary?
BARONESS YOUNG: I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Henley, who I think has accepted that this Amendment meets the point he made earlier about planning permissions which would, in effect, both restore and enhance wherever there was to be a disposal site.
The noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, I think is concerned that very strict planning conditions are going to be put on to some private operator as a result of which he will suddenly be required, if he does not comply with all the conditions, to stop operations. I must say I have not read the Amendment in this sense at all. These would be the kind of conditions which the planning authority would require, say, of a private operator who was, for example, going to tip in some place; the planning authority would lay down the kind of conditions as to the look of the tip, the restoration of the land, perhaps the relation of the tip to houses, the way in which it was tipped—the kind of conditions which are of general environmental value and on which I am sure everyone would be agreed.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
4.40 p.m.
LORD GARNSWORTHY LORD GARNSWORTHY moved Amendment No. 40:
Page 7, line 29, at end insert—
("(g) the routing of traffic to and from the land to which the licence relates").
The noble Lord said: The noble Lord, Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal—and indeed most of the discussion on the last Amendment—covered the question of conditions, and what I am seeking to do is to add to those that are set out in subsection (7). Paragraph (e) deals with the hours during which waste may be dealt with in pursuance of the licence. On an Amendment not long ago the noble Baroness, Lady Young, raised the question of the route that traffic may be expected to take. It is highly desirable that the issue of the hours of tipping should be a matter of condition, and it is equally desirable that the route to be used by the licensed operator in transporting waste to the licensed site should be included in the matters listed.
The noble Baroness and, I understand, the noble Lord indicated concern about protection of the environment. Of course that is what this Bill is all about, and we ought to recognise that unless there is some control where it can be effectively exercised, the environment may be damaged quite considerably by over-use of what may appear to the licensee to be the most convenient route. Anyone with any experience of this kind of traffic will know what an annoyance it can be. While the route used does not come too close to where I live, I happen to live in a district used by a contractor for transporting waste through that district. The kind of vehicle that is used adds nothing to the amenities of the district, and when there is heavy use such vehicles are indeed a confounded nuisance.
Some of your Lordships may also have had experience of contractors conveying road fill. I appreciate that we are not concerned with that in this Bill, but if your Lordships have any such experience you will know how much damage can be done by frequent use of heavy vehicles—and they will be something of the same type, unsightly and huge. Wherever we can ensure that the disposal authority has some right to say what routes shall be used, I am certain that it will be to the public advantage. There will be occasions when no alternative route is
1096
available. In such cases, of course, the issue solves itself. But where alternative routes are available, and with a view to minimising public inconvenience and maintaining district amenity, I venture to suggest that this Amendment would improve this subsection. I beg to move.
VISCOUNT AMORY: It is often said that your Lordships' House can produce somebody with expert knowledge on every single piece of business that comes before us. Who would have suspected that the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, had personal direct experience of this, and has investigated and has studied very carefully the problem of routes to disposal sites? It is as impressive as when the noble Baroness, Lady White, told us yesterday that she had spent the Christmas Recess exploring refuse disposal in Devon. This Amendment seems to me to be a sensible proposal. The route to a disposal site is important, and I imagine could reflect a lot of environmental damage. This is a point which would not be covered by ordinary traffic regulations or by planning powers, and therefore I shall be interested to hear whether my noble friend thinks, as I do, that this is a sensible Amendment.
LORD MERRIVALE: I hesitate to disagree with my noble friend Lord Amory, and I hesitate to query the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, with his vast experience of these matters, but I should have thought that this was really a planning matter best left to the planning authority. Surely when Part I of this Bill is enacted the disposal authorities will have sufficient duties and functions to carry out without the additional task of routing traffic. I should have thought that this question of routing traffic is best left to those who already have experience in these matters. Therefore should it not be left to the planning authorities?
4.46 p.m.
BARONESS YOUNG: I am afraid that I have not had all the experience that the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, has had in these matters, but I agree that the routing of lorries is a serious matter. I recognise that if a large number of them are going through a residential area they can be of great inconvenience to residents. The difficulty about this Amendment is that it is difficult to attach such a condition as this either to the planning

1097
permission (which of course is concerned with land use, planning, and the erection of the buildings and the appearance of the site) or, as this Amendment suggests, to the licence itself, for the kind of reasons that the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, has given. If, for example, the disposal licence had been given to a private operator who had an incinerator, some of the lorries going to his incinerator might come from the collection authorities themselves and some from industry, and the actual licensee would not necessarily know where they came from. It would therefore be exceedingly difficult for him to comply with a condition that the lorries should go on particular routes. In the Government's view, one should not put into the Bill provision for a condition which could not be complied with.
Having said that, I recognise that there is a problem here. As the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, rightly said, I raised this question in connection with his previous Amendment about consultation with the districts. This is very much a matter for consultation and, one hopes, agreement with the districts. It would be the kind of local authority matter that they could resolve to the benefit of the residents throughout the disposal authority's area.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for what she has said. If I understood her correctly, she suggested that this was a matter that might better be dealt with by planning.
BARONESS YOUNG: No. I wanted to make the point that I do not think that it is a suitable condition to attach to either a planning permission or a site licence.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: I am sorry to have misunderstood the noble Baroness, because I was going to say that it would be as easy to control the matter by way of conditions as by way of planning. The noble Viscount indicated that he thought that it was not a matter to be dealt with by planning. No attempt has been made to deal with the issue of routing. I should be very surprised if a local authority engaging a contractor to deal with waste disposal was not in a position to lay down in the agreement it reached with him the route that he should use to transport the waste when he was taking it to the point
1098
where it was going to be dealt with. I should not have thought there were many licensees with incinerators, and it should not be a very difficult matter to control the routing, having regard to the place from where the waste was going to be brought. I appreciate that in many instances there can be no possibility at all of saying, "You will take this route rather than that route" because often there is only one possible route. This Amendment applies only where alternative routes exist.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for the manner in which she spoke. I am a little disappointed that since her heart seems to be with the Amendment she is so unwilling to allow her head to dwell on the possibility of introducing this as a condition. I would not have been surprised if she had suggested that Clause 7 was drafted in such a way that indeed the question of routing could be dealt with. I was only trying to include in the clause, with the other matters dealt with, including hours during which the site could be used, the matter of routes. I do not know whether the Department would be prepared to have another look at this point, because I do not think it has been sufficiently recognised that this is a particular type of traffic. It can be obnoxious. We are not dealing only with household waste; we are dealing with all kinds of waste. I do not think the Department have thought this one through, if their advice or briefing to the noble Baroness is to reject this Amendment. I should be a great deal happier if I thought there was a willingness to have another go at this one so far as the Department is concerned. If the noble Baroness resists it, well, that is that, but I wonder if there is any point in asking her whether she will have another look at this point.
LORD HUGHES: Subsection (7) lists in paragraphs (a) to (f) conditions which may be made a part of the licence. There is no obligation on the authority to put in one or all of them. The subsection starts by saying, in the usual way of these provisions, "Without prejudice to the generality …" Would it be within the generality which is not to be prejudiced for the local authority to impose a condition which is not listed in paragraphs (a) to (f); and might such a condition in particular circumstances refer to routing?
BARONESS YOUNG: The noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, is quite right in saying that I recognise the routing of these lorries as being a very serious matter. I said so at the beginning, and I am sure that this is the view taken by my Department. I perhaps should have said that it is possible to attach to a planning permission conditions concerning the particular entry and exit to a site. This is a quite specific thing that one can do. I tried to explain the difficulties about attaching generally conditions about the routes to these sites. I gave the example of an incinerator; but take another example—a place that is being tipped with refuse. Lorries may come from a great many directions. One can lay down the position of the entry and exit. Then, of course, the tip is complete, so the whole system moves on to another tip. Of course, the roads again will be quite different. It would be a very complex matter to oblige whoever was responsible for tipping this land to see to that in each case. Progressively over some years, the lorries might keep to the roads.
I hope it will be accepted that we are not just being rather obstinate about this and refusing to put something in, but there really are great practical difficulties in attaching such conditions to a site licence.
The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, raised a quite specific point about whether or not it would be possible to attach conditions of this kind. I suspect that it would be very difficult, for the reason I have given, to attach these conditions to a specific site, because it is difficult to attach a condition which the site licensee cannot necessarily enforce. What I think the site licensee could be asked to do is to say to his drivers, "Look; it is obviously convenient for everybody if you go on road A, rather than road B". Furthermore, I think the disposal and collection authorities can draw up some scheme, which they have it within their power to do, to make lorries go down certain roads and not others. That is a completely reasonable way to proceed, but it is different from attaching a condition to a licence. I hope that I have made this difference clear.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: I do not wish to take up too much of the Committee's time, but may I say that the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, does me too
1100
much credit, and I do not want too much credit for being an authority on anything. I usually know where to go, even with my waste when I want to get rid of it. Some years ago the district council where I live proposed to acquire 60 acres of land in the village where I reside. With a number of my neighbours I opposed it as vigorously as I could. That site was acquired and is slowly being developed by the district council. If anybody thinks that there is any virtue in having a controlled tip within the curtilage of a village, or very close to it, then he needs to have one to appreciate what an inconvenience it can be. I speak with some feeling in regard to the use of routes by large lorries transporting this waste. We are dealing here with a situation where it is not only household waste that is being moved: it can be any type of waste. We know the traffic conditions on some of our main routes already. We know the way in which some private vehicles are using private roads. We are getting juggernauts down country lanes and residential roads. The noble Baroness will say that district councils will have to use their ingenuity somehow or other to get over it. If she is not saying that, then what she is saying is that they will be powerless to do anything about it, apart from making suggestions. Wherever any provision can be made to ensure that amenities are not unduly threatened by licensed operators, wherever there is a possibility of taking action, it ought to be taken.
I wonder whether the noble Baroness would have another look at this point. I am grateful to the noble Lords who have given support to the Amendment. The noble Baroness will appreciate that it is not just one Member of your Lordships' House who is pressing this Amendment. Despite the opposition of the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, I have the strong feeling that the Committee generally are sympathetic to the idea I am trying to put across.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
5.0 p.m.
LORD STOW HILL LORD STOW HILL moved Amendment No. 41:
Page 7, line 31, leave out ("or the doing of any other thing whatsoever")
The noble and learned Lord said: This and the next Amendment which goes with it are, quite frankly, drafting, and no more

1101
than drafting. I must be brief. They relate to lines 30 to 34 on page 7 which contain the provision that,
"… it is hereby declared that a condition may require the carrying out of works"
So far so good. I have no complaint about that, although, in parenthesis, I doubt whether it is necessary to include that declaration. But then words follow which I submit are much too wide:
"… or the doing of any other thing whatsoever notwithstanding that the licence holder is not entitled … to carry out the works or do the thing".
If I were an applicant for a disposal licence, my wildest ambitions would be exceeded if I thought I was in that territory, or my hopes might be dashed to despair. Surely that language is much too wide, and language more appropiate to provide the result which is sought to be achieved could be found by Parliamentary counsel. If Ministers would be so kind as to tell me that they will have one more look at that language with their advisers, I should be more than content and would ask the permission of the Committee to withdraw the Amendment. So I hope Ministers will at least be able to say that they will look at that language, which I submit is wildly extravagant. I beg to move.
BARONESS YOUNG: I always feel very considerable hesitation in discussing legal points with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stow Hill. It might be helpful if I explained the kind of situation which these words are intended to cover. Subsection (7) lays down certain things which conditions attached to disposal licences may cover. The conditions may specify works or things to be done, but it is possible that a licence holder will not always be in a position to carry them out. For example, the conditions may require works to be done on neighbouring land or may require tree planting on land of which the licence holder is only the lessee or not the owner of the site, and the conditions may require him to do things which require the owner's consent.
This subsection makes clear that the authority can validly impose conditions of this kind. It will then be up to the prospective licence holder to secure the agreement of the neighbouring owners or the landlord or owner of his own site to the implementation of any conditions. Not
1102
everything which is covered by a condition under this provision will necessarily be "works". For example, the licence holder may have to survey the land for which the licence will operate or neighbouring land and take measurements or samples. If these two phrases were left out, such activities would be made more difficult. I hope that with that explanation the noble and learned Lord will feel that these words should remain in the Bill.
BARONESS WHITE: I should hate to prevent the noble Baroness from "doing her thing", but she will surely agree that the words as they stand are of such a nature that we cannot intelligently be asked to accept them. The words as they stand are "the doing of any other thing whatsoever". As my noble and learned friend said this is surely the most extravagant language. Can the noble Baroness at least ask her legal advisers in their wisdom whether they can knock out the word "whatsoever", and perhaps say "the doing of any other relevant thing"? That would at least circumscribe the subsection somewhat. I can think of so many things which might be required, which would be very interesting and entertaining but would not be in the least relevant. To use the phrase "any other thing whatsoever" is surely not the way to draft legislation. Quite seriously, I suggest that this is not a phrase which should be included in its absolute form in any Bill, because it is nonsense. I respect the noble Baroness, but I will respect her even more if she will accept that these words really are nonsense and that the word "whatsoever" at least should be taken out. I suggest that perhaps the words "relevant thing" might be substituted.
BARONESS YOUNG: The noble Baroness, Lady White, should know that I am much too conservative a character to feel that I need to use the phrase "do my own thing". I can only say that, when I discussed this Amendment with those who advise me on legal matters, I was given to understand that these words were necessary to cover situations of the kind that I have tried to indicate. Although some Members of the Committee may regard them as unnecessarily wide, licences may have to be given for differ-

1103
ent kinds of sites and different kinds of operations in the disposal field.
LORD STOW HILL: I am grateful to the noble Baroness. I shall not pretend to say that I think she has fully answered the points that my noble friend Lady White and I have made. I suppose that "any other thing whatsoever" might permit me to draw a cheque for £1 million on the Bank of England, though I do not have a penny in an account there. I feel almost inclined to try it. I shall not take up more time on this Amendment. If the noble Baroness feels that the matter is satisfactory as it is—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: No!
LORD STOW HILL: I hear cries of dissent. Therefore I think I should resume my seat, having said that I am very sorry.
LORD HAWKE: I hope my noble friend will have a look at these words, because I cannot possibly vote for the rejection of this Amendment unless she qualifies this unlimited licence to break
the law in any direction, by making the subsection apply only to the running of sites or something of that kind. The words may be necessary in the context of this Bill, but there is nothing to stop a person murdering his neighbour or running a disorderly house if it is authorised by this subsection.
BARONESS WHITE BARONESS WHITE: Amendment No. 42 is consequential on our having passed Amendment No. 41. It will be easy at a later stage for the noble Baroness, Lady Young, to extricate herself from her present situation, but to be logical I should now move Amendment No. 42. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 33, leave out ("or do the thing").—(Baroness White.)
5.8 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 42) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 61; Not-Contents, 63.

CONTENTS

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Amory, V.

Hanworth, V.

Peddie, L.

Amulree, L.

Hawke, L.

Raglan, L.

Ardwick, L.

Henley, L.

Rea, L.

Arwyn, L.

Hughes, L.

St. Davids, V.

Bernstein, L.

Hyton-Foster, B.

Segal, L.

Beswick, L.

Jacques, L. [Teller.]

Shackleton, L.

Birk, B.

Janner, L.

Shannon, E.

Brockway, L.

Jessel, L.

Shinwell, L.

Caccia, L.

Killearn, L.

Snow, L.

Champion, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Somers, L.

Chorley, L.

Leatherland, L.

Stamp, L.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Stonehaven, V.

Davies of Leek, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Stow Hill, L.

de Clifford, L.

Mais, L.

Summerskill, B.

Diamond, L.

Maybray-King, L.

Teviot, L.

Douglass of Cleveland, L.

Melchett, L.

Trevelyan, L.

Emmet of Amberley, B.

Milner of Leeds, L.

White, B.

Gainford, L.

Norwich, V.

Willis, L.

Garnsworthy, L. [Teller.]

Ogmore, L.

Winterbottom, L.

George-Brown, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Craigavon, V.

Grenfell, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Craighton, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Alport, L.

Daventry, V.

Hailes, L.

Atholl, D.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Auckland, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Dundonald, E.

Harvey of Prestbury, L.

Berkeley, B.

Ebbisham, L.

Ironside, L.

Bledisloe, V.

Eccles, V.

Limerick, E.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Elton, L.

Long, V.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, B.

Falkland, V.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Fortescue, E.

Lyell, L.

Courtown, E.

Goschen, V.

McFadzean, L.

Cowley, E.

Gowrie, E.

Mancroft, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Tenby, V.

Merrivale, L.

St. Helens, L.

Thomas, L.

Milverton, L.

Sandford, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Molson, L.

Sandys, L.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Selkirk, E.

Vivian, L.

Northchurch, B.

Sempill, Ly.

Waldegrave, E.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Ward of Witley, V.

Onslow, E.

Young, B.

Pender, L.

Strathspey, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

5.17 p.m.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: We have already dealt with this Amendment under Amendment No. 37. I therefore beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 33, at end insert—
("(7A) The holder of a disposal licence who without reasonable excuse contravenes a condition of the licence which in pursuance of regulations made by virtue of subsection (6) of this section is to be disregarded for the purposes mentioned in that subsection shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £400; but no proceedings for such an offer shall be brought in England and Wales except by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions or by the disposal authority which issued the licence.")—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
LORD CRAIGTON LORD CRAIGTON moved Amendment No. 44:
Page 8, line 8, leave out ("rejected") and insert ("accepted").
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is rather like the one on which your Lordships' Committee has just divided. I do not understand the position. I hope noble Lords will understand it better than I do. As I read it, if I apply for a disposal licence and the disposal authority do not like it, they can ignore it; or if something goes wrong my application can be dropped into the wastepaper basket. I hear nothing for two months, so I apply again; and the second time all the disposal authority have to do is to ignore my application. This could go on indefinitely, and I seem to have no rights or recourse. Surely my noble friend will provide for the authority, at some juncture, at least, to send me a postcard notifying me that my application has been rejected. That is the only point, and I beg to move.
LORD MERRIVALE: I, too, hope that my interpretation of this Amendment is
1106
correct because I should like to support it. As I understand it, this Amendment has the merit of providing for a reasonably rapid determination of an application for a disposal licence, and it should satisfy the applicant that his application is being responsibly considered. As I understand it, as the Bill stands at the moment, a licensing authority will be allowed to refuse a licence just by default. This would surely be unfair to the applicant, as well as undermining co-operation between the two parties. If this is right, and the noble Lord is right, too, we hope that this Amendment will be accepted.
5.20 p.m.
BARONESS YOUNG: The purpose of the clause as drafted is that when an applicant applies for a disposal licence the same general principles will apply as apply in respect of an application for planning consent. As the Committee will be aware the provision for deemed refusal of a planning consent comes after two months. If this Amendment were agreed, and an applicant applied simultaneously for planning permission and for a site licence—which is a possibility—with the law as it stands, under the planning procedures if he had not heard anything after two months it would be deemed a refusal; under the licensing procedure it would be deemed an acceptance. This would make for a very confused situation. It is simply in order that the licensing procedure should be in line with the planning procedure that the clause is drafted in this way.
BARONESS WHITE: I finally understand that, but is the planning procedure a good one? Anyone who applies for anything of consequence, such as this, surely should at least receive a postcard acknowledging the application. It seems to me that instead of improving the planning procedure we shall be allowing the licensing procedure to go the same bad way. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, is on a perfectly sensible point. At the very least one ought to have some com-

1107
munication. It is very rude not to reply to someone who has put in an application for something which, as I say, is in this case something of consequence. It does not necessarily have to be a very lengthy reply, but at least some acknowledgement should be made of the fact that an application of this kind is either to be accepted or rejected or a longer period could be agreed in order to give it adequate consideration. That is another matter. But should one simply, without any sort of protest, accept a procedure which I think that any of us in our business or private lives would regard as wholly objectionable?
BARONESS YOUNG: I think this argument is based on a mis-reading of this part of the clause. I do not think there is any indication suggesting that if someone applies for a site licence he will not receive an answer to his application, or that the application would go through on the nod if the Amendment was accepted. I should have thought that the ordinary or common courtesies, or the normal procedures on an application, would apply; that is, that there is this statutory limitation under planning permission. It does not mean to say that a person applying does not expect to get a reply.
LORD CRAIGTON: I am still not very clear about this. If it could be ensured that on receipt of his application the applicant would be told, "Unless you hear from us within two months, the licence may be deemed to be refused", that is all right. I do not know whether all the applicants will understand that from the way in which the clause is drafted. It is a most peculiar provision. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady White. Would not my noble friend look at this again to see whether a courteous acknowledgement could be made of the application, or the applicant to be told later, "We are sorry, but your application is refused"?
BARONESS YOUNG: I think this a rather theoretical argument. I do not think one could read into this clause the suggestion that people will apply for site licences and will not get replies, and then that there would be just a refusal with the suggestion that the application had got lost in the post or gone into
1108
somebody's in-tray and never been removed. After all, one could not just have deemed consent without anything in writing to indicate that the disposal authority had given consent. I think it is quite clear that the disposal authorities would adopt the practice of issuing a refusal with an explanatory letter as a holding operation if they had been unable to reach a decision at the expiry of the time allowed. In any case, an applicant would not want to spend substantial sums of money on a site and get everything prepared unless he had definitely in writing that his application for a licence would be accepted. Therefore in practical terms I do not think that you could have a deemed consent, because I do not think any licensee would act on it. I think, as I say, that the disposal authority would feel that they would have to attach model conditions which would be automatically applicable, but might have to be altered in the particular circumstances. I think there would be a number of difficulties. That is the reality of the situation and not the way that some Members of the Committee have seen it.
LORD CRAIGTON: Perhaps I can give the noble Baroness a way out. I am not asking for deemed consent but a postcard notifying the objection; that, and no more. Under this clause that is not required. I am asking just for the courtesy of a postcard.
LORD HAWKE: I am on the side of the noble Baroness, Lady Young. Could not she substitute something to the effect that the authority must make a decision within two months unless they approach the applicant and arrange some longer period?
BARONESS YOUNG: When we were discussing the clauses concerned with how the licensing procedure would work, we had various debates about the water authority being consulted, and the collection authority, and so on. All this would take a certain amount of time. What the Bill says in effect is that if someone applies for a licence and does not hear definitely within the two months that he has got the licence—which is the period within which we would hope that he would hear something—he can assume that it will be refused. But otherwise he will get a letter saying that it will be accepted. The fact is that I cannot look

1109
at this Amendment as it stands because, in effect, it does not say what the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, is asking. It is saying that at the end of two months the person applying for a licence must get it without actually having that in writing. I think that is something which we could not accept. If the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, is saying, "Well, of course, the applicant ought to hear", that is a matter for the disposal authority. Surely one would not write into the Bill that the disposal authority must acknowledge the receipt of an application for a licence.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: Why not?
LORD CRAIGTON: Why not acknowledge the receipt of the application and say, "We are sorry, but we are rejecting your application."?
LORD HAWKE: What I object to is having either a deemed acceptance or refusal after a period of time. We all know that the Post Office is not quite so efficient as it used to be when I was young, and it may well be that something has gone astray in the post. There may be a postal strike. It seems wrong that anyone should have to assume that his application has been accepted or rejected at the end of two months when in reality the position may be the exact opposite but the applicant has not received a communication.
BARONESS YOUNG: In the provisions of this Bill we cannot be responsible for the vagaries of the Post Office, or whether or not things arrive. I can only say to the Committee that I am unable to accept this Amendment. I will give an undertaking to read carefully everything that has been said, and if there is something which we feel is not clear we will have a look at it. However these words may sound, the system has worked very well so far as planning applications are concerned, and they have been going on now for a considerable length of time. The question of the two months applies because within the timetable laid down this is when the authority expect to give an answer, and if it does not it is a deemed refusal.
LORD HUGHES: Having undertaken to have a look at this, will the noble Baroness, Lady Young, consider redrafting it altogether so that there is no reference to a period of two months; thus
1110
laying down that when the authority have made a decision on the matter they shall inform the applicant whether his application has been accepted or refused? The period of two months does not seem to have any meaning. If they have not decided the matter at the end of the two months, it is to be taken that it has been rejected, when in fact the matter may take three months and at the end of that time the authority may decide to accept the application. I think that a complete redrafting is needed.
LORD CRAIGTON: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for the explanation. The same point arises on Clause 37 and perhaps we may then consider this matter further. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 5 [Variation of conditions and revocation of licences]:
5.31 p.m.
LORD HENLEY LORD HENLEY moved Amendment No. 45:
Page 8, line 32, leave out from ("which") to ("will") in line 33.
The noble Lord said: My Amendment would cut out the words, "which, in the opinion of the disposal authority". In the Bill as it stands, Clause 5 deals with the variation of conditions and the revocation of licences, and the disposal authority may disregard any other authority for the purpose of the provisions of this subsection in relation to a modification "which, in the opinion of the disposal authority", will not affect any other authority. It seems to me that this is going too far and gives virtually complete discretion to a disposal authority to ignore the wishes of the water authority. In arguing an earlier Amendment, I stressed how very important it seemed to me that the water authority should have the last say. This view has not been accepted by the noble Baroness. I think it is generally agreed that the question of pollution is so important to the water authorities that at every point there must be the fullest co-operation, consideration and agreement. The wording in the Bill is altogether too strong and I should like to see it come out. I do not think it should be left to the discretion of the disposal authority as to whether in fact

1111
a matter does or does not affect another authority. I believe that this discretion should rest with the water authority, and I beg to move.
BARONESS YOUNG: The noble Lord, Lord Henley, feels that this particular part of Clause 5 has the effect of giving too much power to the disposal authority which can decide when to consult and when not to consult about proposed modifications. The clause as worded gives the disposal authority the right not to consult on what is a relatively small matter. One must assume that a statutory body such as a waste disposal authority will act with responsibility and that there will be some matters concerning the licence which will be of such insignificance that it would be overburdening the water authority to consult them. The provision must be read in conjunction with the need to consult the water authority and the collection authority about the disposal licence; and, of course, to consider any modifications that the water authority may propose when the licence is originally issued. It really comes down to whether one feels that the disposal authority will act with responsibility in this matter. I also think that, having consulted the water authority on the issue of the licence and the modification to it, this right of the water authority to take the matter to the Secretary of State is written in simply so that if it is a minor matter that is in question it can be dealt with without further consultation.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: It seems to me that the noble Baroness ought to say something, so that we may have it on the Record, about how one decides what is a relatively minor matter. I do not think it is good enough that a disposal authority should be able to determine this for itself. Could the noble Baroness say anything to clarify the position?
BARONESS YOUNG: I do not think I can accept that last statement of the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy. After all, the disposal authority—which will be the county council—must be a responsible body, advised by responsible officers. Perhaps the condition might be, for instance, about some variation of the matter we have referred to on tree planting, or the appearance of the site. Or it might be concerned with some varia-
1112
tion over the way tipping is being done—whether from North to South or from South to North. This might be a matter for variation in the licence which the disposal authority, having consulted the water authority originally as to whether or not the site should be tipped, could deal with itself. I have no doubt that, if I set my mind to it, I could think of many other instances; but I believe it is reasonable to assume these would be small matters, the basic principles having been decided. Therefore, I think one should leave them to a responsible authority.
LORD HENLEY: This is very much the answer that I expected to receive from the noble Baroness when I put down my Amendment. I have another Amendment later and perhaps I might consider whether it is worth while wasting your Lordships' time in putting forward that Amendment. I do not know whether the noble Baroness is afraid that cutting out these words would leave it open for disputes to go to litigation. I should rather doubt this. I agree that the matters with which they would mostly be concerned would be minor matters and there would be no question about their relevance in regard to the water and disposal authorities. Nevertheless, I do not very much like these words. They put into the hands of the disposal authority a weapon which could be a little awkward for a water authority. Although I accept many of the arguments put forward by the noble Baroness, I cannot see what objection, other than her possible fear of litigation (and as I have said, I think this is unlikely), there can be to taking out these words. I am disappointed, and before I ask leave to withdraw this Amendment I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, whether he wishes to add anything.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: No; I think not.
VISCOUNT AMORY: After listening to the arguments which have been put forward, I think I must come down in favour of the clause as it stands. Somebody has to decide a matter like this and it is by definition a matter which would affect the disposal authority alone, if it interpreted the matter aright. In a case like this I should have thought we could safely leave it to a responsible

1113
body to make its decision responsibly. I agree with some of the arguments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Henley, but I think that in the end I must come down personally in favour of leaving the clause as it stands.
LORD HENLEY: The point I really wanted to make is that the interest of the water authorities in this kind of matter is paramount. It is more important than anything else. If that goes wrong, as I tried to point out earlier, and if underground sources of water once become polluted, they may never become unpolluted. This is why I feel so strongly that in every case the whip hand should rest with the water authority. Nevertheless, I do not think there is much more I can say, except that I should like to make it quite apparent that I believe the interests of the water authority ought to be paramount. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.39 p.m.
LORD MERRIVALE LORD MERRIVALE moved Amendment No. 46:
Page 9, line 2, after ("time") insert ("which shall not be less than 2 years from the date of the notice").
The noble Lord said: I beg leave to move this Amendment and I should also like to speak to Amendments Nos. 54A and 59A, because there is a common theme linking the three. This Amendment is concerned with giving the licence-holder sufficient time to enable him both to make effective forward plans and also to justify his investment. I am sure my noble friend would agree that before disposal of waste can take place the licence holder will need to prepare the site and, in many cases, to prepare the waste itself. This procedure around the world could, in a number of cases, involve a fairly considerable capital expenditure. I am advised it could reach a figure as high as several hundred thousand pounds. Regarding the preparation of the waste, some of it may require chemical treatment; acid waste has to be neutralised; certain wastes require de-watering; wet, oily waste cannot be incinerated direct, and so forth. There is a fair amount of preparation involved.
To come to the question of incineration, such equipment is very expensive, and, when it is required, the pre-treatment and disposal can also be quite an expensive business. I hope that the Minister will consider this Amendment to be reasonable, for it seeks also to bring disposal into line with that which exists on water pollution control. Section 60(2) of the Public Health Act 1961 states:
"No direction shall be given under subsection (1) of this section within two years from the date of the consent or, where a previous direction has been given under that subsection, within two years from the date on which notice was given of that direction, but this subsection shall not prevent a direction being given before that time with the written consent of the owner and occupier of the trade premises, and any direction given with such consent shall not affect the time at which any subsequent direction may be given."
That quotation is relevant to what we are considering now and as the period of two years was mentioned in the 1961 Act and it seems reasonable, so I would have thought it could be reasonable in this Bill.
As I am also speaking to Amendments Nos. 54A and 59A I should like to refer to the ways in which mineral operators could be affected should my Amendments not be accepted. Mineral operators more often than not have a liability under their planning consents to restore with a condition requiring in-filling with available wastes. They may well as an alternative have a separate consent for tipping where the mineral working consent is not specific on the point. Mineral working and restoration is often progressively interlinked; they are very relevant to each other. Therefore, any revocation or modification of a licence to tip can result in substantial losses to the mineral operating company. To quote examples, these losses could include direct loss of tipping revenue and direct loss of quarrying and associated revenue as a result of not being allowed to win and work the minerals, and loss of the residual value of the land. Society as a whole could also lose the benefit of a proper and full after-use of the site. Also the revocation or modification of a tipping licence could result in effectively nullifying planning consent, and various matters with reference to this, without the authority having to pay compensation, as provided for in the

1115
planning Acts, for revocation or modification of a planning consent.
Regarding Amendment No. 46, it is essential that a time limit, two years, be specified in the Bill as only then can the licence holder make forward plans with the knowledge that they can be implemented. For forward planning to be effective and efficient a minimum period of two years within which the conditions of a licence should not be modified, or the licence revoked, is generally required. Of course my noble friend Lady Young might say that a period of two years is too long, should an emergency situation arise. In this case I would agree with her: but if an emergency situation should arise then in such a case, as in Part II of this Bill under Clause 38(1), a small clause or subsection could be inserted into Part I of this Bill, to the effect that an authority may give such a direction within the period mentioned—in other words two years—if the authority considers it necessary to do so in order to provide proper protection for persons likely to be affected. I sincerely hope that my noble friend will consider this Amendment very favourably and also think it is reasonable and logical.
5.48 p.m.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: When I read the Amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, I did not feel I could have much sympathy with it. Having listened to him I am left with the feeling that he is asking for a great deal. I feel he is probably over-concerned with the financial consequences to the licensee. I would have thought that, looking at subsection (3) of the clause, which says:
"Where a disposal licence issued by a disposal authority is in force and it appears to the authority—

(a) that the continuation of activities to which the licence relates would cause pollution of water or danger to public health or would be so seriously detrimental to the amenities of the locality affected by the activities that the continuation of them ought not to be permitted; and

(b) that the pollution, danger or detriment cannot be avoided by modifying the conditions specified in the licence,

it shall be the duty of the authority by a notice served on the holder of the licence to revoke the licence."'
what the noble Lord wants is the licensee to have authority to continue for a period
1116
up to two years. If I am wrong, I am doing the noble Lord a service in raising the query.
LORD MERRIVALE: As I understand the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, he is referring specifically to the position should an emergency situation arise. I am asking that a time limit should be specified in the Bill. At the moment there is no time limit. It has been specified under the Water Pollution Act and therefore, while agreeing totally that if an emergency situation arises immediate action should be able to be taken, if there is not an emergency it is only fair and reasonable, apart from financial considerations, that the licence holder should have the specific time that he knows he can have to prepare the site, the waste, and so forth. It is not just a financial question. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, that if an emergency situation arises it is quite different.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: I am grateful to the noble Lord for what he has just said, but I should have thought that from what is set out in subsection (3) all of it is of an emergency nature. When I am moving Amendments, I am being continually told, and I agree, that the disposal authorities will be responsible bodies, responsible people serving on them, staffed by responsible officers. I should have thought that what is provided in subsection (4) is adequate; namely,
"A notice served in pursuance of this section shall state the time at which the modification or revocation in question is to take effect."
I want to make it quite clear that we on this side of the Committee can have, not merely a little, but no sympathy at all with the Amendment that is being moved.
LORD HAWKE: When I saw my noble friend's Amendment, as a confirmed water-drinker it filled me with very considerable alarm. But in the course of the debate it appears that there seems to be some saving clause or long-stop for the pollution of water, and that is not going to be permitted to be carried on for two years while the contractor pulls out of the site. On public health, I suppose there is probably something in the Public Health Act which would allow them to close the thing down quickly. But is there any legislation

1117
which would permit closure in under the two years, in the case of the tipping being seriously detrimental to the amenities of the locality? I can well imagine that if somebody is alarmed about the possible or the actual effects of what is happening on the locality, to allow it to go on for another two years might be quite disastrous. I think that my noble friend Lady Young will probably reject this Amendment out of hand.
LORD MERRIVALE: If I may just answer the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, I think he is making rather heavy weather of my Amendment. Subsection (4) of Clause 5 of the Bill as it stands at the moment says:
"A notice served in pursuance of this section shall state the time at which the modification or revocation in question is to take effect."
All I am asking is that a period should be stated. The time will have to be mentioned. All I am saying is "Put in a date, or put in a number of months or years". The Bill already says that the time will have to be stated; so I cannot see that there is anything wrong in stating a specific time limit.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: I can only say in reply to the noble Lord that he pleads that all he is saying is what his Amendment sets out. Words would fail me if his appetite were greater.
5.54 p.m.
BARONESS YOUNG: The noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, has indicated that he is speaking to three Amendments; and they all have, I believe, as an underlying objective that licence holders should have reasonable security against any sudden variation in the conditions of their licence. The first one, Amendment No. 46, to which he has been speaking quite particularly, says that a licence condition by a disposal authority could not take effect for two years so that the operator would have at least that period of security of operation. As I understand Amendment No. 54A, disposal authorities would be prevented from making a variation of conditions to take immediate effect before there was an appeal. Under Amendment No. 59A an operator would be given a right to compensation.
1118
These, as I say, all have an underlying objective giving the licence holder a degree of security against any kind of sudden change in the conditions of the site licence. I should like to say at the outset that I recognise that the noble Lord has a very real point here and that the Government are sympathetic to this particular need. The licence holders will be performing a task of great importance to the community, whether they are local authority undertakers or private operators. Obviously, we do not want to put any unnecessary obstacle in their way. The fact is that problems of waste disposal will involve increasingly sophisticated technical methods; they will increasingly involve quite substantial investment. The days when someone involved in disposal indulged in casual tipping, and tipping generally, will be increasingly restricted. In these circumstances, firms which undertake this necessary work must have a reasonable degree of security so that they can plan ahead and do precisely the kind of things, with the kind of benefits to the community as a whole, that we want them to do. They must be able to make their investments with a reasonable degree of confidence.
We do not want unnecessarily to increase the risks of operators, and we want to give them some security where this is right. I think the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, indicated particularly mineral workings and restoration and the loss which could come if these were abruptly changed. On the other hand, of course, as other noble Lords have indicated, if conditions are unsatisfactory on a disposal site, it is an essential prerequisite of the Bill that the disposal authorities should be able to step in and ask for immediate improvements. It would therefore be really most unsatisfactory to have to wait two years before any improvement could be made. I do not think we could contemplate paying compensation for requiring operators to operate without causing pollution or danger to the public. Clearly in any kind of emergency we must step in and deal with the situation, as of course the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, has quite rightly recognised. It is for these reasons that I cannot accept this Amendment as it stands.
However, as I said, we are sympathetic to the general objective that lies behind

1119
it and we propose to consider whether any greater security can be given to an operator once he has a licence, by laying down explicitly in the Bill that once a licence has been issued it shall not be unreasonably varied or shall only be varied where there is good reason to do so in order to secure satisfactory standards of operation. This is the kind of security which we hope will meet the fears of the licence holders and the operators in the disposal field. I hope that with that assurance the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, will feel able to withdraw his Amendment.
LORD HUGHES: May I ask the noble Baroness whether, in giving that assurance, she will also give the assurance that none of the words in Clause 5(3) will be taken out of the Bill?
BARONESS YOUNG: We do not intend in any sense to weaken the provisions which are, as noble Lords have quite rightly indicated, crucial on pollution of water and danger to public health. The material words are "seriously detrimental to the amenities of the locality." These are basic principles. We do not intend to detract from them at all.
LORD MERRIVALE: I should like to thank my noble friend for her considered reply. I am sorry that she does not feel able to accept the Amendment as it stands at the moment. I am very glad indeed that she has some sympathy for it and also feels that the licence holders need some security of tenure. The point I should like to ask her now is this. She said that there should be a condition, which would be put in, about a licence: that this licence would not be unreasonably varied within a period of time. Why is it that subsection (4) of Clause 5 says:
"A notice served in pursuance of this section shall state the time at which the modification or revocation in question is to take effect"
if one cannot get some idea of what is meant by "the time"? I had hoped that those words could have been qualified by the words of my Amendment:
"which shall not be less than 2 years from the date of the notice".
If noble Lords think that two years is too long, there should nevertheless be some mention in the Bill as to what would be considered a reasonable period of time.
1120
A licence would not be unreasonably varied, but there is no mention in this assurance of any time limit, while on the other hand the question of time is mentioned in the subsection. I would ask my noble friend whether she could give some kind of assurance, or clarify what is meant as regards the question of time.
BARONESS YOUNG: My understanding of this subsection is that the reason why a particular time is not specified is that conditions could vary, and whereas it might be possible to state that one condition should be fulfilled, say, within three months, it might well be that a certain practice would have to stop immediately, or some other condition would take a year to comply with. Therefore, it would be difficult to put in a time. Perhaps to indicate my consistency of view in this matter I might say that one must accept that the disposal authority will act responsibly. Furthermore, one must accept that the disposal authority, too, will want to ensure that those licensed to dispose of waste will be acting efficiently. So it, too, will have an interest in ensuring that those organisations, whether its own or private operators, have the opportunity to act as efficiently as they can. Therefore, it will not wish to vary a site licence in some way so as to prevent it from acting in that manner.
LORD MERRIVALE: I am not entirely happy, but am grateful to my noble friend for the extra clarification. With these few words, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 [Transfer and relinquishment of licences]:
6.3 p.m.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL moved Amendment No. 47:
Page 9, line 4, leave out from ("may") to end of line 7 and insert (", after giving notice to the authority which issued the licence that he proposes to transfer it on a day specified in the notice to a person whose name and address are so specified, transfer the licence to that person; but a licence in respect of which such a notice is given shall cease to have effect on the expiration of the period of two months beginning with the date on which the authority receives the notice unless during that period the authority gives notice to the transferee that it accepts him as the holder of the licence.")
The noble Lord said: On behalf of my noble friend Lady Young I beg to move Amendments Nos. 47 and 48, and I should like to speak to them together. These are really legal and technical Amendments intended to clarify the arrangement for the transfer of licences. The general intention of Clause 6 is to ensure that if a new owner or a new occupier takes over a disposal operation he has either to obtain a new licence or secure the agreement of the authority to carrying on the old one. A new operator may run the business in a very different way. It is therefore thought right to give the authority this opportunity to vary the conditions if that should happen. However, the new operator is to have a two months' period of grace in which to re-apply. These two Amendments to this clause make this intention clearer. We are distinguishing here between the case of the assignment of a licence—that is to say, on the sale or the conveyance of a site—and the transfer by the operation of law; for example, on the death or the bankruptcy of the licence holder. I beg to move.
LORD CRAIGTON: My noble friend referred to a two months' period during which the operator could re-apply. I am a little worried. I have not understood the meaning of the words "on a day specified" in the third line of the Amendment. As I see it, there are alternatives. The holder tells the disposal authority that he proposes to transfer the licence forthwith, in one case. He does it and for two months there is silence, during which the new holder operates the licence, and then the disposal authority tells the new holder whether or not he is accepted. That is possible if the day specified is the day of the transfer. Or on the other hand—and I think this is probably more likely—is it intended that the day specified for transfer should be at least two months later than the date of the notice given to the authority, in which case the day specified perhaps ought to refer to one two months after the date of the notice? I do not necessarily expect my noble friend to reply now.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: We are here going into a technical drafting question. Perhaps we
1122
might write to the noble Lord after we have had another look at this point.
LORD HENLEY: I hope that in having this Amendment accepted the Government will bear in mind that it needs qualifying by the kind of provision that I have put in the Amendment which is to follow, No. 49, which is to try to prevent the unloading of responsibilities which might happen under a transfer. Have the Government that point in mind?
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: We are in a slight difficulty now as to whether we are speaking to Amendment No. 49 at the same time as No. 48. I do not want to give the same answer twice over to a single point. Would it be acceptable to the noble Lord if we left this matter until we took Amendment No. 49?
BARONESS WHITE: It would be for the convenience of the Committee to discuss these Amendments together. Whether or not the Government are proposing to accept the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Henley, affects our attitude to the Government Amendments.
LORD HENLEY: Would it be convenient if I spoke now to my Amendment, which has a considerable effect upon the Government Amendment? The position at the moment is that Clause 6(4) gives a licence holder a straightforward power to cancel his licence. If he does that, there is a danger that a man in a difficult situation—and that difficult situation might be caused by reason of breaches of condition, or by the need to spend money on complying with conditions when the disposal licence is no longer economically viable—will unload his responsibilities. My Amendment prevents that from happening by saying that such a cancellation shall not prejudice or affect anything. I rather expect that the Government accept that point, and that they are willing, if not to accept my Amendment, at any rate to draft one of their own to cover this gap. It is important that their own Amendment, No. 47, dealing with transfer, should also be qualified by the same provisions as are in my Amendment, No. 49. I am speaking to the Amendment, but would the noble Lord like to say now what he feels about that?
LORD STOW HILL: Could the noble Lord say just one word about the question of transfer by operation of law; that is to say, the matter dealt with by Amendment No. 48? If the licence holder dies, I suppose the effect of subsection (2) of Clause 6 is that the licence vests in his personal representatives. I suppose that in due course his estate is administered and the beneficiaries who will inherit, either under a will or on an intestacy, will become entitled to his land, that being land to which the licence relates. I do not quite understand the mechanism with regard to the two months in that case. I am not suggesting that it does not work properly but I think we ought to know how it works. The licence holder dies; automatically the licence goes to his personal representative and in due course the estate is administered. If that should take place it is unlikely to take place within two months. If it does take place within the two months then I suppose the licence goes to the person who inherits the land in question. If it takes place after two months, what happens? Does the licence lapse at the end of two months? How does the whole thing work? I should be grateful if the Minister would expatiate on that a little more fully so that one knows the result of the vesting by operation of law.
6.12 p.m.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: As so often happens, the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, has raised a point which I think it would be unwise for me to answer immediately. This is my immediate reaction. I think he is raising a point about the case where for some reason or other the inheritor of a site has been unable to apply within the two months' period. My immediate reaction is that probably it would have to be the subject of a new application starting from scratch. I think that if one could do the two months' transfer that would be a more convenient arrangement. However, I think we should take advice on this point and I will let the noble Lord know if I have got it wrong, as there is certainly a chance that I have.
LORD STOW HILL: I am very grateful to the noble Lord.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: As regards the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Henley, I would say right away that we are very sympa-
1124
thetic to the underlying purpose behind his Amendment, No. 49, but in general it is thought that the Amendment as it stands is unnecessary, though there can be no question that what he seeks to do is something which the Government are determined must happen. I am advised that the fears underlying this Amendment are possibly over-stated. There is no doubt that the liability to prosecution, if offences have been committed before the licence is given up, will survive the cancellation of the licence. In a sense that is possibly the short answer to the point which I think the noble Lord is making. I can go further than that if he wishes, but perhaps I may leave it at that for the moment.
LORD HENLEY: If the noble Lord can assure me that without my Amendment there is no possibility of somebody wriggling out of his responsibility in this very important matter I shall be quite happy to accept that. But of course I should want to look at it more closely and should need to be advised where the legal provisions are, either inside the Bill or outside it, to enable this to be absolutely secure. If it is secure I am entirely happy, but I do not know what anybody else feels about it.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: First of all, I am advised that this is believed to be the situation, and of course the Government will check that that is indeed the case. There is, however, a further point. It is just possible that we might need to create powers to ensure that conditions are actually complied with before cancellation, but that is certainly not something that can be achieved by this Amendment. That is another point that the Government have in mind to look at further.
LORD HENLEY: I am much obliged to the noble Lord.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: I beg to move Amendment No. 48.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 8, after ("If") insert ("by operation of law").—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 7 [Supervision of licensed activities]:
6.16 p.m.
LORD GARNSWORTHY LORD GARNSWORTHY moved Amendment No. 50:
Page 9, line 23, leave out from ("or") to ("health") in line 24.
The noble Lord said: In moving this Amendment I do not in any way wish to detract from the protection which Clause 7 seeks to give to the public by requiring the appropriate authorities to ensure that water is not polluted, that danger is not caused to public health or that there is no detriment to the amenities of the locality by reason of licence activities. On the contrary, the Amendment is intended to remove what appears to be something of a muddle, which apparently arises because of the confusion of functions between the responsible authorities. There is an area of sensitivity here which I suppose was inevitable once it was decided to divide functions in regard to this matter of waste collection and disposal.
Under the Public Health Acts it will be the statutory duty of the district councils to cause their districts to be inspected for conditions which are a nuisance or prejudicial to health, and to take appropriate action. It therefore seems both unnecessary and potentially confusing to put a similar duty upon the disposal authority, the county council, by this clause, since it could well be that each authority will expect the other to act and, in the event, effective action may not be taken. This Amendment therefore seeks to focus attention on the point by eliminating from the duty on the disposal authority the element which is the responsibility of the public health authority.
There is some concern about the likely effect of this Bill on the public service in regard to manpower which is under very heavy pressure, and it is desirable, as I think everybody will agree, that unnecessary duplication and waste of resources should be avoided. Many district councils feel that as the responsible authority for dealing with public health matters, and in order to avoid wasteful duplication, they ought to be used by the waste disposal authorities under agency arrangements. It can do no
1126
possible harm if district councils, who are the public health authority and who have the necessary staff, do this work on behalf of the disposal authorities. I beg to move.
BARONESS YOUNG: The noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, in the course of the Committee stage of this Bill, has on many occasions argued most forcefully for the responsibilities of the district councils, and I appreciate that they do have a very responsible role to play in local government. I think the difficulty about this Amendment is that if it were agreed to it would mean that waste disposal authorities would not have a duty of ensuring that licensed disposal operations did not cause a danger to public health. We have had a great deal of discussion about the kind of things to which a disposal authority must have regard, and I think it has been agreed that the pollution of water, the danger to public health and activities which would be detrimental to the amenities of the area are three basic principles that run through Part I of the Bill.
If we took this particular part of this clause out of the Bill at this stage I think it would weaken the effectiveness of the disposal authorities. We are most anxious to ensure that a public authority has a continuing duty to ensure that the standards of operations are satisfactory and that there is no danger to public health. The statutory nuisance code, which is of value, can only be used where a nuisance is actual or is apprehended. What we really want is a continual overseeing of the site to make quite sure that the standards which we regard as appropriate for to-day are maintained. I hope that with that explanation the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his Amendment.
VISCOUNT AMORY: It occurs to me that this Amendment might have rather the opposite effect to that which the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, hoped it would have by giving to two statutory authorities an interest in the same site. I think if that were to happen it might derogate somewhat from the fairly clear responsibility which at present lies on the disposal authority, and which I think properly should lie on the disposal authority.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: I am most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Young, for what she has said. I also appreciate very much the point made by the noble Viscount. Lord Amory. I think

1127
it was necessary at some stage during the consideration of the Bill that this matter should be raised and discussed. If there is no hope of this Amendment being accepted by the Government there will be no point in moving Amendments Nos. 51 and 60. The noble Baroness has made it quite clear that the Government are firm on this matter, and I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.21 p.m.
LORD CRAIGTON LORD CRAIGTON moved Amendment No. 52:
Page 9, line 35, at end insert ("and shall notify the holder of the disposal licence").
The noble Lord said: Subsection (2) of Clause 7 is a quite proper provision for carrying out emergency work, but as drafted there is no obligation at all to notify the holder of the licence, from whom, after all, the cost of the work has to be collected later. I beg to move.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: The Committee will recall that this was mentioned when we discussed Amendment No. 26 which was moved, I think, by the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy. The view of the Government is that this is a sensible suggestion, but there is the question of harmonising the actual detail of the wording between this Amendment and Amendment No. 26, which works the opposite way round. If the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, will withdraw this Amendment we will certainly undertake to bring in Amendments to deal with these two points and to make sure that they work well together.
LORD CRAIGTON: I am grateful to my noble friend and ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
BARONESS YOUNG: I beg to move Amendment No. 53.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 4, after ("3") insert ("or 4(7A)").—(Baroness Young.)
LORD GARNSWORTHY LORD GARNSWORTHY moved Amendment No. 54:
Page 10, line 12, at end insert—
("(5) Without prejudice to subsection (1) of this section, where it appears to a disposal
1128
authority that by reason of a condition specified in a disposal licence not being complied with that a danger to public health or serious detriment to the amenities of the locality is thereby occasioned the authority may serve on the licence holder a notice prohibiting him from carrying out or continuing any specified activities.").
The noble Lord said: In moving this Amendment I should like at the same time to speak to Amendments Nos. 55 and 56. The purpose of this Amendment is to plug what appears to be a gap in the Bill. Under Clause 7(1) the disposal authority may take emergency action to safeguard public health and the amenities of a locality. It can go in and do work and put matters right. But there may be an emergency where, because of a breach of operating conditions, the proper thing to do is to shut down the site or to forbid certain operations without first going through the procedure envisaged in Clause 7(4), by serving a notice on the licence holder requiring the remedying of the breach in a stipulated time. The Amendment accordingly enables the authority to serve a "stop" notice. However, where it could be shown that the authority had acted unreasonably there would be justification for the payment of compensation and the Amendment provides for this by adapting Clause 8. I beg to move.
LORD MERRIVALE: Is this Amendment absolutely necessary? Is not the point already covered by Clause 7(4), as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy? In this Amendment he refers to the question of "serious detriment to the amenities". My understanding was that on a previous occasion we agreed that Committee considerations should be dealt with at the planning stage and not under site licensing. In effect, as I understood, the noble Baroness, Lady Young, said last Tuesday that the two purposes of planning permission and site licensing should not be confused. She went on to say:
"Planning decisions, of course, take into account the amenities of the locality."
Further on, she went on to say:
"once planning permission has been given it is not imagined that site licensing would be refused, except on grounds of public health or some kind of danger of pollution in this context. Therefore it would be very unfair to take away a site licence on grounds which in effect are not appropriate to the licensing provision at all."—(OFFICIAL REPORT; 15/1/74, col. 941.)

1129
So I should have thought that, on the one hand, the point that the noble Lord is trying to make is achieved by Clause 7(4), and, on the other hand, the question of amenity was decided otherwise on a previous occasion by the Committee of this House.
BARONESS YOUNG: I must begin by saying that again I feel sympathy with the intention behind this Amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, is in effect, as he said, adding a "stop" notice to the other provisions which are to regulate the conditions of site licences. However I hope I can show him that we have met the conditions that he wishes to see laid down. There are a number of powers in the Bill: for example, the disposal authority may modify the licence conditions—that is Clause 5(1); or it may serve a notice to secure compliance with an existing condition—that is the provision quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, which is Clause 7(4)(a). If neither of the powers in fact achieves the desired improvements in standards, the authority can go further and can revoke the licence. In the first case, where modification is not effective enough to avoid danger to public health, water pollution or serious detriment to the amenities of the area, the authority may revoke the licence under Clause 5(3). In the second case, where there is continuing non-compliance with a licence condition, the licence can be revoked under Clause 7(4)(b). I hope in the case of an emergency situation this condition would apply, but it does mean the situation can be dealt with immediately. I hope therefore that the noble Lord will feel that these other provisions cover the point he is trying to make. It is a real point.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: I am grateful to the noble Baroness. I had a feeling that she would speak in the sense she has done to the Committee; I think it was important to get that on the Record. With regard to subsection 4(a) and (b), there is no question there, I would have thought, of immediate emergency action because paragraphs (a) and (b) both refer to the giving of notices. However, I have no wish to pursue the matter.
Just on a personal point, I ought not to have referred to Amendment No. 57 because I realise I spoke to it when I
1130
moved Amendment 51. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 8 [Appeals to Secretary of State from decisions with respect to licences]:
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL moved Amendment No. 58:
Page 11, line 2, after ("recover") insert ("compensation").
The noble Lord said: On behalf of my noble friend Lady Young I beg to move Amendment 58 and I shall speak to Amendment 59. These are really technical drafting Amendments which ensure that disputes as to liability for compensation in the circumstances specified, as well as to the amount, may be referred to arbitration, otherwise liability might fall to be settled in the county court or the High Court, and compensation would be subject to arbitration, which would be a piece of double litigation. I beg to move.
BARONESS YOUNG BARONESS YOUNG: I beg to move Amendment No. 59.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 4, leave out from ("statement") to ("be") in line 6 and insert ("and any dispute as to a person's entitlement to compensation in pursuance of paragraph (b) of this subsection or as to the amount of the compensation shall").—(Baroness Young.)
Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 9 [Special provisions for land occupied by disposal authorities]:
6.35 p.m.
LORD CRAIGTON LORD CRAIGTON moved Amendment No. 63:
Page 12, line 6, leave out ("twenty-one") and insert ("twenty-eight").
The noble Lord said: We had a discussion on this point on Amendments 32 and 33, where I wanted to insert "twenty-eight" and the noble Lord, Lord Henley, who I am sorry is not here, put in an alternative form of words which the noble Baroness accepted on the understanding that I would withdraw my Amendment 32. May I ask the noble Baroness if she would afford me the same courtesy, that

1131
I withdraw this Amendment on her undertaking to look at a similar form of words as that given by the noble Lord, Lord Henley, on Amendment No. 33? I beg to move.
BARONESS YOUNG: Yes, I am glad to give that undertaking.
LORD CRAIGTON: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
BARONESS WHITE BARONESS WHITE moved Amendment No. 67:
Page 13, line 32, leave out paragraph (c).
The noble Baroness said: The only purpose of drawing attention to Amendment 67 is, as has been mentioned on a number of occasions, that one is a little concerned that an authority is judging its own cause. Paragraph (c) says:
"the disposal authority may disregard any water authority or collection authority or, as the case may be, any river purification authority"—
that should be North of the Border—
"or general planning authority for the purposes of the preceding provisions … in relation to a resolution which, in the opinion of the disposal authority will not affect the other authority."
This means that it is left entirely and exclusively to the disposal authority, if I have understood it aright, to decide whether or not it affects the other authority, and the other authority might disagree. So it does affect us, but the other authority appears to have no recourse to any procedure whereby it might make felt its own opinions. I do not want to labour the point unduly, but would like to know how the Government view this. I beg to move.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: As the noble Baroness, Lady White, has said, this is really much the same point as we have discussed once or twice before. May I say that what the noble Baroness has said as to how the situation stands is unquestionably right: we are setting up the authorities and giving them powers. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, who said they are going to be responsible and respectable authorities and we should trust them. I really do not believe that I have a great deal to add to what we have said on this a number of times already. I hope that this will satisfy
1132
the noble Baroness. One has to accept that her point is perfectly valid. On the other hand, we have come to accept that we now have the balance about right.
LORD HUGHES: I do not remember saying that, but I would have said it if it had occurred to me.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: We will have to study the Record to-morrow.
BARONESS WHITE: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: This is purely a drafting Amendment to simplify the sentence. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 32, leave out from ("any") to end of line 34 and insert ("other").—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: Amendment No. 70 is also a drafting Amendment. It brings the wording of subsection (8)(b) into line with Clause 5(3)(b) which is a parallel provision in the licensing code. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 2, leave out ("altering") and insert ("modifying").—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
LORD STOW HILL: May I ask the noble Lord whether it is really worth while going to the trouble of changing the word "altering" into the word "modifying"; and, if it is, will he explain what is the difference between the two words? If the word "modifying" conveys the precise connotation which the Government wish why was it not put in before? If the word "altering" conveys that connotation why was not the word "altering" put in the other clause to which the noble Lord referred? There are a number of these changes, and I respectfully submit to the Government that it is hardly justifiable to take the time of the Committee and incur the expense of printing and all the rest of it to make this sort of change, which should not be necessary.
VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN: May I ask whether Her Majesty's Government have altered their mind or modified it?
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: I think the justification for wanting to alter it at all is really to get the same word in both cases. My difficulty, noble Lords will not be surprised to hear, is that I did not draft the Bill, and I think that is just as well; otherwise a great many more modifications or alterations would have been required. I do not think I can go further than to say that I agree it is regrettable and we should try to see that it happens as rarely as possible.
BARONESS WHITE: We entirely sympathise with the noble Lord, but this does rather emphasise the point I made at the very outset, that, no doubt for adequate Departmental reasons, there are a great many Government Amendments to this Bill. I mention this only because we are taking a great deal of time in Committee and there may be grumbles from some of our colleagues that we are doing so. But when we have (I think it is now) about 100 Government Amendments at this stage of a Bill, it does mean, as my noble friend has said, that we are having to spend a lot of time on things which one would normally have expected to be sorted out earlier.
On Question, whether Clause 9, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD STOW HILL: Again I do not want to take time on what may appear to be a drafting point, but this is a little more than drafting. If your Lordships look at this clause, at the bottom of page 11 you find the words:
"a condition which … is required to be included in or excluded from a disposal licence".
Then if you look on page 13, line 16, you find the same words:
"a condition which by virtue of section 4(6) of this Act is required to be included in or excluded from a disposal licence".
If you do in fact do what you are asked to do, and look at subsection (6) of Clause 4, you find, as we have already had brought to notice, that the wording there is not "included or excluded"; it is "specified or not specified". If the Government are so keen on using analo-
1134
gous language in particular parts of the Bill, why do they not follow their own precedent in that particular case as well?
Subsection (6) and subsection (7) of Clause 4 have already been the subject of extensive Amendments which we have considered earlier, and as to which I ventured to direct some criticism with regard to the language chosen; and Ministers were good enough to say that they would like to reconsider that language. Here again we are starting with the words "specified or not specified"; then they become "excluded or not excluded". What is the difference? Why do the Government not use the same language if they really want to use the same language. It is a little more than just a drafting matter because in my submission the difference in wording makes for obscurity and makes it difficult to understand precisely what is in the Government's mind. This Bill is, after all, one that is likely to affect very large numbers of citizens in all sorts of positions, and it is desirable not to pose more puzzles than can be avoided in the framing of legislation. I hope that Ministers will once again, with their advisers, look at this particular part of the clause that we are asked to pass.
BARONESS YOUNG: I have of course listened with great care, as I always do on these matters, to what the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, has said, and as he has drawn our attention to another point I will certainly have a look at it. Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, and the noble Baroness, Lady White, I have never been a Member of another place, so I have never sat in on a Committee stage of a Bill introduced for the first time in another place and I do not know the proportion of Government Amendments that one has to introduce in that position. I had understood that it was very much the wish of your Lordships' House that major pieces of legislation should be introduced first into this House and the Government have acceded to that request, not only to secure a better balance between the two Houses, but because this is very much the kind of Bill on which this House has a great number of experts to bring to bear to meet the very real points that arise. It may well be that because the Bill has been introduced here first there are a number of Amendments to be made. Of course, one

1135
wants to keep them down as much as possible, but this is the right time to do it. It is very necessary to get the Bill right. It will possibly mean yet another Government Amendment, but I certainly undertake to look at the point the noble Lord has raised.
Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 10 [Collection of Waste]:
6.50 p.m.
BARONESS WHITE BARONESS WHITE moved Amendment No. 70A:
Page 14, line 26, leave out ("household waste") and insert ("house refuse")
The noble Baroness said: I have been asked on behalf of my noble friend Lord Energlyn to move this Amendment and to apologise to the Committee for his inability to be here. I think it would be for the general convenience if with this Amendment we took also Nos. 74A, 80A, 96A and 129A, which all refer to the same point. It may appear to be just a matter of choice of words or of phrase, but I am advised that it is really something of substance.
The term "house refuse" is used in the Public Health Act 1936, whereas in this Bill the term "household waste" is used. The term "house refuse" was apparently defined in a case as recently as October 19, 1973, in the Queen's Bench Division. It was defined in terms of the nature of the waste rather than the place of origin, whereas in this Bill the definition is by place of origin rather than the nature of the waste. This being so, it has been pointed out to us that there could be some difficulties.
In the definition clause, Clause 22, subsection (3) says:
"household waste consists of waste from a private dwelling or residential home or premises forming part of a university or school or other educational establishment or forming part of a hospital, nursing home, museum or art gallery;"
There is an Amendment down to extend that definition to include boarding houses, and such like. From all these establishments some of the waste, and perhaps the greater part of it, would be what has hitherto been referred to as "house refuse". It is quite possible that from any one of these establishments other kinds of waste might emanate. For ex-
1136
ample, a house might be used as a dwelling but also as an office. There might be considerable quantities of waste paper which would be quite abnormal from a household, and it would be a commercial establishment. This would not be "household waste" in the normal sense of the term.
More serious is the position of universities, or certain other educational establishments with laboratories which might have highly toxic waste. Of course, from hospitals there might be highly toxic chemical waste or surgical dressings to be disposed of. Normally, one would expect them to be disposed of on the premises, but circumstances might arise in which the authority might be expected to collect them. Therefore we are somewhat concerned about this new definition of "household waste" which, I repeat, defines it by its place of origin and not by its nature. As the nature of "house-refuse" has been so recently determined in the courts, it seemed right to my noble friend to draw the attention of your Lordships' House to this fact, and to find out why the Government have decided to change the basis of the definition, particularly as there are serious apprehensions regarding the position in relation to hospitals and non-commercial laboratories, and the like.
I am advised that trade refuse has not been defined in the courts, and therefore the expressions used in this Bill of "commercial waste" and "industrial waste" respectively are not open to the same objection that is held against the term "household waste". It is for these reasons that my noble friend thought it would be advisable for the Committee at least to consider reverting to the expression used in the Public Health Act 1936 and reinforced by a recent court decision, and that "house refuse" should be referred to rather than "household waste". I beg to move.
6.54 p.m.
LORD HAWKE: My interest in this clause of the Bill is to try to see that waste is collected by the local authorities and is not left lying about the countryside. When cutting a ditch that runs along my road frontage the other day I came upon a nice new little dump behind the fence of what appeared to be some building waste. In my wandering around the countryside, I find that a good deal

1137
of the dumping in my part of the world consists of this type of waste. I assume that it is the product of do-it-yourself activities in the home, and that the local authority will not take the stuff in the ordinary collection of the dustbins. From the definitions in the definition clause, I cannot see that that is "industrial waste" because it does not come from a premises used for a factory. It is not "commercial waste" because it does not come from premises used wholly or mainly for the purposes of a trade, so it can only be "household waste".
I hope that this will therefore mean that the local authorities will be forced to accept these empty paint tins and odd bits of pipe and wallpaper, et cetera, which so disfigure our Sussex country lanes. If this Amendment is accepted, I rather doubt whether "house refuse" would cover these particular things. It may well be that "household waste" would not cover them either, but I have greater hope for "household waste" than I have for "house refuse". Therefore I hope that the noble Baroness may be able, when she replies, to elucidate this rather important point for the dwellers of rural Sussex.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: It may be convenient if, instead of speaking to Amendments Nos. 72 and 73 after this Amendment has been disposed of, I intervene here, because listening to my noble friend Lady White and the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, I feel that we need some enlightenment. My noble friend Lady White drew attention to the definition in Clause 22 of private dwellings and waste. It is clear from what the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, has said that there is confusion, or at least lack of clarity, as to what is intended. One has a great deal of sympathy with him in the predicament that he has described where somebody has dumped builders' waste on his property. However, I do not think that we ought to regard builders' waste as being covered by his experience. It can, and I think often does, produce much larger quantities than he probably has had to deal with. We therefore need a statement making clear the Government's intentions, not only in regard to builders' waste but in regard to organic garden refuse, which in the overwhelming
1138
majority of cases could quite clearly be dealt with by way of compost heaps.
If the collection authority is to be required to take builders' waste, there is a point at which I think they ought to be free to refuse to do so because there will be occasions when the builder, or who-ever is responsible for producing it, could deal with that situation himself. As and where they collect builders' waste, and indeed organic garden refuse, surely we ought to be considering whether they should be allowed to charge for so collecting it.
LORD HAWKE: I think that we are talking of two different things here. Genuine builders' waste is the stuff that the builder carts away and takes to his yard. Of course there are proper arrangements for that, and I presume that it would count as "industrial waste" under the definition clause. My observations lead me to believe that an enormous amount of the dumping is of small quantities of stuff, probably dumped by the householder himself after doing small jobs around the house, or perhaps by a hired craftsman coming in in the evening, or something like that.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: I take the noble Lord's point. I am not at all sure that builders' waste will always come under the heading of "industrial waste". It will be interesting to see what the Government have to say on that point. It would be helpful if we could be told exactly what prescribed cases are likely to be, and whether, in point of fact, the matters which have been raised in this discussion would be included under that heading.
VISCOUNT AMORY: I am sure the whole Committee will wish to sympathise with my noble friend Lord Hawke. I had always imagined that my noble friend lived in the most beautiful property, situated in a most delightful part of the country. But on Tuesday he spoke movingly of a sewer on the beach above the high water mark; and then he wrung our hearts with the desciption of a moving river of broiler manure which crossed the land before going into a stream. Now we hear that behind every bush there is refuse from a builder. I feel sure that our hearts bleed for my noble friend.
7.2. p.m.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: Even if our hearts are being made to bleed, as Lord Amory has said, Lord Hawke is quite right: we do want to make local authorities collect do-it-yourself builders' materials for a charge. This is a point which my noble friend Lady Young will be dealing with in a moment. I will also, if I may, leave her to deal with Lord Garnsworthy's Amendments Nos. 72 and 73, because Lady White and Lord Energlyn, as one might reasonably suppose, have picked up a quite thorny problem here.
May I first call in aid the fact that the Institute of Public Cleansing has recently seen fit to alter its name to the "Institute of Solid Waste Management". This is not a totally frivolous comment, because the expression "waste" was quite deliberately used in this Bill. There has been a gradual change, I understand, in the terminology which has been used. "Refuse" has been the traditional term, and "waste" is now used as the more embracing term. This point was also touched upon in the Browne Report. The Browne Report suggested that the best way to distinguish the different sorts of waste was to attach the types of premises from which they came. I think this is the general concept underlying the attempts at definition but it has to be admitted that in this Bill we had not hoped to define these terms too exhaustively. It may be said that this is an unwise thing to do. There is no getting away from the fact that there are intricate problems in the definition and classification of waste, and these are very hard to get absolutely right.
We quite accept that we may need to modify the definition—I am using that word again, but I hope I shall get away with it—in Clause 22 in the light of the discussion here and comment from outside. There is already one Amendment which will be necessary to make clear that mine and quarry wastes are excluded from the definition of industrial as well as commercial waste. That is one example. Regulations under Clause 22(4) may well be needed to sort out some of the finer details here as well. We may then need to make some Amendment to clarify the distinction between waste for the purposes of Part I and the effluents or discharges for the purposes of Part II. I would rather suspect that
1140
the noble Lord, Lord Hawke's, river of broiler manure might come in either of these categories. I do not know that anybody had really contemplated that we were talking about quite that sort of river.
Finally, we may need also to adjust Clause 22(5). I realise I am not giving an altogether satisfactory answer to the noble Baroness, but I would say that the decision was quite deliberately taken with the very best of intentions. I dare say that in whatever we do we shall not get it 100 per cent. right, because it appears that the definitions are, to a certain extent, unclear; furthermore, they appear to be changing. So far as this particular group of Amendments is concerned, we should like to retain the words we have used in the Bill at the present time.
BARONESS WHITE: I am most grateful to the noble Lord. Could he tell me whether the Government propose to amend the Public Health Act, 1936? It may be mentioned in this Bill and I may have missed it. It would lead to great confusion if one had a Public Health Act with one definition and a Protection of the Environment Act with a different definition. I am just not sure. I am not asking for an off-the-cuff answer, but perhaps we could be saved a little trouble later on if we were to be told whether we are trying to amend that particular section of the Public Health Act. I do not have the precise reference here. I am sure the noble Lord takes the point that if one has two definitions in two cognate Acts, the result can be awkward. I would suppose that the best thing for me to do on behalf of my noble friend Lord Energlyn is to seek leave to withdraw this Amendment, but to hope that when we reach the end of Part I—although it does not look as though we are going to get there to-night as I had hoped we were—we might have a little more information on the definition clause, when the Government have had time to give further thought to this. It is exactly this kind of thing that can lead to so much friction, bother and disputation in a locality.
Noble Lords will realise that according to the definition of the type of waste the local authority may charge or not charge, as the case may be. Although there is a considerable discretion left to

1141
the local authority, if something is defined as household waste then, as I understand it, the local authority, cannot charge. There are certain types of waste for which, as my noble friend Lord Garnsworthy pointed out, they would wish to charge and they thought a charge was justified; and yet, as the definition now stands, if such type of waste emanated from a household they would not be able to charge. In other circumstances, for other types of waste, they have a discretion whether to charge or not. But for household waste, as I understand it, they do not have this discretion; it falls within the actual definition of household waste.
From the point of view of the administration of this Part of the Act, which will be a very close domestic matter to many people, we have a duty to try to be as clear as possible. I fully take the point of my noble Lord that this is difficult, that the situation is changing. The technical people are changing in their point of view as to how best to define it, and so on. We are not in the least unsympathetic about it. It is just that in matters of this sort it is our duty to try to get the legislation as clear as we can, and as free as we can from possible misunderstanding. At this point of time, I wish to seek leave to withdraw the Amendment.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: Before the noble Baroness withdraws the Amendment, may I take the opportunity to confirm that the Public Health Act will indeed be repealed. I think it says that on the front page of the Bill.
BARONESS WHITE: I beg the noble Lord's pardon.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: I can confirm that that is the intention. We are most grateful to the noble Baroness and to the noble Lord, Lord Energlyn, for their efforts to give us help. Obviously we shall need all the help we can get. I believe that during the course of these discussions we may learn something which will enable us in the end to get the thing nearly right.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.10 p.m.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD moved Amendment No. 71:
Page 14, line 28, after ("place") insert ("(other than a location used as a caravan site)").
The noble Viscount said: I am afraid that in putting down this Amendment I have left out one word, and in speaking about the Amendment I hope the noble Baroness, Lady Young, will understand that I meant to include that word, although I realise that because of its omission the Amendment cannot be accepted. The word which I want to include is "licensed", so that the Amendment should read:
"other than a location used as a licensed caravan site".
When I put down this Amendment I was thinking, in particular, of remote areas in the Scottish Highlands where there are caravan sites at present and where, in future, there will probably be a lot more. Though I am not, on the whole, worried by Clause 10(1)(a)(i) which states:
"(i) which is situated at a place which in the opinion of the authority is so isolated",
I am worried about the word "isolated". A caravan has to be pulled to its site by a car, so a lorry can also go to collect waste. Therefore, although I am not worried about inaccessibility, how are we to interpret the word "isolated"? Does it mean so many miles from a town or a village, or so many miles from a main road, a secondary road, a council road or a private road? The word "isolated" could be interpreted in different ways by various collection authorities. If the noble Baroness cannot give me very good reasons why the collection authorities cannot be made to collect refuse from all licensed caravan sites, I shall put down an Amendment on Report which includes the word "licensed". I beg to move.
BARONESS YOUNG: I am very glad that the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, has put this all-important word into his Amendment, because I can now tell him that his Amendment is met by the Bill. In subsection (1) of Clause 22, the definition clause, a private dwelling is defined as a hereditament under the General Rate Act 1967 and is, roughly speaking, a house or building or something used as a home, or a caravan situated on a caravan site under the Caravan

1143
Sites and Control of Development Act 1960.
The noble Viscount made a separate point about collecting waste from isolated caravans. The difficulty is that the clause as drafted provides that collection authorities need not collect waste from outlying premises if they are so isolated or inaccessible that the cost of collection would be unreasonably high, provided they are satisfied that satisfactory alternative arrangements can be made. What we wish to prevent is a local authority deciding that it will not collect from any of these places, so the Bill provides that an authority cannot use the escape provision to provide a reduced service or no service at all for household waste, unless the authority is
"… satisfied that adequate arrangements for its disposal have been or can reasonably be expected to be made"
by the householders themselves. In our view, the provisions of Clause 10(1)(a) taken together give reasonable consideration to people who live in inaccessible places, whether in houses or in caravans. I have explained this point at some length because the noble Viscount raised it on Second Reading and, as I said, the purpose of his Amendment is met by the Bill.
BARONESS WHITE: May we have an assurance from the noble Baroness that there will be some sort of guidance given to local authorities? I live in a fairly remote district and I think I am at the end of the line for refuse collection. What worries me is the larger items which normal households cannot be expected to dispose of, such as worn-out bedsteads, prams and so on. Even things like refrigerators wear out, and even people in fairly remote areas have them. But the ghastly dumps of indestructible rubbish pose a problem for rural authorities and they are extremely reluctant to collect objects of that kind.
If proper arrangements were made—I do not mean weekly or even monthly collections, but, let us say, collections in the first week of each quarter—and if local authorities were notified that they had a duty to arrange for rubbish to be collected, we should not have these ghastly dumps by the sides of streams, in quarries and in depressions in the ground, which may
1144
not be seen by very many people but which are quite horrifying when one comes across them. I regret to say that there are some in the area in which I live and they are horribly unsightly, yet one very often has great sympathy with the people concerned. However, I have no sympathy with a man who leaves a car to rot—and I have one not very far from my home—because one assumes that he should have been able to leave it to rot somewhere else, where it might be more easily taken away. There are items of household equipment which are very difficult to get rid of and if people do not have adequate transport, such as estate cars, it is difficult to dispose of them. I wonder whether the noble Baroness can give us some sort of assurance on this point, which is not quite the same as the point raised by the noble Viscount.
VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN: Before the noble Baroness replies, can she answer one other point? Does this provision cover a mobile home, which consists of two caravans stuck together and which, to all intents and purposes, is a permanent structure with proper drainage? Quite a number of these hybrid affairs are being used in Scotland as emergency measures, and I have never discovered how they are defined.
LORD CRAIGTON: I am not quite clear about the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Massereene and Ferrard. Paragraph (ii) of subsection (1)(a) states:
"… as to which the authority is satisfied that adequate arrangements for its disposal have been or am reasonably be expected to be made by a person who controls the waste".
The person who controls the waste is the owner of the licensed site. The people who use the caravans come and go week by week; so is there any sanction against the owner of the caravan site if the site is left dirty? What guarantee has the user of the caravan that the owner is going to do the work expected of him; and, if he does not do it, what happens to the owner then? I can see no provision for a fine, or anything like that, in the Bill.
BARONESS YOUNG: Perhaps I may deal first with the points which the noble Baroness, Lady White, raised, because I think they are the points which in fact come up on the later Amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy—Amendments Nos. 72 and 73. It is certainly our intention that the collection

1145
authorities should be able to collect these large items which every household seems to produce and needs to get rid of at intervals—the organic garden refuse, the builders' rubble, the remains of the do-it-yourself materials and so on. Clause 10(3), which deals with charges for the collection of waste, includes provisions for regulations to be made about charges for certain types of household waste, and they would be charges for these substantial items. The difference arises in this way. A collection authority would collect free household waste provided it could go into something like a dustbin, but the difficulty arises when there are things which will not go into a dustbin. Here, provision would be made for the collection authority to take those things away and to make a charge for that service. The same provisions would apply whether the collection authority was collecting in a town or in the country; and the level of its charges would, of course, be a matter for it to decide. But the intention is that it would be responsible for removing such items. I hope that that gives the noble Baroness the assurance she was seeking.
I was asked a question about mobile homes. My understanding is that the answer is: Yes, the collection authority would collect from a mobile home if that home is on a site and is rated as a home. That is to say, it brings it into line with the position of a caravan on a licensed site; and, therefore, it is covered. If it is not so situated but is somewhere else, then we should have to make provision for collections from it by regulations. I am extremely sorry, but I have not a note of what the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, asked me. Would he be kind enough to repeat his question?
LORD CRAIGTON: It was that, under the Bill,
"It shall be the duty of each collection authority … to arrange for the collection of all household waste in its area except waste—
"… as to which the authority is satisfied that adequate arrangements for its disposal have been or can reasonably be expected to be made by a person who controls the waste".
In the case of a licensed caravan site, the person who controls the waste is presumably the proprietor of the site, because the persons using the licensed caravan site would come and go each week. So presumably we would look to the proprietor
1146
of the site. But if he does not do what is expected of him by the collection authority, what sanction has the collection authority over him?
BARONESS YOUNG: I think the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, has raised a very difficult point. The object of this clause is that a local authority shall collect from isolated places, whether they are caravans, homes or mobile homes, but perhaps not as regularly as they would collect from homes in a town. However, there are instances, of which we can all think, of isolated caravans, where the owner of the site cannot always be held responsible for the refuse that is left behind. As I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, is only too well aware, this is a problem which arises frequently in, for example, gypsy encampments, and it is not really an easy matter to resolve. I can only say that this is a matter to which we have given a great deal of thought, and I wish I could provide an easy solution to it; but I think it would be very rash of me to attempt to do so on this occasion.
LORD HAWKE: The noble Baroness has given certain assurances (though they did not apply to this particular Amendment), but I am afraid that her assurance was only to the effect that the present bad old system is to go on; in other words, people are going to be charged for the collection of anything that will not go into a dustbin. So long as people are charged for the collection of any form of household refuse they will much prefer to go out on a dark night—they have all got motor cars these days—and dump it over a fence.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: I thank the noble Baroness for what she had to say about organic waste and about builders' waste. When I intervened just now, I was hoping to save the time of the Committee, but I trust she will forgive me if I press her a little on this, because she indicated that if organic waste or builders' waste was placed in a bin then that was all right. I should like to inquire whether there is any notion of the maximum number of bins that might be used, because quite clearly the person who wants u use the public collection service could acquire ten or a dozen bins, and really could abuse the privilege of having his refuse collected. I do not know whether

1147
any thought has been given to it, but it seems to me that it is a point worthy of consideration. Perhaps I may say that in the light of what she has said I shall not be moving Amendments Nos. 72 or 73.
BARONESS YOUNG: On this point, I think that if one looks at the definition of household waste in the definition clause one sees that the whole point of it is that it is tied to the premises, and not to the type of waste. When I drew this distinction I was assuming dustbins in a house. I suppose that there is nothing in law to prevent anybody from having 25 dustbins if they want them, but the point is that the frequency of the occasions on which there are large things to be disposed of is not every week, as is the case with the normal household collection. Therefore, what we are talking about is the special collection. It may well be that this is a possible abuse which should be looked at, but I should have thought it was certainly not a matter which we would need to incorporate in the Bill. This would be something very much for the collection authority itself; and I cannot see it being indulged in on the kind of scale the noble Lord is talking about, because otherwise we would be talking about industrial premises.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: I thank the noble Baroness for the very full explanation she has given regarding this great problem of caravan waste. I think I am right in saying that I can add in the word "licensed", even if I do not at present have it in my Amendment. I think I am correct in saying that; so I hope the noble Baroness will take it that my Amendment should have read:
"other than a location used as a licensed caravan site".
I hope the Government will take this question of caravan waste very seriously (and from the noble Baroness's speech I think they will) because, as I said, it is a growing—perhaps "menace" is not the right word, but caravanning is a growing custom. I come across this particularly in the Highlands, and although I myself do not have a caravan site I have a great number of caravans on my land. I do not charge them anything, and I do not like to turn caravans away; but we do get this great trouble of waste, and at the moment I have to collect it and dispose of it. So
1148
I hope the noble Baroness will do all she can to see that this question of caravan waste is fully covered. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.30 p.m.
LORD GARNSWORTHY LORD GARNSWORTHY moved Amendment No. 75:
Page 15, line 7, leave out from ("and") to end of line 8 and insert—

("(a) in the case of industrial waste, it shall be the duty of that authority to recover the charge, and

(b) in the case of commercial waste, it shall be the duty of that authority to recover the charge unless the authority considers it inappropriate to do so").

The noble Lord said: This Amendment is to Clause 10(3), which deals with charges for collecting waste other than household waste except in certain prescribed cases, which we have been discussing. The collection and disposal authorities will, for the first time, have a clear power to collect industrial waste. The clause provides also that reasonable charges should be made for the collection of industrial and commercial waste. My Amendment seeks to differentiate between industrial and commercial waste. In respect of industrial waste it would ensure that a charge would be made. I think that this is reasonable since most industrial waste is disposed of either by the firm which produces it or by private contractors. What remains will have little or no value other than an acute nuisance value. All the valuable waste will be handled privately and it is reasonable that a charge should be made for handling what I would term the non-lucrative waste that remains. So far as commercial waste is concerned the Amendment would give the collection and the disposal authority discretion, as is proposed in the clause. I beg to move.
VISCOUNT AMORY: What the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, has said would seem reasonable at first sight. I find it difficult to think of a case involving industrial waste where it would not be fair to make some charge, and I shall be interested to hear what my noble friend has to say.
LORD MERRIVALE: I feel that this Amendment is inequitable. If it were accepted an authority would be under a fixed obligation to recover reasonable

1149
charges for the collection and disposal of industrial waste, but would not have the same obligation in respect of commercial waste, a point which was made by the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy. But it seems to me inequitable and unfair. There could be occasions when an authority might deem it inappropriate to recover the charge; for instance, in an area where it might be highly desirable to attract industry. Similar conditions could apply in respect of trade. It seems to me, therefore, that this Amendment is unfair and discriminatory, and I hope that my noble friend will not accept it.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: The Government accept the spirit of the Amendment. As is so often the case in these matters, it is a little more complex than might first appear. The Amendment would impose a duty without qualification to recover a reasonable charge in respect of industrial waste. It is true to say that it is unlikely that there would be many cases where the authority would have grounds for exempting any industrial waste from the payment. In that sense the Amendment clarifies the Government's intention.
There is something in what was said by my noble friend Lord Merrivale. I think that I should perhaps go on to say a general word about charging policy. It sets out a difficulty in which we all find ourselves. When discussing this Amendment we are talking about commercial and industrial users. There are conflicting pressures on the Government, and therefore on the Committee, when thinking about this clause. On the one hand, industry urges us that waste collection and disposal facilities should be provided as cheaply as possible so that their costs may be limited. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, suggested this might be a way to induce industry to come to some areas. As against that, the private waste disposal industry will say that it is very important that waste disposal authorities should cover their costs fully and charge commercial rates for their disposal service so that they do not undercut the private operators. The third view is that of the local authorities who are keen to have reasonable discretion to determine appropriate charges for themselves without
1150
having the straitjacket of too many statutory formulae of the kind which is, perhaps, suggested in the Amendment.
We believe that all these objectives are quite admirable, but unfortunately they tend to move in the opposite direction to each other. We have therefore proposed a rather broad working of the clause, requiring the authorities to make a reasonable charge except in special circumstances where they consider that it would be inappropriate. What is reasonable will have to be worked out in the light of local circumstances. In the view of the Government, there is no doubt that it would be right and reasonable that the authorities should charge a price for waste disposal services which would cover the cost and the overheads of the services provided. They should compete on fair terms with the private sector which is providing similar services. But we do not rule out the possibility that in exceptional circumstances a higher or a lower charge might be appropriate to deal with a particular problem. We would hope that this would be covered by the words, "reasonable charge", and therefore we feel that this Amendment is not appropriate.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal, for the attention that he has given to the Amendment. Probably he took the steam out of a great deal of what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, when he drew attention to the possibility of a local authority undercutting a private contractor. I am grateful to the noble Lord for indicating that he sees a great deal in what I am aiming at. I do not know whether it would be worth looking at this during the next stage in the progress of the Bill. I do not accept that industry will be attracted to an area by the inducement of a free collection of waste. A great deal of industrial waste has value, and as time goes on it may well have a greater value. Many people in industry will be alive to what they can get from the disposal of valuable waste and local authorities ought not to be left with the residue. But I appreciate what has been said, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.40 p.m.
LORD STOW HILL LORD STOW HILL moved Amendment No. 76:
Page 15, line 14, leave out paragraph (b).
The noble and learned Lord said: I would say right away that the object of this Amendment is purely probing. Those with whom noble Lords on this side of the Committee have been in touch, and who kindly offered us advice about matters which seemed to them to require further probing, feel some concern about the practical implications of this paragraph. They are anxious to know, and would be grateful if Ministers would state, what, roughly speaking, is the measure of the obligation which could be put on a collection authority by the paragraph which relates to cesspools. I cannot claim any great expertise in that field, and in putting the questions which I wish to put I am relying very much on the advice I have received.
The clause puts the absolute obligation on the collection authority, if requested by a person who controls a cesspool, to take the steps described in the paragraph; that is to say—
"… to remove such of the contents of the cesspool as the authority considers appropriate on payment if the authority so requires of a reasonable charge;".
The phrase "as the authority considers appropriate", would obviously require a very nice and careful exercise of judgment. The cesspool in question is described as one—
"… serving only one or more private dwellings …"
in the area of the collection authority, and in order to try to measure the extent of the obligation imposed by that paragraph one has to look at the definition of a private dwelling in Clause 22. One finds there that a private dwelling is described as "lands and heritages used wholly or mainly for the purposes of a private dwelling or private dwellings." A caravan is defined in the 1960 Act and I quote—
"… which usually and for the time being is situated on a caravan site within the meaning of that Act;".
Those, in the ordinary sense are private dwellings or a caravan.
When the Committee was considering the Amendment standing in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, we touched on this question to
1152
some extent, but here we are dealing with the cesspool itself. The questions that have occurred to those who have advised us can be put in this way: when one speaks of "one or more private dwellings", could it be said that those words would have the effect of making it necessary and obligatory in the case of a collection authority to remove the contents of a cesspool which supplied the whole of, say, an estate? One would have thought on the language that the answer to that question would be "yes", if, as a fact, there are cesspools which serve all the dwellings on an estate. I should have thought that Ministers would have said the answer to that first question which those with whom we are in contact desire to put here would be "Yes"; but I should be grateful if the Minister would tell me in terms whether I am right or wrong.
Then there is the question of caravans. The question it is suggested I should put there is: would the cesspool in question be a cesspool serving a number of caravans on the site—is that what is envisaged?—or would it be the cesspool which served the ablutions block on the site on which the caravans were situated? Those questions may seem a little abstruse but they are, so I am advised, questions which have very practical implications for those on whom the obligations described in this paragraph will descend. Any further comments that Ministers would feel it proper to make as to the scope of this obligation would be very much appreciated. I have just instanced two or three practical problems which seem to arise in the language which is used in the paragraph, and any information that Ministers can give on the scope of paragraph (b) will be greatly appreciated. I beg to move.
BARONESS YOUNG: The noble and learned Lord, Lord Stow Hill, has indicated that what he would like is an indication of the meaning of this part of the clause and of its scope. I will do my best to answer him. The background to the clause is the fact that the Public Health Act of 1936 gives local authorities a discretionary power to undertake the cleaning of privies and cesspools, subject to direction by the Secretary of State. We believe—and this has emerged from subsequent reports—that this is an unsatisfactory situation because there is not

1153
a general duty on authorities to do this work. We feel this should be put right now in the Bill.
The particular portion of the clause to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stow Hill, has drawn our attention is that concerned with cesspools, and these are usually applied to dwellings, often cottages, which obviously have inadequate and unhygienic forms of sanitation in rural areas, where it is impossible to provide main drainage or where the cost of doing so would be prohibitive. Sometimes, of course, there is no mains water supply and there is insufficient land attached to the cottage. What happens is, first, in the case of a privy, that there should be a free emptying service by the local authority, which is the best that can be done. The words include the following—
"… as the authority considers appropriate",
and it is intended to give authorities discretion as to the frequency of emptying privies and to relieve householders of the necessity of asking for this service. It is considered right that it should be provided free of charge, since the people still without sanitation are often elderly or of limited means.
In the case of a cesspool, this is defined as
"… a settlement tank or other tank for the reception or disposal of foul matter from buildings".
Subsection (4) places a duty on the collection authority in England and Wales to remove on request such contents of the cesspool as the authority considers appropriate. This is because in some cases it would be impractical and unnecessary to require the complete emptying of a cesspool. The duty applies only to cesspools serving dwellings, although authorities are also given a discretionary power to clean any other cesspool and to make a charge. This is intended to include cesspools serving commercial or industrial premises, and I should think that, in the context of the examples given by the noble Lord of a housing estate, a caravan or the ablutions block on a caravan site, what we are saying is that where this service is provided reasonable charges may be made. The fact is that it is a duty to provide a service, but the decision as
1154
to how it is done and how a charge shall be made is at the discretion of the authority.
LORD STOW HILL: I should like to thank the noble Baroness very sincerely for that answer, which I am sure will be greatly valued. It gives a great deal of information to those who are concerned. I am most grateful to her, and shall be glad if the Committee will allow me to withdraw the Amendment.
LORD HUGHES: Before the Amendment is withdrawn, may I ask why, in a later part of the clause, it is provided that this particular part we have been discussing shall not apply in Scotland? Is it because there is no intention of doing anything at all about cesspools in Scotland, or is it that there are already arrangements for dealing with them without charge?
BARONESS YOUNG: I always feel very hesitant about speaking on Scottish matters. The noble Lord is quite right in saying that the reference in subsection (4) to cesspools shall not apply to Scotland. I understand that the cleansing of cesspools is already covered by Section 10 of the Sewerage (Scotland) Act 1968, which provides that a local authority—after local government reorganisation the region or islands council—may resolve to empty all septic tanks in its area or any specified part of it. If the council's resolution is approved by the Secretary of State the authority is under a duty to empty at reasonable intervals septic tanks except those receiving trade effluent or tanks which are public sewage treatment works. It seems to me that Scotland is covered, and I hope that meets the point.
LORD HUGHES: I am grateful to the noble Baroness.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: Having regard to what the noble Baroness said in reply to my noble and learned friend Lord Stow Hill, I shall not be moving my Amendment No. 77.
7.53 p.m.
LORD GARNSWORTHY LORD GARNSWORTHY moved Amendment No. 78:
Page 15, line 26, at end insert—
("(4A) It shall be the duty of each collection authority to consult the relevant disposal authority before introducing any change in its collection arrangements which would be likely

1155
to have a material effect on the disposal operations of that authority and which in particular relates to—

(a) a material increase or decrease in the amount of, or a change in the character of, waste collected by it;

(b) a decision to collect or stop collecting any kind of controlled waste or any other kind of waste which it delivers to a disposal authority;

(c) a decision to stop, increase or reduce paper salvage collection;

(d) a change in the frequency of waste collections; or

(e) a change in the type of collection vehicle used by it.")

The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 78. Provision is made in the Bill for disposal authorities to consult with other authorities on many of their activities, for instance in the preparation and modification of waste disposal plans under Clause 2 of the Bill. It would make for greater efficiency if collection authorities were likewise to be under a duty to consult with disposal authorities in circumstances where the collection authorities were altering their arrangements in such a way as materially to affect the operation of the disposal authorities. The particular circumstances listed in the Amendment, as set out in paragraphs (a) to (e), would all be potentially of vital importance to disposal authorities. I am certain that advantage would follow from the consultation that the Amendment seeks to provide.
BARONESS YOUNG: As the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, has quite rightly said, the disposal authorities are under an obligation to consult the collection authorities when they draw up their plans, and to consult them at later stages when they make amendments to them. What this Amendment is asking for is that collection authorities should be under an obligation to consult disposal authorities when they decide to change their arrangements. I sympathise on this point of principle that has been raised, but this again is a case where, if the relationship between the disposal and collection authority is such that suddenly the collection authority decides to change all its arrangements and does not tell the disposal authority, the entire disposal plan will break down because the disposal authority will not be able to alter its arrangements to meet the changed circumstances. What I hope will happen is that there will be consultation at regular intervals over all matters
1156
affecting both the disposal and collection authorities, so that they may always inform one another when they choose either to change the disposal plan or the collection arrangements. I have listened carefully to what the noble Lord has said, and this is the kind of thing we might well consider in some detail when drawing up a circular for guidance to local authorities.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: I am grateful for that reply. The indication that it is a matter that is likely to be dealt with by guidelines in circular letters will go a long way, if not completely, to meet the point I had in mind. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD STOW HILL LORD STOW HILL moved Amendment No. 79:
Page 15, line 39, at end insert ("but the disposal authority or collection authority as the case may be, shall before exercising any of the powers conferred by Part VI of the said Schedule consult any undertaker or other person or persons who in the opinion of the authority will or may be affected by the exercise by the authority of such powers.")
The noble and learned Lord said: This Amendment follows fairly closely, in spirit at any rate, the previous Amendment which my noble friend Lord Garnsworthy has moved in that it relates again to the question of consultation. I am sure that Ministers will agree with me that, for the general scheme as set out in this Bill to work properly and satisfactorily, it is desirable that people should know what others concerned in a similar area are doing. Ministers have been very careful in framing the Bill, and in dealing with suggestions in the course of this debate, to provide adequately and on a practical basis that there should be consultation between the various authorities concerned. The Amendment which I venture to move relates to subsection (5) of Clause 10 and, in particular, to paragraph (a) under the terms of which, in England, a disposal or collection authority for the purpose of collecting waste in pursuance of Clause 10 is to have power to,
"construct, lay and maintain, within or without its areas, pipes for the purpose of collecting waste.…"
Then one finds that there is an ensuing part of the paragraph which applies, for the purpose of laying those pipes, the provisions of Part VI of the Third Schedule

1157
to the Water Act 1945. That is an elaborate and rather lengthy Schedule. It sets out in detail (with which I will not trouble the Committee) the various powers which are vested in water undertakers under the provisions of the 1945 Water Act enabling them to break up streets in order to lay down pipes for the purpose of discharging their functions under the 1945 Act. The Amendment which I move is designed to provide that in the exercise of those powers disposal authorities and collection authorities shall, when they exercise them, have in mind the necessity of consultation with the statutory water undertakers and also any other persons who may be affected, in the sense that they too are concerned with pipes laid down in the particular street in which the disposal authority or collection authority proposes to lay its pipes.
The broad thought behind the Amendment is that there may be a street, and, indeed, probably not infrequently will be, in which the statutory water undertakers and others have laid down pipes and periodically gone to inspect them, repair them and service them. In the same street the disposal authority and the collection authority for the purposes of their duties under Clause 10 will also want to lay pipes and exercise the same powers for the purpose of breaking up streets. Probably in any event a disposal authority and a collection authority, before they embark upon an enterprise of that sort, will take the trouble to get in contact with the water undertaking which may have laid its pipes in that same street in order to ensure that there is no overlapping, no conflict in the execution of the work, and to find out exactly where the pipes are which the statutory water undertaking has laid down. I imagine therefore that consultation will take place.
But it is desirable, in pursuance of the general thinking of the Government, as indicated by Ministers on this aspect of the matter, to lay down precisely that such consultations shall take place. Ministers may say that if one studies closely the provisions of Part VI of Schedule 3 to the 1945 Act, which contains certain provisions relating to consultation, by adapting them with the necessary modifications to subsection (5) of this clause one automatically brings about the result for which I am contending, in that the consultation
1158
provisions will be applied with suitable modifications to the disposal and collection authorities. If that is so, then my Amendment is not necessary. But, if I may say so, I should have thought it rather doubtful whether the consultation provisions do so apply, and that there is sufficient doubt as to whether they do to make it desirable to spell out, in the terms of the subsection, a specific obligation to consult the water undertakers and any other persons who may be concerned. The point is one which, in principle, Ministers accept as they have accepted similar proposals in other parts of this Bill. I move the Amendment not in any spirit of controversy, but merely, I hope, to complete one aspect of the scheme envisaged by the Government, which is extremely necessary and which everyone hopes will function thoroughly satisfactorily and in accordance with the Government's intentions. I beg to move.
BARONESS YOUNG: It may be helpful to the Committee if I explain generally the purpose of subsection (5) of Clause 10. It is, in effect, a forward-looking provision giving the relevant local authorities power to construct, lay and maintain, within or outside their area, pipes for the purpose of collection of waste, and it enables them to contribute towards the costs incurred by another person in this respect—for example, an estate developer. This is put in because my Department's Standing Committee on Research into Refuse Collection, Storage and Disposal has reported on a number of experimental projects in this field.
Now, the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, has quite rightly made the point about consultation. My understanding is that the point he wants to make is met where undertakers' apparatus is concerned. The powers to lay these pipelines will be subject to the Public Utilities Street Works Act 1950, Section 26 of which already provides for such consultations. So this would apply to the local authority. There are, I believe, exceptions to these consultations. For example, undertakers are not required to carry out consultations or submit plans for work relating to service pipelines; that is to say, pipelines connecting premises with the mains in relation to gas, electricity, sewerage and telegraph services. At present, the requirements of the Public Utilities

1159
Street Works Act 1950 would apply to all waste pipelines. There is, we believe, no reason at all why waste pipelines should in any circumstances be treated differently from sewage or gas pipelines or these other public utilities. If there is any point which we feel is perhaps not covered by these Acts in this matter of consultation, we would ourselves bring in an Amendment to meet it. We think that it is all right. But if there is another point to be met, we will do that. I hope that will meet the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill.
LORD STOW HILL: I thank the noble Baroness for that answer. It completely meets my point. I should like to thank the Minister, and ask the permission of the Committee to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.4 p.m.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL moved Amendment No. 80:
Page 16, line 2, leave out from ("4") to ("shall") in line 3 and insert ("and words from "(b) if" to "aforesaid" and the definition of "cesspool" ").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move this Amendment on behalf of my noble friend. This point has really already been dealt with in my noble friend's answer to Lord Hughes. It is purely a tidying-up Amendment because this particular point is already covered in previous Scottish legislation. I beg to move.
On Question, Whether Clause 10, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD HENLEY: On Clause 10 I have a small point which is not the subject of an Amendment, but it does raise some of the difficulties of definition. Under Clause 10 it is the duty of a collecting authority, if required, to collect commercial waste. Agriculture is excluded because the definition of commercial waste does not include agriculture. It seems to me that with the problems of containers of toxic waste (they are increasingly a problem in the minds of the local authorities, for whom I speak on this Amendment) that possibly it would be helpful both from the point of view of the local authority and
1160
indeed, I would have thought, from the point of view of the farmers, if this waste could be collected. Perhaps the Government would let me know whether the powers that are available either under Clause 16 or possibly under just Clause 22(4) could be used? For instance, Clause 22(4) on page 28 says,
"Regulations may provide that waste of a prescribed description shall be treated …",
et cetera. Would it be possible, in those circumstances, for agricultural wastes to be prescribed in this way so that the collecting authority is required to collect it?
BARONESS YOUNG: The question of agricultural waste was, I believe, raised last time, when I said that it is excluded from the waste provisions of this Bill. But Lord Henley is asking whether it can be excluded as a prescribed waste. It is, of course, possible for the Secretary of State to bring other classes of waste within controlled waste by Regulation subject to Affirmative Resolution in both Houses. It allows collection authorities to undertake the collection of waste outside the controlled waste category on the same terms as they may collect industrial waste, and to provide appropriate receptacles. Minor adjustments of the categories of waste could be dealt with by Regulations under Clause 22(4). The intention would be to reserve the Clause 16 procedure for major extensions. In particular, farm wastes and mining wastes are excluded under Clause 22(3) for the initial category of controlled wastes. I hope that this answers the noble Lord's question. If any further detailed information becomes available, I should be very happy to write to the noble Lord.
LORD HENLEY: I am very much obliged.
Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 11 [Dustbins, etc.]:
8.9 p.m.
LORD LEATHERLAND LORD LEATHERLAND moved Amendment No. 81:
Page 16, line 18, after ("waste") insert ("and, on request, a separate receptacle for the collection of waste paper,").
The noble Lord said: On behalf of my noble friends I beg leave to move Amendment No. 81. I understand that

1161
it has been arranged that in conjunction with it we should take Amendments Nos. 89A and 89B, which stand in my name, and also Amendments Nos. 92, 93 and 94.
So far as Amendment No. 81 is concerned, the appropriate passage in the Bill says this, at Clause 11:
"Each collection authority may, by agreement with the occupier of any premises … provide receptacles for the waste either free of charge or on payment of a reasonable charge."
Amendment No. 81 seeks to expand that provision by inserting the words:
"and on request a separate receptacle for the collection of waste paper,".
All these Amendments which are within the purview of the Committee at the moment deal with waste paper. I hardly think it necessary to say anything more about Amendment No. 81 because if we are to pay more attention to the collection and salvage of waste paper, then quite obviously it seems sensible that the authorities should provide a separate receptacle for it. That might be a bin or it might be a sack.
If I may turn to Amendment No. 89A, one of the Amendments standing in my name, that also urges upon the Government the necessity for a more vigorous and enthusiastic salvage of waste paper. We throw away 5 million tons of waste paper every year. It has been calculated that it takes 17 trees to produce 1 ton of paper. So we are throwing away each year 85 million trees, at a time when many of the accessible forests of the world are being very heavily denuded. Moreover, much of this waste paper could be sold and remade. Yet we are causing our ratepayers to pay for the cartage, tipping and burning of this paper when we could sell it to the paper mills and receive revenue which would be to the benefit of the ratepayers. We are the biggest importer in the world of paper pulp. We import £120 million worth of it every year and that is on top of £200 million worth of paper and board. The quantity of the import is going up year by year and the price of both the pulp and the paper is going up year by year, and this involves a heavy burden on our very unhealthy balance of payments. So it seems to me that we should pay more attention than we do at the moment to the salvage of waste paper.
Apart from the waste paper which is supplied by the privately owned waste paper industry—and it is a substantial industry—the mills are calling out for 200,000 tons a year extra and are looking to the local authorities to provide this, because the private part of the waste paper industry is already committed right up to the viable limit. There is no more that they feel they can collect on a profitable basis.
The average amount of refuse which is put into the dustbin of the ordinary house of this country is 28 lb. a week—10 lb. in weight of this is paper, which constitutes also 60 per cent. of the volume. What happens to this paper when it is put into the dustbin? It is tipped into the dustcart along with the baked bean tins and potato peelings—that is, by two-thirds of the councils in this country—and then it is taken away and either burnt or tipped, in either case involving an expense to the ratepaper, instead of its being sold and thus yielding a revenue to the ratepaper. Thirty per cent. in weight and 60 per cent. in volume of this refuse which could be sold is now being burnt or tipped, and the ratepayers are having to find the money with which to do it. So my Amendment No. 89A suggests that far more attention should be given to the salvage of waste paper. Only 450 authorities in the country are now taking this matter seriously. Yet all the authorities in the country, or the majority of them, could cut out the cost of tipping and burning this paper and instead could be receiving revenue from the paper mills if they organised the collection and the sale of this paper.
It will be said, quite properly, that sorting and baling this waste paper will cost money. But it will not cost so much money as the saving which would accrue to the local council from not having to burn or tip this paper—plus the sum of money which the authorities receive from the paper mills. There are many authorities in this country which are making quite handsome profits from the salvage of their waste paper, and that is quite apart from the very valuable service that they are rendering to the nation. I do not conceal the fact that the main base upon which I build my argument is that of the balance of payments, which needs to be helped in every possible way.
It is true of course that there are some authorities which have discontinued salvage of waste paper because they say it is not worth the cost. Perhaps they have taken into account only the money they receive from the mills, and have not taken into account the saving which accrues to them for not having to burn or tip the paper. There are some which have discontinued it because at a certain time the paper mills have said, "We are unable to take any more at present", but that has happened in only two periods during the last ten years. So those explanations do not suffice at this particular moment. The paper mills have made a long-term offer to local authorities to take a specified tonnage of waste paper at a guaranteed price, and they need this paper urgently. A few months ago their usual six weeks' stock at the mills went down to something like three weeks' stock. It is all kinds of paper and cardboard that they need: empty boxes, wrapping paper, newspapers. The newspapers have recently become more valuable and useful than ever to the mills because of a de-inking process which one of them has established and is now operating, and because another firm is similarly installing one of these de-inking plants. The value of this de-inking process can be gathered from the fact that the first firm I mentioned used to incorporate 27 per cent. of recycled paper in their newsprint output; they now include 40 per cent. They are offering the local authorities £15 to £16 a ton for old newspapers.
In April of this year we are going to see a reorganisation of local government and that may open opportunities for paper salvage to quite a number of these authorities. There are perhaps two or three small authorities, who have been too small to organise paper salvage in the past, who are going to be merged; and perhaps they will be in a better position to undertake this work in the future. There are other groups which are going to be brought together where perhaps one authority undertook paper salvage and another did not; perhaps the paper saver will be able to convert the other. But the fact will still remain that there will be some authorities too small, too scattered, too remote, to organise a proper paper salvage system. My Amendment makes it quite clear that in cases of that
1164
kind the Minister will be able to grant exemption.
The other Amendment in my name, No. 89B, I think explains itself. It is simply this. Where the collecting authority, the district council, sends its refuse to the disposal authority, the county council, for the county council to dispose of, it will not be sending, say, 1,000 tons of refuse a week if it keeps back its paper; it will be sending only 700 tons a week to the county council to dispose of. So the county council will be relieved of the cost of disposing, by either burning or tipping, of that 300 tons. My Amendment suggests that the county council should then compensate the district council for the saving which the county council will be able to make on not having to burn or tip those 300 tons.
It may be thought rather troublesome that long negotiations will have to take place between the district councils and the county councils about the amount per ton which the county councils should pay by way of compensation to the district councils, and therefore I have included in the Amendment a suggestion that the Minister once a year shall specify a notional sum at which the compensation transfers should be carried out. It may occur to some of your Lordships that districts vary; some districts pay different wages to their refuse collectors; some have longer distances for their transport to travel, and therefore it would be preferable for individual negotiations to take place. If there was objection to the Minister specifying a notional sum, I should be only too willing to omit that part at the next stage of our consideration of the Bill.
It is a fact that the Greater London Council, which has had a scheme running with the borough councils in London, has hitherto paid on an almost fixed figure basis, but from April of this year it is going to transfer to the individual negotiating basis and settle a figure with each of the borough councils. Be that as it may, I feel that this question of paper salvage is very important indeed, especially as our balance of trade is in such a sickly state. I do not feel that it is only a question of local government departmental administration. I feel that it is a national problem and that the Government should lay down a national policy. I beg to move Amendment 89A. I am

1165
not quite sure what is happening to the remaining three.
LORD CRAIGTON: I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Leatherland, and I am only sorry that we have such a thin House. It will have been drawn to his attention that I have put down Amendment No. 84, and although there is nothing wrong with his Amendment I feel that it does not go far enough. It refers only to council waste and to receptacles on request. I should like to see the collection authority given much more teeth to carry out what has to be done in this country, so while I support his Amendment I hope that he will in due course support me when I come to move mine.
8.23 p.m.
BARONESS YOUNG: I am sure we have all listened with great interest to what the noble Lord, Lord Leatherland, has had to say on the question of collection of waste paper. He said that he regarded this as a national problem which required a national policy, and I should like to assure him that, as I said when we had our debate at an earlier stage in the Committee on the general issue of recycling, we intend to bring forward an Amendment on this subject which will be all-inclusive of these matters. We regard this as an important matter to be looked at and shall be bringing forward an Amendment in that context.
The noble Lord said that he was speaking to Amendment No. 89A, but he wished his other Amendment to be included at the same time. If I may take the more specific points about how he thinks this national policy would work out, can I first refer to laying certain duties on local authorities, in particular the collection authorities. As he knows, already about 400 local authorities collect waste paper separately. This represents about one-third of the collection authorities in England and Wales. There have at times been more than this, but one of the difficulties which arise is that the demand for waste paper fluctuates and it is much easier for some authorities than for others to find a firm which will use the paper when it is collected. For this reason, we believe that it is much better to give a discretionary power to collection authorities. There is nothing to prevent any of them from collecting waste paper separately and the means by which
1166
they do it is a matter for their own discretion.
The next practical difficulty that arises after they have collected the waste paper is the question of what would be done by authorities who could not find an organisation to take it. I take the point that we should be looking to new methods of finding a use for waste paper, and indeed there is an organisation. The Department of Trade and Industry offers very favourable grant terms through the Paper Industries Research Association for approved research projects concerning the re-use of waste paper. The Government, in their forward policies, are considering further uses for it, but, as I said, a great deal of local authority waste paper is not the kind of paper which is in greatest demand.
The other point which the noble Lord made I think in a sense he answered himself. He suggested that a sum should be fixed by the Department of the Environment each year which a disposal authority would pay to the collection authority, but, as I think he himself said, it would be difficult for the Department to be drawn into discussions of this kind. Once again the situation would vary from authority to authority and it would be very difficult to settle a sum nationally which could be regarded as fair by all the local authorities concerned.
I can give the Committee an assurance that my Department and the Department of Trade and Industry are continuing to keep the waste paper situation under review, and so far as my Department are concerned we shall be looking to see whether the actions of local authorities after local government reorganisation achieve any increase in supplies for which there seems to be a long-term demand. The Joint Waste Paper Advisory Council has already sent a circular letter to the Chief Executives of the new counties drawing their attention to the way in which, as refuse disposal authorities, they can benefit by having less refuse to dispose of if they give financial encouragement to waste paper schemes in their areas. We will undertake to consider whether anything further needs to be done—whether, for example, we should refer to waste paper salvage in any circular we send to the new local authorities. I think we must recognise that any advice which we give to local authorities must take

1167
account of responsibilities to their ratepayers and the need to have satisfactory contacts with industry. I hope, therefore, that I have said enough to indicate that we are broadly in sympathy with the intention of all these Amendments that have been put down, but we shall be putting down an Amendment ourselves on the question of re-cycling. We believe we should give advice to local authorities but that they must have freedom to decide whether or not they will collect the waste paper separately.
VISCOUNT AMORY: I think we will all be in entire agreement with the principle which has led the noble Lord, Lord Leatherland, to bring forward these Amendments. I believe we must be grossly extravagant in regard to waste paper. On the other hand, I find myself wholly in agreement with the points made by my noble friend. I believe that an Amendment as mandatory as the one which the noble Lord, Lord Leatherland, has put forward would not be appropriate in the present circumstances. For the reasons which my noble friend has mentioned I do not think that it takes enough practical account of the varying economic values of waste paper in different parts of the country. As to the financial payment by the disposal authorities for what they will have saved by not having to handle this waste paper I also think that would be very difficult to settle centrally, because expenses would vary. I do not myself know much about refuse disposal, but I imagine that there may be cases where a disposal authority, if paper was eliminated from its waste, would find the rest of the waste more expensive to dispose of. That is the sort of factor that would have to be taken into consideration in the financial payment.
So while wholly sympathising with the objective of the noble Lord, Lord Leatherland, as my noble friend says I think we should be wrongly advised if we were to incorporate the Amendment in this present Bill.
BARONESS WHITE: I am sorry, but I do not think this is really good enough. I believe the whole country feels that we have reached a point in our industrial and commercial development when we must take recycling and the re-use of materials far more seriously than we have
1168
in the past. Every noble Lord must have read on the front page of his newspaper that because of the world shortage of newsprint one would have to place firm orders, and so on. My noble friend Lord Leatherland was also right to draw attention to the fact that if one does not re-cycle one has to cut down trees, and this matters to some of us. We believe that this is a civic responsibility, not merely a commercial operation.
I believe that the Government would find that they have lost a great deal of sympathy, particularly among the younger generation, if they did not indicate, at least by taking the waste paper side of re-cycling seriously, that they were in earnest over this. Paper is the easiest of materials to handle, in the household and in the office and at the processing end. There are much greater difficulties with certain other substances, but there are no real technical difficulties in regard to paper; and the very least I had expected the noble Baroness to do was to accept the first Amendment moved by my noble friend, because this simply asked that on request a collection authority should provide a separate receptacle for waste paper, either free of charge or on payment of a reasonable charge. If the area was one which was not going to be able to dispose of the paper it could charge a considerable amount for the receptacle, and therefore very few persons would insist on having such a receptacle But in most areas—and I include the City of Westminster, where I live, and where there is no separate arrangement for private households—it should be perfectly possible to make an arrangement. I had hoped that the noble Baroness would accept the first Amendment, even if she finds some problems in regard to the remaining ones. I hope that she may still do so, because I am afraid that we are really not satisfied with the Government's attitude here, as we are not satisfied with their attitude on other matters.
BARONESS YOUNG: I should like to assure the Committee that we take the question of the recycling of waste paper very seriously. I hope I have said enough to indicate that we are going to table an Amendment of our own. I think there is a real point in regard to putting a separate receptacle for the collection of waste paper. This would be a matter for the discretion of the local authority if it

1169
chose to do this, but the position would be very complicated if certain householders decided that they would ask the local authority to provide such a receptacle, even if they were prepared to pay for it, and I cannot think that this would necessarily help in the collection of refuse by the collection authority.
BARONESS WHITE: In all the circumstances I do not propose to divide the Committee because I see that we have other matters to be discussed, but I warn the noble Baroness that we are not happy about this matter and that we shall raise the matter again.
LORD LEATHERLAND: I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
On Question, Motion agreed to, and House resumed accordingly.

CONSOLIDATED FUND BILL
Brought from the Commons, endorsed with the Certificate from the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill, within the meaning of the Parliament Act 1911, and read 1a.

STATEMENT TO PRESS BY SECRETARY OF STATE FOR ENERGY
8.35 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do adjourn during pleasure in order to enable the Secretary of State for Energy to make a statement as to how it was that he came to make a statement to the Press instead of arranging for it to be made in Parliament—a statement of the very greatest importance to this country.
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, is aware that in this House we have congratulated him on his appointment, even though we know that in another place great concern has been expressed about an appointment in your Lordships' House as a result of which it might be thought that another place was denied the opportunity to cross-examine and discuss the performance of a Minister in a most crucial role in the
1170
present Government. This afternoon we quizzed the noble Lord at some length on questions with regard to fuel supplies, and earlier in the day we had thought it likely that there would be a Statement on the subject of the energy position—all the more so since Questions have been raised, both in your Lordships' House and in another place, as to whether the Government had shown competence in assessing the position with regard to fuel supplies; as to whether it was necessary in fact to have a three-day week and whether the country was going to have to face, as was apparent to us all, a situation of such gravity that in the event of an Election the successor Government would be faced with a situation in which industry in this country was, to put it mildly, broken-backed. The noble Lord answered the questions with his usual skill and I think he will agree that they were put with courtesy—and we assumed that nothing further was likely to be said to-day.
The noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, will recall that I raised the possibility of a further Statement, not bearing directly on this point but with regard to the possibility of Government action with regard to elections. At any rate we accepted that there was nothing more to be said, and in fact, although the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, was subjected to a good deal of questioning, there was no indication that there would be later—a mere couple of hours later—a statement of the very greatest importance to the people of this country. What I gather was said (it is alleged that it was said at a cocktail party, but I rather gather that this was an opportunity that the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, was taking to meet industrial correspondents) was that there would in fact be an immediate increase; that full electricity supplies are to be restored immediately to steel production. My Lords, one of the greatest threats to this country has been the possibility of a decline in the production of steel, and this has been emphasised both in your Lordships' House and in another place.
Furthermore, according to the "tape" the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, said that there were a number of factors which had resulted in the improved position. He referred to the weather—and we are all well aware that the weather has been stormy but unusually mild, as he

1171
apparently said; and again he called for no worsening of the situation—the pressure that we have seen continually brought upon the miners and on the trade unions—and he said that the Government have decided, in the light of the improved situation at power stations, to restore full electricity supplies to steel production. He further indicated that he is asking representatives of the C.B.I., the T.U.C. and chambers of commerce to see him early next week to talk about a further relaxation for industry and to discuss how it was best to proceed, and that this could mean a four-clay week for industry in about seven days' time, but it depended on the wishes of industry. I should like to ask the noble Lord whether in fact he said that.
My Lords, these are things that ought to have been said in Parliament. They ought to have been said in your Lordships' House; they ought to have been said in another place, where the noble Lord has in Mr. Patrick Jenkins a very competent deputy who could have dealt with all this. I am bound to say that in my Parliamentary experience it is an outrage that a statement of this importance should not have been made in Parliament, and I hope that the noble Lord, in his own interests and in the interests of the good faith of Government towards Parliament, will give some sort of explanation as to how it was this statement was not made in Parliament.
Moved, That the House do adjourn during pleasure.—(Lord Shackleton.)
8.41 p.m.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, have been a Member of your Lordships' House for certainly longer than anyone else present in this Chamber, and I think all your Lordships will know that the last thing I would wish to do is to be discourteous to your Lordships' House. I hope that that will be understood straightaway. I think one must acknowledge that there always is a difficulty in deciding whether or not one makes Statement in the House. Obviously, one does not want to make too many Statements about things; it interferes in the business of your Lordships' House. I think that Statements should be made only on important matters.
My Lords, if I may explain, on this particular occasion I thought it right that
1172
as soon as possible after taking office as Secretary of State for Energy I should see the industrial correspondents, who would wish to question me about my new job, about how my Ministerial colleagues and I looked at affairs, and that we might be able to explain the way we intended to work. It seemed to me that a good opportunity to do this was on the occasion of the publication of the weekly figures of fuel stocks, which are published weekly and about which there is never any announcement to Parliament. I thought this was a good opportunity because it would enable the industrial correspondents to look at the fuel stocks and to see with me the situation we had reached.
The only decision—and this is a matter of judgment—which I made clear to the audience I was addressing (it was not a cocktail party, but a conference of industrial correspondents) was that I thought that, in the light of the coal stocks position it would be possible forthwith to relax restrictions on the electricity supplies to steel. Steel is a continuous supply process and is already getting 65 per cent. This relaxation would really only mean, broadly speaking, that the electric are furnaces would be able to operate, because even now in the steel industry the coking coal situation is such that there cannot be full production. So this is a comparatively minor adjustment, although I think an important one. On reflection and consideration, I do not think that this particular announcement was something that was worthy of a Statement to your Lordships' House.
My Lords, subsequently I said to the industrial correspondents that the situation with regard to coal stocks, which was much better than one had anticipated, led me to suppose that it might be possible to relax restrictions further in the near future, and that I had to take another look at the stocks before I made a decision on that, and before the Government made a decision on that; but in anticipation of that decision I intended to see the T.U.C., the C.B.I. and the chambers of commerce and so on, in order to discuss with them, if it was possible, what sort of relaxation would best suit them: because, if your Lordships remember, on the occasion when the three-day working week was introduced,

1173
there was some criticism that there had not been consultation. So I told them this. Of course, if it becomes possible to relax in some way—for instance, by going on a four-day working week or some other variant which may be more practical or desirable to those most interested—the first thing I would do, and I assure your Lordships of this, is to come to your Lordships' House and make a Statement about it.
My Lords, that is what happened. It seems to me that it would not have been right to make a Statement to your Lordships purely about the situation on electricity. That was the decision I came to. It must be for the judgment of your Lordships' House whether I was right or wrong. But on one thing I do assure your Lordships: the last thing I wish to do is to offend the House, or any of your Lordships in it.
8.48 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the noble Lord will be the judge of his actions to-day. I have been in this House, not as long as the noble Lord, but sufficiently long, and perhaps a good deal longer than most of your Lordships present here this evening, to be able to respect the integrity of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington. I am prepared to say that what he has done to-day was a question of ill-judgment—ill-judgment, because what we have to understand is that there are two Houses of Parliament. If the Secretary of State is in the House of Commons, your Lordships' House largely depends on the good relations, but if a Statement is made in another place by a Secretary of State, it is repeated in your Lordships' House. That is what we should all require, irrespective of which Party is in Opposition. Therefore, if, in his judgment, a Secretary of State in the House of Lords decides not to make a Statement, lie not only denies this House, but denies the elected representatives in the House of Commons.
My Lords, the noble Lord said that he thought it was a question of interference of important business, but this is an important statement. It is something infinitely more than just the coal stocks. Steel is now to be put on to full time; there is the possible relaxation. This is a major statement. I would acquit the noble Lord of contempt of Parliament if he had, as
1174
he said, decided to brief the Press, as all Secretaries of State are entitled to do, as it is part of their duty so to do. It would then have been for the Press to use it for general information. But the Secretary of State has been speaking to the nation, on television this evening, has he not? To me, that is the greatest contempt of Parliament, because what the noble Lord has done is to circumvent the two Houses of Parliament, not only in briefing the Press, but in speaking through television on a basis on which he could not be questioned.
I have always thought that one of the fundamental principles of democracy is that Ministers are answerable to Parliament; that they make their Statements, answer questions and defend their position. What the noble Lord has done to-day is to deny Parliament its right to question a Secretary of State on a major principle of policy. I would acquit the noble Lord if it were merely a briefing of the Press, as he said, but to go on television—that, my Lords, I regard as the highest contempt of Parliament.
8.49 p.m.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, I read the tape, and what I regret is the lack of understanding in this statement. It was a good statement from the Government and one that will give cheer to Ebbw Vale and some of the other Welsh steel producing areas, and to such places in Scotland. It will give cheer, but it will also mean something of a social difference to rents, mortgages and food prices. But being made as it was made, and being made on television, Parliament must watch. Even when the Labour Government was in office, sometimes I criticised this use of the trivialisation of politics. This was the trivialisation of a vital piece of information at this moment when we might go into an Election on February 14. Therefore I have a feeling that this is "jumping the gun" a little to create a feeling of satisfaction in the country, that things are improving. I believe this House and the other place are where this statement should have been made.
I have the utmost confidence in the noble Lord; I think he is a gentleman of great integrity. Consequently, I hope he will not think I am trying to make a cheap personal attack on him. It may have been a mistake, but who am I to

1175
judge? We have all made mistakes, sometimes stupid mistakes. I have in my lifetime. This was a mistake made because of the withering away of Parliament imposed by the trivial media to-day, which asks for immediate decisions. You have little men and women appearing on television making immediate decisions over mighty problems. We must learn to look at these things in depth, and Parliament on this occasion failed to have the cut and thrust of debate on a good standard.
8.52 p.m.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, I should like heartily to support my noble friend the Secretary of State for Energy, because I do feel that the Opposition have really exaggerated. The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, has used the word "outrage", and the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, said that his action was in contempt of Parliament. I must say I find that absolutely fantastic. For a number of hours now we have been debating the protection of the environment; perhaps we should be protected from fallacious Motions rather than the environment. For a number of hours we have been discussing the Protection of the Environment Bill in Committee; and neither the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition, nor the Deputy Leader have been here. The Chief Whip of the Opposition has not been here for a number of hours. Suddenly, out of the blue, when the House is about to rise, they come forward with this trumped up excuse for criticising my noble friend. I think it is disgraceful. I think it is much more important that my noble friend should talk to the nation through the medium of television when addressing a few million people, rather than try to influence seven noble Lords who support the Leader of the Opposition.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, does not the noble Lord realise that this is giving way to the diktat of one person through the use of the media? This was the first place, or the other place was, where such a discussion should be established.
VISCOUNT AMORY: My Lords, noble Lords opposite in venting their criticism have acknowledged—as those of us who
1176
have been long in one or other House know—that it is always a nice matter of judgment when to make a satement or not. Furthermore, I believe noble Lords opposite would agree that there is no single Member of your Lordships' House who would be less likely to wish to be contemptuous of the rights of this House than my noble friend Lord Carrington. Having acknowledged that it is a nice matter of judgment, it seems to me a little anomalous that the Government should have been criticised by noble Lords opposite, and certainly by those in another place, for not having passed out enough information about this emergency, and occasionally for not having passed it out quickly enough. It seems anomalous that, when the noble Lord has done that as quickly as possible, noble Lords should be taking him to task in the way they have. Although this principle that Ministers are responsible to Parliament is an immensely important one, there is a risk occasionally that we are a little too touchy and sensitive in this matter. Personally, I entirely exonerate my noble friend from any wish or intention whatever to treat this House with contempt. I am sure that will be the feeling of the majority of the Members of this House.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, may I, as possibly the junior Member of the House present, as opposed to the senior Member, Lord Carrington, congratulate him on telling the nation that in fact we can increase our production. This seems to me very much more important than the susceptibilities of various people opposite.
LORD LLOYD OF KILGERRAN: My Lords, I do not want to enter into competition with the noble Earl as to who is the most junior Member of the House, but I think that I qualify for that. I am also at this disadvantage, that I have not seen the subject matter of this dispute about which so much energy is being dissipated this evening. I have listened to the energetic way in which the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, and the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, have pressed this matter, and I have listened to the energetic way in which the Minister of Energy has made his statement. I think that possibly at this late hour it would be a solution of this matter if I were to say on behalf of myself (to quote

1177
a statement by the Secretary of State for Energy in an earlier exchange) that having heard the statements from both sides of the House, "That is that."
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I do not know whether or not I am in the situation of having to wind up, but I should like just to say one more thing, if I may. First of all, I would thank my noble friends who have supported me. But I would say at the same time to those noble Lords who have criticised me that I bear not the slightest ill-will: I know that the three noble Lords opposite are staunch upholders of Parliament and therefore I make no criticism of that at all. I only come back to what I said at the beginning. I think it is a matter of judgment as to whether or not I should on this occasion have made a Statement to your Lordships' House. I came to the conclusion that I should not. I must tell your Lordships that in point of fact I still think that I was right; but I may be totally wrong. I would, in conclusion, if I may, just reiterate once again that I hope, whether noble Lords think I am right or wrong, that your Lordships will acquit me of any discourtesy to your Lordships or to this House.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, the noble Lord's statement was more acceptable than the ludicrous remarks of his noble friend Lord Merrivale, who clearly has no understanding of Parliamentary custom. I never really think it is worth bothering with the noble Lord, so I will leave him there. But I do take more seriously the remarks of the noble Viscount, Lord Amory. I realise that it is always a matter of difficulty to judge these matters. The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, defended his action; he in fact indicated that it was a matter of judgment, and that he had formed the judgment, which he still inclines to, that he was right. I am bound to say with all seriousness to him that his judgment has been wrong in this matter. This is very much a Parliamentary matter; it is a matter of concern to us in the House of Lords, and particularly in our relations with another place.
1178
The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, said that he had been criticised, or the Government had been criticised, for not having sufficient consultation. Whether telling the Press what ought to have been told to Parliament ranks as consultation is somewhat dubious. But the fact remains that the Press have attached the greatest importance to this statement. The Press Association political correspondent talks about Lord Carrington's surprise packages, and says that this will be used by the Government to pressurise the miners into settling their dispute with the Coal Board. I can only say that I wish the noble Lord was not in fact the Leader of the Conservative Party at this moment. He knows we do not criticise his integrity. But here is a statement which reveals among other things that, so far from stocks running down, in certain areas stocks have actually risen. I must say to him that he has committed an error of judgment and, as a result, though he may have not intended it, has committed a discourtesy to Parliament.
I think we shall have to leave the matter, until noble Lords have read the tape and seen the really rather strikingly high figures of stocks. Then perhaps we can discuss this matter next week. We have to-day, for the first time, had a chance to cross-examine and talk to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, on actual facts and figures that he has given. When he says that he thought it was right to give an opportunity to the industrial correspondents, I can only say that it would have been better if he had given this opportunity to us, with the information which he did not give to us this afternoon. I think that an error of judgment was committed. I think that the noble Lord has done a real disservice. He knows that the Opposition leadership, while I have been leading it, and my other noble friends, have not indulged in unnecessary, captious debating in this House, and we are deadly serious in our criticism. However, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion that the House do adjourn during pleasure.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.