Lords Sitting of 22 January 1974

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock:
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Gloucester.

FOOD PRICES AND THE "GROCER" MAGAZINE
2.30 p.m.
LORD LEATHERLAND: 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 general interest in food prices, they can arrange for a weekly copy of the Grocer magazine to be placed in the Library of the House.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD ABERDARE): My Lords, the provision of magazines in the Library of your Lordships' House is not a matter for Her Majesty's Government. Perhaps the noble Lord would care to write to the Chairman of the Library Sub-Committee about his suggestion.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for that helpful reply and to ask him whether he is aware that many millions of housewives believe that food and grocery prices are rising very rapidly indeed? Now that the Price Commission do not announce price increases they have no way of correcting this impression.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I would only say that the price index which is compiled for the Grocer magazine is more an indication of rises in wholesale prices, because this is of course a trade magazine. The official figures which Governments have always accepted are those compiled for the food index by the Department of Employment.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, does the noble Lord not think that when the wholesale prices go up retail prices also go up, and would not the availability of the Grocer magazine be very helpful to noble Lords—particularly as the last issue showed that last week there were 518 price increases in grocery shops and that during the whole of last year there were over 12,000 price increases?
LORD ABERDARE: No, my Lords, I do not agree with the noble Lord that because wholesale prices go up retail prices necessarily go up by the same amount. The December index figures show that raw material costs for food manufacturers went up by 42 per cent. between November, 1972, and December, 1973, but that over the same period, wholesale manufactured food prices rose by only 20 per cent.
LORD HARVEY OF PRESTBURY: My Lords, would my noble friend at the same time arrange for a publication giving comparable food prices on the Continent to be placed in the Library?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend. I do not really want to make any arrangements with the Library Sub-Committee—I will leave that to the noble Lord, Lord Leatherland.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, does my noble friend know that, in my old age, I have to do the household shopping and that I found a retail price this morning that had actually gone down?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, will the noble Lord therefore help his noble friend by saying which it was?
BARONESS BROOKE OF YSTRADFELLTE: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that if one has the energy and enthusiasm to shop around one can find a considerable number of fair prices?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I am sure that my noble friend is correct and I am sure that she has the energy.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, since Private Eye often finds its way into the Library, could not the Grocer be there as well?

FOREIGN OFFICE BUILDING: MODERNISATION STUDIES
2.39 p.m.
LORD KENNET: 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 what are their present intentions in regard to the modernisation of the old Public Offices, commonly known as the Foreign Office.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government has promised to preserve the external façades, together with the fine rooms in the North-West corner of the building. Studies are continuing on what form our proposals might take for other parts of the building's interior.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply, but may I ask whether the Government will take the opportunity of assuring Parliament, and the public, that this most magnificent of all 19th century public offices, perhaps in Europe, will be handled in a way appropriate to its nature and architecture—that is to say, that the studies will be into how best it can be preserved as it now is and, later, into its best use in the modern age, and not merely into the question of how 3,000 civil servants can be crammed into it?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON:My Lords, I think that perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, must have been reading my brief because he could not have better stated the Government's intentions.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, will the Government preserve the two great internal courtyards, the main courtyard and the Durbar Court?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, this is a technical matter and we have not yet reached that stage. In fact, the architects have not so far been appointed. The intention is to look very closely at this and we have every intention of trying to preserve everything we can which is good and valuable. But I cannot give any guarantee of the sort asked for.

OIL PRICES: EFFECT ON MAPLIN AND CHANNEL TUNNEL PROJECTS
2.40 p.m.
LORD KENNET: 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 what assumptions have been made about the price of oil in costing the third London Airport and the Channel Tunnel.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT (BARONESS YOUNG): My Lords, the basic studies for the Channel Tunnel and Maplin assumed that the price of oil would rise broadly in line with other prices. On the Tunnel there will be an opportunity to take account of developments since the basic studies before the stage of final commitment is reached. The effect of recent developments will be among the factors considered in the report to Parliament required by Section 2 of the Maplin Development Act.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, could the Minister say whether it still looks as though it makes anything like economic sense now that oil, to put it mildly, has not risen in accordance with other prices?
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, I can only ask the noble Lord to await the result of that report on Maplin and of the further studies on the Tunnel.
LORD CORNWALLIS: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether it is not only oil that is probably going to increase in price in connection with the construction of the Channel Tunnel? Is the noble Baroness aware that we in Kent are very worried about the cost of a great many other things? I should also like to ask the noble Baroness, if she is going into matters connected with the extra expense of the Channel Tunnel, whether she is aware that it will probably cost very much in excess of the present estimate. Is the noble Baroness further aware that we in Kent would like to know what the cost of the alteration of all the bridges, the railways, the roads and everything else will be?—because we realise that there is going to be a considerable amount of destruction in our

1281
county, at very considerable cost to the taxpayer.
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, the financing of the Channel Tunnel is the responsibility of the companies, and the Government are providing only the guarantees up to 90 per cent. of the total capital cost. Construction of the associated rail link to London, which will entail public expenditure, will not begin until 1976. There will, however, be an opportunity for this House to consider the whole matter when we come to consider the main Bill on the Channel Tunnel.
LORD CORNWALLIS: My Lords, may I ask that we shall be told something about it? At present the secrecy is so appalling that those most affected know nothing about it.
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, I cannot accept that statement by my noble friend. As I have said, he will have an opportunity to raise all these points on the Second Reading of the Bill when it comes to your Lordships' House.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, does not the noble Baroness consider that, in the light of the serious financial and economic situation of this country, that these two objects ought now to be scrapped?
BARONESS YOUNG: No, my Lords.
LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, in considering whether the Channel Tunnel should be for accompanied motor cars or rail-only link, does the noble Baroness agree that the only figures that we have to go on are those compiled some time ago, well before the emergency, by the Road Research Laboratory, and that no independent studies have been made by the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders or British Leyland or any of the other car manufacturers into the future ownership and usage of motor cars? Would she therefore initiate studies into this matter as a question of urgency so that not only decisions on the Channel Tunnel, but on motorways and other ex-
1282
penditure associated with motor cars, can be reviewed?
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, this is a matter that I shall note. There will be opportunities to take into account other developments that may arise before the signing of the supplementary agreement No. 3 which is planned for mid-1975.
LORD ROYLE: My Lords, will the noble Baroness say whether there will be any difference on the price of oil reaching this country if the Suez Canal is opened?
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, this is rather wide of the original Question.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, can the noble Baroness say when the Government are going to abandon their intellectual dandyism and concentrate on getting more miners in the pits and encouraging the output of coal rather than boring a hole between here and France for another half century?
LORD HANKEY: My Lords, will the Government give further consideration to the effect of the price of oil on these projects? Will they also give consideration to the enormous increase of trade which is taking place between the United Kingdom and Europe—I believe it went up 37 per cent. last year—and the inevitable effect this will have on traffic and communications with the Continent? I presume that the Government will agree that we should not be left behind in the requirements of meeting these communication needs.
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, we shall certainly take note of this point.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that last week the Channel crossing from Dieppe to Newhaven took 7½ hours, instead of the usual 3½ hours, and that the badly buffeted passengers on board were very relieved to reach dry land? Could not this awful experience be avoided once the Channel Tunnel is completed?

AIRCRAFT FUEL PRICES AND CONCORDE AIRCRAFT
LORD MOLSON: 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 what will be the estimated price of aircraft fuel when increases already announced by the Arab States have taken effect; what would then be the cost of fuel for one crossing by a Concorde aircraft from Heathrow to Kennedy Airport; and how this would compare with the cost of a crossing by a Boeing 747B.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, in present circumstances the precise effects that increases in crude oil prices will have on aviation fuel prices cannot be determined. For the purposes of comparison, however, the cost of fuel for a crossing from Heathrow to Kennedy Airport by a Concorde aircraft would be around 90 per cent. of that for a crossing by a Boeing 747B.
LORD MOLSON: My Lords, in view of the fact that there were no orders, except from Britain and France, for the Concorde aircraft before the rise in fuel prices, will the Government now consider ceasing to throw good money after bad?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, the only situation that has changed has been in the price of fuel, and it is far too early to take any kind of decision on this matter. The Minister for Aerospace and Shipping has already said that he will be reviewing the position again jointly with his French colleague in the light of studies presented by the manufacturers. This review will take account also of the fuel situation.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, if we are going to make comparisons between one aircraft and another, ought we not to make comparisons of like with like? Is it not the fact that Concorde is the only aircraft in the world that has been designed to carry essential travellers; and ought we not now, with the shortage of fuel supplies, so to allocate our fuel supplies that we use it for essential purposes?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord; he has put an opinion with which I thoroughly agree.
LORD THOMAS: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the money spent on Concorde is bad?—because I do not.

RATE SUPPORT GRANTS
2.49 p.m.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, may I inform your Lordships that, with the leave of the House, my noble friend Lord Carrington will be making a Statement at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. on the Prime Minister's discussions with the T.U.C.
My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is making a Statement in another place on the Rate Support Grant Scheme. It has been agreed through the usual channels that this Statement need not be repeated here, but with the leave of the House I will arrange for the Statement to be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
Following is the Statement referred to:
"Mr. Speaker, I will, with permission, make a Statement about the rate support grants to local authorities in England and Wales for 1974–75. Details are set out in the White Paper, Cmnd 5532, copies of which are available at the Vote Office.
"I discussed the settlement with local authorities last week. It assumes that they will make the reductions in expenditure announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in May and in December. Details will be given in a circular. I should emphasise that local authority relevant expenditure in 1974–75 will still grow in real terms by 2½ per cent.
"The present formula for distributing the needs element no longer reflects the true variations in local authorities' spending needs particularly bearing in mind reorganisation.
"The effect of our new proposals is broadly to give a greater share of the total of the needs and resources elements of grant to the declining city centres.
"I also consider there is a real need to correct the balance between the burdens on the domestic and non-domestic ratepayer which was distorted by the last revaluation. So I propose to increase the total amount to be devoted to domestic relief to £446 million in all—more than double last year's amount. Much of this will go to help those domestic ratepayers who would otherwise suffer as a result of changes in the grant system, reorganisation and the effect of the new water and sewerage charges. In the light of further consultations and subseqeuent changes in the settlement I have decided on a fixed minimum domestic element of 7p rather than the 10p I previously

1285
announced but the majority of ratepayers will be getting more than 7p and many will be getting more than 10p. Indeed the 7p will only apply in areas gaining under the new grant distribution.
"I have decided to propose, subject to the approval of the House, a grant percentage of 60·5 per cent. This compares with 60 per cent. in 1973–74. It would mean a total grant of £3,431 million.
"As a result of this redistribution of the domestic element and of the high rate of grant I believe that the percentage rise in domestic rate burdens can be kept to a maximum of about 9 per cent. subject to any exceptional local circumstances. In a number of cases, particularly in the cities, there should actually be a decrease in the domestic rate burden. The average national increase should accordingly be about 3 per cent. But this is on the understanding that local authorities play their part in keeping down expenditure.
"Even with these provisions rates can bear hardly on some domestic ratepayers. I have done two further things. I have altered the statutory deductions to lessen the burden on domestic ratepayers in dwellings with a lower rateable value. And in addition over 2 million domestic ratepayers should be helped for the first time through the new rate rebate scheme at a cost approaching some £100 million, the cost of which will be borne as to 90 per cent. by the Exchequer."

BIOLOGICAL STANDARDS BILL [H.L.]
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to establish a body corporate having functions relating to the establishment of standards for, the provision of standard preparations of, and the testing of biological substances; to provide for the transfer of certain property, rights, liabilities and obligations from the Medical Research Council to the Secretary of State for Social Services; and for connected purposes. I beg to move this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Aberdare.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

STATUTORY CORPORATIONS (FINANCIAL PROVISIONS) BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS (JOINT COMMITTEE)
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Lord Wells-Pestell be appointed to the Joint Committee in the place of the Lord Stow Hill.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

CONSOLIDATED FUND BILL
Read 3a, and passed.
LEGAL AID BILL [H.L.]
Report of Amendments received.

PROTECTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT BILL [H.L.]
2.53 p.m.
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Young.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF LISTOWEL in the Chair.]
Clause 11 [Dustbins, etc.]:
BARONESS YOUNG BARONESS YOUNG moved Amendment No. 83:
Page 16, line 35, at end insert ("and number").
The noble Baroness said: This Amendment is to make clear that the collection authority, in serving notice under Clause 11(3) on the occupier of commercial or industrial premises requiring him to provide receptacles for the storage of waste may specify the number as well as the kind of receptacles to be provided. Such notices are to avoid the creation of a nuisance or serious detriment through inappropriate storage of commercial or industrial wastes pending collection, and to avoid nuisance or detriment that might

1287
arise from insufficient containers as well as from the use of unsuitable ones. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CRAIGTON LORD CRAIGTON moved Amendment No. 84:
Page 16, line 46, insert the following new paragraph—
("(d) the substances that shall be put into separate receptacles provided, pursuant to the provisions of subsections (1) and (2) above, after having been extracted by the person disposing from the general body of the waste.")
The noble Lord said: This is an Amendment about dustbins. I should like to read to your Lordships a letter from the correspondence column of this morning's Sun. it is very short, and it says:
"Paper, bottles and tins were all salvaged during the war. Why aren't they now? It makes me mad to see all these, and even expensive glass food-containers being thrown away. And it costs local authorities a lot to dispose of them."
Dustbins are found in every house and are very important to the economy. The clause as it stands meets nearly every provision to give the housewife and industry the dustbins they need. But I feel that the collection authority should have the power, either nationally or in certain areas, to require that certain items be separated before they are put into the receptacles.
I know the difficulties of gathering any particular item that is disposed of, in that one cannot collect (shall we say?) waste paper all over the country: one can collect it only where the articles thrown out are needed. But, as I envisage it, the day has come, or is coming, when many raw materials are going to be so expensive that it will be necessary for them to be collected them from the dustbins. My Amendment would assist in that. The local industry can go to the collection authority and say, "We want to collect some particular item from this area convenient to us. Will you please arrange for it, and charge us for the bags or the boxes to put it in?" It might be that local industry could very well say, "You put the boxes there but we will collect them ourselves". Or they might say, "Will you collect them and store them for us?" Although if the local authority are going to collect and store for an industry, they would want a long-term
1288
contract stating the costs of new raw materials that are put forth.
My clause would apply not only to householders but to waste from all sources, commercial and industrial as well. I can give very briefly indeed the sort of items that I think could be collected. The first is waste paper. We heard a lot about that from Lord Leatherland the last time we had this discussion: about 2½ million tons are wasted in this country to-day. Secondly, regarding glass—I know that the glass bottle manufacturers have a target to collect broken glass and use it again, and I know that they have now arranged to obtain glass from their own sources. The demand is going to increase, however, and there ought to be arrangements for collecting broken glass. Next, woollens and cloths, rubber and plastics and aluminium foil containers, which are very expensive and are nearly pure aluminium. Then 10 million gallons, at least, of engine oil are thrown down the sinks very day. A million tons of ferrous scrap are also lost. I know the difficulties with tin cans, but that is being tackled. Here one should mention Warren Springs Laboratories, which are working on this, and so many other projects. In addition one has to consider edible wastes in certain areas.
That is all I have to say. I think there is a good case for requiring the house holder to do these things, and I know from the letter that I read at the beginning of my short speech that the householders will co-operate in this task. If the noble Baroness assures us that the clause as drafted meets what I want, that the householder and industry can be instructed, I shall be very glad to withdraw my Amendment. I beg to move.
2.59 p.m.
BARONESS YOUNG: I am sure that we have all listened with very great interest to what the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, has said on this matter of salvage and the sorting out of different types of waste material. I think that it might be helpful to the Committee if I explain what in fact Clause 11(4) does provide. It provides a power to make regulations concerning receptacles for controlled waste of various sorts; their size; the different substances which may or may not be put into them, and the steps to be

1289
taken by householders to facilitate collection, such as the kind of thing that would ensure access to the dustbin if the householder is out. Paragraph (e) enables regulations to be made requiring collection authorities to give directions on any of these matters.
We have on a previous Amendment discussed the question of the separation of waste paper where of course it is open to any collection authority, if they so wish, to collect paper separately and make such arrangements. I believe it would be possible for collection authorities if they wished to go further, to make arrangements for a separate collection of something else. I think the difficulty about this Amendment would be that it would make it obligatory to sort out waste, or would suggest that the Secretary of State should by regulation have a power to oblige collection authorities to collect all these items separately.
The noble Lord quoted a letter from the Sun and I understood him to say that he, on the basis of this, felt that the householder would be willing to cooperate in this matter of separating out different household wastes. The difficulty is that, whereas people were glad to co-operate during the war, and indeed nearly everybody separated household wastes, any salvage drive to-day must rely to a great extent on the co-operation of the public. It is difficult to know quite what enforcement action could be brought against householders who failed to co-operate, and who might have failed to co-operate for good reasons in that perhaps they had not the proper space to be able to store all these different kinds of thing, or for some such reason. Secondly, there is a practical reason requiring the full co-operation of collecting authorities, because of course they would be required to have specially designed vehicles in which the different types of thing could be sorted, so that they could be collected easily.
So far as industrial wastes are concerned, the evidence is that most of the wastes are in fact re-cycled wherever this is possible, so the same argument would not apply. Although this is the kind of Amendment with which one has an instinctive sympathy, against a background of wanting to use all our resources, the reason why we believe it would be difficult to write such a provi-
1290
sion into the Bill is that it would, or could, require a measure of compulsion which we feel could not be justified, and this must rest on the basis of co-operation with the collection authorities and the public. It is for this reason that I feel I cannot accept the Amendment.
LORD DERWENT: Before my noble friend Lord Craigton replies, may I, surrounded as I am at this moment by Scotsmen, ask whether my noble friend Lady Young can make any suggestion as to what one does with empty whisky bottles, of which, as your Lordships may realise, I have a great number? I cannot get rid of them except to the dustman. I have tried to get rid of them to the wine merchant from whom I buy, and so on. Recently one of the big whisky manufacturers ran out of bottles. So can my noble friend, or any Scotsman, tell me what one ought to do with these bottles? It is a terrible waste to give them to the dustman.
BARONESS WHITE: I am delighted to know that the noble Lord is able to consume so much whisky that he has so many bottles he does not know what to do with them. I thought I should perhaps mention, in speaking to this proposed subsection, that I myself as a private citizen have now taken action with the City of Westminster, who inform me that arrangements could be made to collect all my waste paper if I do certain things. I am now going lo try to persuade the other tenants in the block of flats in which I live to agree. I would suggest that noble Lords should take comparable action with their own local authorities or with commercial interests, to indicate that when we speak in this House we mean what we say and try to do something about it.
I appreciate the point made by the noble Baroness that there is an obligatory element in the Amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, which I suppose could lead to some difficulties. Maybe this is something we should look at again more carefully. We are all groping towards methods by which we can ensure what all of us are aiming at, which is an intelligent use of our resources. Recent events, as we all know, have brought this matter home to the general public far more clearly and sharply than has been the case ever since the period shortly after the last war. It would be

1291
a great pity if we in this House did not do our best to make effective the public sentiment which has been recently aroused, but just allowed everything to slip back to where it was before. So even if the Amendment proposed by Lord Craigton cannot be accepted, I am sure we are all in great sympathy with its objects and should like to see whether the Department, or ourselves, could not by some ingenuity find some other method of securing the same end.
LORD CRAIGTON: I wish that in withdrawing this Amendment I could do so with such skill as the noble Baroness has just used for me. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 12 [Disposal of waste in England and Wales]:
3.5 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR DEFENCE FOR THE ROYAL AIR FORCE (LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL): This is a fairly simple Amendment intended to clarify the fact that this is a more specific reference to Clause 10. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 17, line 17, leave out ("this Part") and insert ("section 10").—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CRAIGTON LORD CRAIGTON moved Amendment No. 86:
Page 17, line 17,, leave out ("waste paper") and insert ("such waste").
The noble Lord said: I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, wishes to discuss his two relevant Amendments with mine. The point is a short one. I have made out some kind of a case for collecting many things other than glass. All I felt was that in dealing with this provision we should allow the collection authority at least to collect something else than glass because it must be more expensive to have two handlings. So I wanted, without altering the pesent position, to make this change. I beg to move.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: I should like to give support to the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Craigton; it covers substantially the point I sought to cover by Amendments Nos. 87 and 88. As the position stands, as I think the noble Lord stated, a collection authority is going to be very limited at the present time in its ability to salvage materials. None of us at this stage knows what we shall need to reclaim in the future. It would seem to me to be rather unwise to leave this matter to disposal authorities. In places we could well have a collection authority with a sense of initiative that wished to reclaim items which this Bill, as at present worded, would prevent it from doing. I very much hope that the noble Baroness will feel she can at least accept the principle behind these Amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, and myself.
BARONESS YOUNG: The principle behind this clause has been the division of responsibility between collection authorities and disposal authorities which is based on a similar division under the London Government Act 1963. With the exception of waste paper, collection authorities are to hand over all wastes to disposal authorities. That is the basic principle behind this provision. The Amendment of my noble friend Lord Craigton would have the effect of leaving a collection authority complete discretion as to what it should hand over. I think the Amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, have the same effect of giving collection authorities discretion. This point follows very much on the discussion we had on the last Amendment. I understand the principle behind these Amendments, which is that collection authorities would have a power, if they so wished, to colloct other substances separately. This is a matter I should like to consider, to see whether there is any way in which we could meet this point. I should be glad to consider all three Amendments.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: To speak for myself, I am grateful for the tenor of the noble Baroness's remarks. It is important to allow collection authorities some latitude so that they can, if they wish, show initiative. They may be willing to undertake what a disposal

1293
authority may not be willing to undertake at some given time. This in the long run, could be a very considerable improvement to the Bill. So far as my Amendments are concerned, in the circumstances, I shall not move them.
LORD CRAIGTON: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD LEATHERLAND LORD LEATHERLAND had given Notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 89A:
Page 17, line 26, at end insert—
("() Every collection authority (unless excused by the Department of the Environment) and every disposal authority shall keep waste paper separately from other refuse and shall dispose of the waste paper by sale."
The noble Lord said: Last Thursday night it was decided that we should take Amendments 89A and 89B in conjunction with Amendment No. 81. We had a debate on the subject of reclaiming waste paper and I addressed your Lordships at some length with such little eloquence and persuasiveness as I can command, and we felt that the debate had then been closed. Perhaps my two Amendments are still on the Marshalled List because, at the end of last Thursday's debate we merely withdrew Amendment No. 81 and announced that we would be coming back to this question of waste paper in my two Amendments at a later stage of the Bill. It would be improper, therefore of me to address your Lordships at any length once again. I think that probably the best course is for us to come back to the Amendments on Report.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL moved Amendment No. 90:
Page 17, line 40, after ("or") insert ("otherwise ")
The noble Lord said: On behalf of my noble friend Lady Young I beg to move Amendment No. 90; and it may be to the convenience of your Lordships if I refer also to Amendment No. 96. Amendment No. 90 is purely a drafting Amendment in order to make clear that processing is considered to be a form of disposal of waste.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
3.15 p.m.
LORD GARNSWORTHY LORD GARNSWORTHY moved Amendment No. 91.
Page 17, line 42, at end insert—
("(3A) Noting in section 23 of the Electric Lighting Act 1909 or in any other enactment shall be deemed to prohibit a disposal authority from generating electricity from the combustion of waste or from supplying the said electricity to an Electricity Board on such terms as may be agreed between any such Board and the disposal authority.")
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 91, and at the same time may I speak to Amendment No. 130? I should like to think that the Committee would see these Amendments as being very valuable ones having a considerable topical interest in view of our difficulties at the moment with regard to fuel supplies.
Section 23 of the Electric Lighting Act, 1909, as amended by the Fourth Schedule to the Electricity Act, 1947, which this Amendment seeks further to modify, states as follows:
"It shall not be lawful for any local authority, company or person, other than an Electricity Board, to commence to supply or distribute electricity: Provided that this section shall not prevent any company or person from affording a supply of electrical energy to any other company or person where the business of the company or person affording the supply is not primarily that of the supply of electrical energy to consumers:"
The Greater London Council has in operation, and has had for some time, a very large refuse incineration plant at Edmonton and its construction provided it with a capacity to produce a substantial amount of electricity from the heat from the incineration process, and the plant is presently producing electricity and feeding it to the national grid. If, however, the heat from the plant had not been used for the generation of electricity, that heat would simply have been wasted. I hope, therefore, that my Amendment may be regarded by the Government as a very welcome and sensible one.
By reason of the provisions of the London Government Act, 1963, the Greater London Council is not a local authority within the meaning of the Act of 1909 although it is a local authority for the purposes of the Electricity Act, 1947. So the position is that although the Council can claim for its refuse incinerator at Edmonton, and any future similar installation, that it is free from the prohibition contained in Section 23 of the Act of 1909, I am advised—and this view is supported by the opinion of

1295
leading counsel—that the position is otherwise in the case of local authorities generally. Because of that, I think that it is desirable that the effect of Section 23 should be appropriately modified to allow waste disposal authorities under the Bill to provide for the possible generating potential of waste disposal. If that were to be done, disposal authorities generally would be free from the prohibition contained in Section 23.
I appreciate that the wholesale repeal of Section 23 would possibly meet with the objection that the statutory monopoly of the Electricity Boards would be undermined thereby. But the proposed Amendment does not seek to do that; it seeks merely to remove for waste disposal authorities a prohibition on the potential use of a valuable by-product of the waste disposal process. I put this Amendment forward as an improvement to the Bill. I would think that at the moment it might be regarded as a matter of burning interest, and I hope that in what I have been able to say I have been able to throw a little light on the intention of the Amendments. I beg to move.
VISCOUNT AMORY: I think the aim of the Amendment as the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, has outlined it, would seem to your Lordships to be a very sensible one indeed. It is very difficult, in fact impossible, at this stage to envisage the volume or nature of refuse which will be available in the dumps of the disposal authorities, but in some cases it may be economic to use the combustion for the generation of electricity. In the cases where that is so, clearly one would hope that everything would be done to encourage them so to do and to sell back the power generated to the Electricity Board. I hope that my noble friend will be able to say that she agrees that the aim of this Amendment is a good one and will, in principle, give it her support.
LORD LEATHERLAND: I also sincerely hope that the Government will be able to accept this Amendment. It may be that they will argue that the disposal authorities already have the power to sell their steam from their refuse destructors—I do not know. This Amendment would make it obligatory on them to do so.
1296
I know quite a lot about refuse destructors. When I came out of the Army in 1919 I was appointed as Chief Cost Accountant of the Birmingham Corporation Refuse Disposal and Salvage Department. It is a pity I did not stay there instead of degenerating into journalism. A refuse destructor with its battery of boilers can produce an enormous quantity of steam, and at our main destructor in Birmingham we used to produce steam to drive all the machinery on the depot—the paper baling plant, the tin baling plant, and so on—and then piped that steam under the road to the Corporation's electricity generating station on the other side of the road. We received a substantial sum every year for the steam that we supplied. I know that electricity generation is now under a completely new authority, but it would be a pity if refuse disposal authorities were not enterprising enough to seize the opportunity to sell their steam to electricity stations where they are conveniently situated. I very warmly support this Amendment.
BARONESS YOUNG: I hope I have said enough in the course of the Committee proceedings to make it clear that the Government are fully in sympathy with these Amendments which are concerned with various aspects of re-cycling. As I made clear at an earlier stage, we intend to bring forward an Amendment of our own on this matter. On this particular Amendment, I support the remarks of my noble friend Lord Amory and of the noble Lords, Lord Garnsworthy and Lord Leatherland, about the plant at Edmonton which my noble friend Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal and I visited. We were very impressed with what we saw. This is a most topical matter which we will consider. We intend to consider this Amendment further in consultation with the Department of Energy and representatives of the supply industry. There are legislative and technical problems involved and these will need full consideration. I hope that with that assurance the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, will feel able to withdraw the Amendment.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for what she has said, and grateful, too, for support from the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, and my noble friend Lord Leatherland.

1297
As I understand the position, if the Government are able to produce an Amendment that covers this position they will be doing so at the next stage of the Bill. In that event I wonder whether I may ask the noble Baroness if she would be kind enough to let me know as early as she can, otherwise I may want to come back to this at a later stage. On this understanding, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 12, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 13 [Disposal of waste in Scotland]:
3.23 p.m.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: On behalf of my noble friend I beg to move Amendment No. 95. This is a Scottish consequential Amendment which should be read in conjunction with Amendment No. 85.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 15, after ("of") insert ("section 10 of").—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
LORD HOY: I wonder why the different procedure is adopted in the English and the Scottish clauses. There was a reference to "of this Act", and then "of this part of the Act", and now in the Scottish one it is, "Section 10". Section 10 appears to me to be equally applicable to England and Scotland. Why is different wording being adopted in Clauses 12 and 13? Is it just because there are different draftsmen and they do not speak to each other?
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: I must admit that I am not familiar with the individual draftsmen. The noble Lord is aware that Amendment No. 85 put in the words "Section 10" instead of "of this part". There was a specific reason for that and I think the same reason applies to this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: I beg to move Amendment No. 96. We have already discussed this with Amendment No. 90.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 26, after ("or") insert ("otherwise").—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 13, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 14 [Directions to licence holders to accept waste]:
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: On behalf of my noble friend I beg to move Amendment No. 97, which we discussed some days ago with Amendment No. 37.
Amendment moved—
Page 21, line 9, after ("3(1)") insert ("or 4(7A)").—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 14, as amended, agreed to
Clause 15 [Removal of waste deposited in breach of licensing provisions]:
LORD GARNSWORTHY LORD GARNSWORTHY moved Amendment No. 98:
Page 21, line 21, leave out ("a disposal authority or").
The noble Lord said: The clause as drafted gives power to both waste disposal and waste collection authorities to remove waste from land where it has been wrongfully deposited. I am advised, however, that this provision appears to conflict with Section 23 of the Civic Amenities Act 1967 which places the responsibility on the authorities which will be the collection authorities under the clause—that is to say, the district councils—to remove dumped waste from places in the open air. Since it does not appear to be the intention of the Bill as drafted to repeal Section 23 of the Act of 1967, it would be consistent and would avoid possible disputes arising between collection and disposal authorities if this clause was amended so as to relate to collection authorities only. I beg to move.
BARONESS YOUNG: The effect of the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, would be to restrict to collection authorities the right to take remedial action if waste was deposited in breach of licensing conditions. Clause 15 has been so drafted that either the collection authority or the disposal authority can take remedial action if a licence has been breached. It is because of possible danger to public health that it has been so drafted. It is felt, in those circumstances, that either authority ought to have this power.

1299
On the specific question which the noble Lord raised about the Civic Amenities Act, this is a point which we shall look at in connection with the group of Amendments moved by my noble friend Lord Amory, which it will be recalled had the effect of repealing and consolidating previous legislation.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: I am grateful to the noble Baroness, particularly for her latter remarks. I have no wish to take up the time of the Committee and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.30 p.m.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL moved Amendment No. 99:
Page 21, line 39, after ("nor") insert ("caused nor knowingly").
The noble Lord said: On behalf of my noble friend Lady Young, I beg to move Amendment No. 99, and it may be convenient to discuss with this Amendments Nos. 104 and 105; and indeed Amendment No. 106 by the noble Lord, Lord Henley, is made unnecessary if we accept No. 105. This is essentially a straight forward legal point which, seeing that he is present, I hope will commend itself to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stow Hill. The essential point is to show that ignorance is not an excuse and the effect of the three Amendments is to substitute a rather stiffer test; namely, that the occupier neither deposited the waste nor caused or knowingly permitted the waste to be deposited. These three Amendments bring the clause into line with Clause 3(1), which creates the basic offence of depositing waste or causing or knowingly permitting waste to be deposited on unlicensed sites. I beg to move.
LORD HENLEY: I am quite happy about that. It seems to cover the points that I have tried to make in my Amendment No. 106 and if your Lordships accept Amendment No. 99 and Amendments 104 and 105 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, I shall not need to move Amendment No. 106.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
3.31 p.m.
LORD STOW HILL LORD STOW HILL moved Amendment No. 100:
1300
Page 21, line 44, at end insert ("provided that the court may in the alternative amend the notice by deleting any particular requirement it considers unsatisfactory").
The noble and learned Lord said: The object of this Amendment is to make a slight change in subsection (2) of Clause 15 with a view to make it a little more effective. As the Committee will see, the subsection provides that a person who, under Clause 15, is served with a notice by the disposal authority or the collection authority, has a right of appeal to a court of summary jurisdiction. That court is then called upon to quash the notice provided it is satisfied, as to the matters set out in paragraphs (a) to (d) of subsection (2) and otherwise has to dismiss the appeal.
For the purposes of this Amendment the relative paragraph is (b), which reads:
"any requirement of the notice is unreasonable".
In other words, if the court comes to the conclusion that if any requirement which may be contained in a number of requirements—the notice may set out many requirements—is unreasonable then the court has to allow the appeal. What is envisaged is that there may be a notice which is sensible and desirable in every conceivable respect, which ought to be upheld, subject to this: that among a number of requirements it contains one requirement which could be said to be an unreasonable requirement. As subsection (2) now stands, the court would be under a duty to allow the appeal because there was, among many requirements, one requirement which it thought to be unreasonable.
It would be sensible at this stage to submit to your Lordships' Committee that in a case of that sort the Court should be given a third alternative. In that situation it should not be under a duty to allow the appeal. Clearly, it could not dismiss the appeal. It should be given a third alternative, which should be as set out in the Amendment which I commend to the Committee. It should be entitled to make a change in that requirement which it thought was an unreasonable requirement; it could amend it, and no doubt if it thought fit so to do it would amend it by striking out any provision (if it were feasible so to do) in that requirement which would seem to make it an unreasonable requirement. The

1301
Court could strike out the characteristic that was unreasonable or it could change it or make such amendment as in the circumstances seemed reasonable. Having done so, it could then dismiss the appeal. The result would then be that the recipient of the notice would have a notice containing requirements, all of which were reasonable, and he could not reasonably complain if in those circumstances his appeal to the court of summary jurisdiction were disallowed.
I submit that this is an Amendment which would improve the working of subsection (2); it would produce the result that appeals would be dismissed where, as a matter of common sense, they ought to have been dismissed but which, as the subsection reads at the moment, would have to be allowed because each single requirement contained some feature which could not reasonably be justified. I beg to move.
BARONESS YOUNG: In order that the House may hear the Statement about the Prime Minister's meeting of yesterday with the T.U.C. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

ENERGY SUPPLIES AND THE ECONOMIC SITUATION
3.35 p.m.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR ENERGY (LORD CARRINGTON): My Lords, with permission I will repeat a Statement being made by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister in another place. These are his own words:
"Six representatives of the T.U.C. came to Downing Street at 4.30 p.m. yesterday afternoon to meet me and my right honourable friends the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretaries of State for Employment and Energy. We discussed the possibility of relaxing the restrictions on the use of electricity in industry, the general economic situation and its prospects, and against that background the miners' dispute and the T.U.C. initiative.
"On the use of electricity in industry, my right honourable and noble friend the Secretary of State for Energy
1302
explained that, for various reasons, which I described in my answers to questions in the House last Friday, stocks of coal at the power stations were higher than had earlier been expected. If there were no significant setbacks, and there was no further reduction of supplies of coal to the power stations, it should be possible to contemplate an early relaxation in the restrictions on the use of electricity. It would be important to give the fullest benefit of any relaxations to manufacturing industry; and this would depend on savings by domestic consumers continuing at a high level.
"We asked the T.U.C. representatives whether, if some such relaxation were possible, they would prefer to see industry move to a four day working week or—if this was practicable—to a five day working week with industry using only 80 per cent. of normal supplies of electricity. The T.U.C. made clear that they would prefer a five-day week and 80 per cent. of normal use of electricity.
"This had also been the preference expressed by the C.B.I. at a meeting with my right honourable and noble friend in the morning.
"My right honourable and noble friend is now considering as a matter of urgency whether the technical problems of a five-day week at 80 per cent. of normal use of electricity can be overcome, so that he may be in a position to take a decision later this week, if the coal stock situation and supply prospects justify some relaxation.
"Clearly, one of the factors in his decision must be the industrial action of the mineworkers and its effects upon coal supplies.
"We then moved on to a discussion of the general economic situation, on which I expect to have further meetings both with the T.U.C. and with the C.B.I. My right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer explained the severe problems which exist in the field of domestic economic policy. The shortfall in energy supplies was bound significantly to affect gross domestic product in the first part of 1974. The substantial additional burden imposed on the balance of payments by the increase in oil prices made it the more necessary to take every advantage of

1303
our competitive situation to increase exports. There would be a sizeable demand for new investment, particularly in the development of new sources of energy. It was therefore impossible to envisage any increase in the volume of resources going into domestic consumption. Indeed, we could well have to be content with the living standards of a year ago, and deny ourselves the improvements in living standards to which, only a few months ago, we have been looking forward. In the light of this change of circumstances, Stage III of the counter-inflation policy now appeared if anything too generous.
"Against that background we turned to the coal miners' dispute and the T.U.C. initiative. The T.U.C. representatives stated that they were prepared to say that the miners were a unique case, that other unions would not use the special nature of the mineworkers' case as an argument in their own negotiations, and that the T.U.C. itself would not come to Downing Street in support of any other case this year. They claimed that in giving this undertaking they would be going further than the T.U.C. had gone before, and indeed could go no further, to ensure that any special settlement for the miners was not followed by excessively inflationary settlements of other claims. Their initiative had been almost unanimously approved by their special meeting on January 16.
"For my part, I made it clear that the Government recognised the significance of the undertaking offered by the T.U.C. and unreservedly accepted its sincerity and genuineness. Nor did we doubt that they could secure the implementation of the specific undertaking they were prepared to give.
"But the fact remained that the offer already made to the N.U.M. was in our view fair, and, in the economic situation facing us, as generous as we could afford. Within the limits of the Stage III pay code it treated the miners as a special case, and would in fact more than restore their relative position as it was immediately after the Wilberforce award.
"The N.U.M. had resorted to industrial action last November, more than three months before their existing
1304
agreement was due to expire. In the meantime 4 million people had accepted settlements within the Stage III pay code; and the change in our economic circumstances made it more rather than less difficult to envisage increases in excess of the Stage III code. Other groups had the same sort of power as the miners to damage industry, cause hardship in homes, and disrupt the life of the nation.
"I had therefore to say to the T.U.C. representatives that, if the miners' use of their industrial power was seen to lead to a settlement which was excessive by the standard of Stage III—and the nation certainly cannot afford more—there was nothing in the T.U.C.'s undertaking to prevent such groups from following the miners' example, and using their industrial power to seek to extort excessive settlements. The T.U.C. representatives agreed that this was the case, and emphasised that there was nothing further they could do by means of their undertaking to prevent that happening.
"I made it clear, and the T.U.C. representatives accepted, that the Government was not rejecting their initiative, or questioning its sincerity. In deed, it remains on the table, and I expressed the hope that we should be able to build on it in further discussions with the T.U.C. on future developments of counter-inflation policy.
"But the fact remains, and the T.U.C. representatives agreed, that in present circumstances their initiative would not protect us against the use of industrial power, by those who might be minded so to use it, in pursuance of settlements at a level which the country cannot afford. That is a risk which in present circumstances we cannot run.
"Mr. Speaker, a fair and generous offer has been made to the miners. I will, with permission, circulate details of it in the OFFICIAL REPORT. From that honourable Members will see that full use has been made of the provisions in the Stage III pay code which enable us to treat the miners as a special case.
"In addition, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Employment and I have made it clear that the Government is ready, as soon as normal working has been resumed, to

1305
start immediate discussions with the National Coal Board and the National Union of Mineworkers on the future of the coal industry, on improvements in pensions and in provisions for health hazards, and on the pay arrangements appropriate in the longer term to the industry's future and its manpower requirements.
"So the Government has done everything in its power, within what it believes to be right in the interests of the country as a whole, to make possible a settlement of this dispute.
"The T.U.C. has also offered everything that is in its power to offer to limit the consequences of a special settlement for the miners. The fact that we have had to say that it does not go far enough to prevent the dangers we fear does not mean that we fail to recognise the importance of the step they have made, to which I again pay tribute.
"But there is a third party involved in this affair, with whom the responsibility

THE N.C.B. OFFER (to be operative from 1st March 1974)

(i) New minimum basic rates:

£27·59 for surface workers

(+£2·30).

£29·86 for underground workers

(+£2·57).

£39·36 for face workers

(+£2·57).

(ii) Increased shift payments

To be 17p an hour between 8 p.m. and 6 a.m. for everybody (in lieu of 2½p for day wagemen only).

(iii) Increased holiday pay

To be paid at time rates prevailing at time of holiday, with minima of £61 for the main 2 weeks and £5·70 per day for the remaining 19 holidays.

(iv) Additional statutory holiday.

(v) Retirement benefits

Lump sum at age 65 raised from £300 to £500. Increases for incapacity retirement from age 51 to apply from 1st January 1974.

(vi) Death benefits

Benefits to be provided for all deaths in service to apply from 1st January 1974.

(vii) Efficiency payments

Up to 3½ per cent, if a scheme is agreed and approved by the Pay Board.

(viii) Threshold clause

In accordance with the Pay Code.

(ix) N.C.B. statement of intent to improve sick pay when circumstances permit.

(x) N.C.B. to discuss the implementation of a third week's holiday as soon as circumstances permit.

The Coal Board estimate that the offer (items (i) to (vi) only) would cost about £45 million (13 per cent.). These figures exclude the increased overtime payments resulting from the higher minimum basic rates. In addition all miners enjoy fringe benefits, worth an average of £2·64 per week.
In addition, the Government has told the National Union of Mineworkers that, if they were prepared to accept the settlement available to them under Stage 3, the Government would be ready, immediately after normal coal supplies were resumed, to discuss with both sides of the industry the future of the coal industry, the manpower requirements and the arrangements for pay and for other conditions of service appropriate to a modernised industry in the longer term.
3.48 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, for having read this lengthy Statement. The fact that there is very little about the position of the actual dis
bility for the future now rests. That is the National Union of Mineworkers. The offer which has been made to them, together with our proposals for discussions about the future of the industry responds to their case for special treatment, within the limits of what the country can afford, and provides a basis on which a secure future for the industry, and for employment in it, can be established.
"I very much nope, therefore, that the National Union of Mineworkers will recognise this, and will conclude that acceptance of the offer on the basis I have described will do justice not only to the aspirations of the miners but also to the needs and circumstances of our country of which we are all citizens."
My Lords, that concludes the Prime Minister's Statement.
Following are the details of the offer to the miners referred to in the Statement:
putes which are going on I shall refer to briefly. I think we are in one of the most desperate situations, and the Government must carry the full responsibility for this; they must be prepared to justify in debate very soon what is

1307
said in this Statement. There is one good item in it, the possibility of a return to a five-day week. But this, of course, immediately raises a question as to the judgment that led to the introduction of the three-day week. The noble Lord appeared to talk about disputes which disrupt the life of the nation, but I am bound to say that I think the Government carry a heavy responsibility for disrupting the life of the nation. I am particularly disturbed by the implication contained in the Statement that,
" … we could well have to be content with the living standards of a year ago, and deny ourselves the improvements in living standards to which, only a few months ago, we have been looking forward."
The fact that we shall see a decline in our living standards was settled before the miners' dispute and, indeed, before the new oil position. This was made very clear by Mr. Gordon Richardson the other day.
My Lords, I think it is a tragedy that the Government have not accepted what I think Mr. Whitelaw would have called the olive branch that the T.U.C. put forward. The Government have acknowledged that in fact this was a remarkable development on the part of the T.U.C., and they say that they would like to build on it. But by their action now their chances of building on it have gone. I say with absolute seriousness to the Government that we may well see a worse situation with regard to the dispute in the mines. We shall see bitterness growing in this country. We do not know what is going to happen.
The Government may say they are right to be indecisive at the present moment. Are we to have an Election? If the situation is so serious, ought we not now to have an immediate Budget? What are the Government going to do? Obviously we cannot debate this fully this afternoon. I find it very difficult, in a situation of such acute seriousness, to find words that will not exacerbate the seriousness of the situation further. The Government were given an olive branch. They could have got the nation fully back to work. They have turned it down; and they have turned it down in pursuit of a policy which they must know they are not going to be able to enforce. As I said when we debated this
1308
subject before, the Government may or may not be right in their policy and their judgment of what ought to be done, but they are not going to succeed in it. We shall have to debate this very soon. I would only urge the Government to be a little more restrained in putting all the blame on the miners when so much blame attaches to their own misjudgment.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, I should like to make it absolutely clear from these Benches that we fully support the protection of Stage 3. This, I think, is absolutely essential when we are facing the inflation that is before us at the moment. I can quite understand the Coal Board and the Government not wishing to negotiate under duress while an overtime ban is on. But I stress "negotiate". Surely it might be wise to consider whether it would be worth while undertaking discussions, not negotiations, on the future of the industry as a whole even while the overtime ban is on. If it were possible for the Government to get the Coal Board and the miners to discuss seriously within wide parameters the whole long-term future and pay structure which is bound to be required for this industry against the background of the new energy situation, it might make a great deal of difference. Would there not perhaps be a chance of the miners accepting the present offer—and I do not see any reason for increasing it, because we have to protect Stage 3— if it were shown to be a stepping-stone to something much more advantageous over the next three or four years?
On one matter of fact, I heard in the Statement that pensions were to be apparently put to the next stage of discussion and negotiation. But under Stage 3 pensions can be negotiated because any contribution there is non-inflationary.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I do not think your Lordships will expect me to enter into a debate with the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition about the points he has made. This does not seem to me to be the purpose of this Statement. I would only say this to him. It seems to me that the paramount duty of any Government, of any complexion, is to protect the living standards of the people of this country, and if possible, in so far as it lies within the power of the

1309
Government, to see that inflation does not erode those standards. I think your Lordships should consider very carefully the consequences of action by a Government which, because of industrial action and the power of one section of the community, sees those living standards put at risk by inflation. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Byers, is quite right in what he says about that.
We will of course debate at some other time all the other matters which the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, wishes to debate. He is not right, if I may say so, about the four-day week. I think that the figures which have been produced by the Government prove conclusively that had the three-day week not been introduced at the time it was introduced then the position of the coal stocks in the middle of February in an ordinary winter would have been quite disastrous. It would have been most imprudent of any Government to do otherwise than take the action that Her Majesty's Government in fact took.
With regard to what the noble Lord, Lord Byers, said, about having further discussions, leaving aside whether this is possible or not, or whether it would be desirable or not, the difficulty is, as I understand it, that Mr. Gormley has made it abundantly plain that he is not prepared to negotiate with the Government or anybody else unless there is more money on the table.
3.55 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, while agreeing with the noble Lord that we do not want to have a protracted debate, would he at least answer one point made by my noble friend; namely, that the fact that we may well have to be content with the living standards of a year ago has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that the miners are working flat out on a five-day week and that this enormous threat posed by the balance of payments deficit arose before the miners started working on a full five-day week?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I do not think that there is any need for the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, to get quite so indignant. If he will look at the Statement and read it carefully, he will see that the context in which that remark was made was the context of the Chancellor of the Exchequer explaining
1310
to the T.U.C. the whole economic situation in which this country finds itself. And, of course, it finds itself in an economic situation which, as we know, because we saw the trade figures yesterday, was made more complicated by the big increase in commodity prices, which accounts for most of the deficiency in our balance of payments; which is even more complicated by the quadrupling of oil prices; and which will be more complicated still if the miners' dispute continues.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he is aware that he has missed one of the finest offers I have ever seen in a lifetime of trade unionism offered by the T.U.C. to try to make conciliation possible in this dispute? Is he further aware that what happened yesterday, after weeks and weeks of meetings, has most certainly disillusioned all of us in the trade union movement and has most certainly hardened the miners' attitude, as we will find in the course of the next few weeks. We shall all come to the conclusion that the Government are adamant on a confrontation with the trade unions.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I think that the Prime Minister's Statement made it perfectly clear that he paid tribute to what the T.U.C. sought to do, but for the reasons which he set out in the Statement he did not think, and the Government did not think, that this went far enough. I would ask the noble Lord to consider this. In the light of the economic situation with which this country is faced, to which the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, drew attention, and to which noble Lords on the Front Bench opposite nodded their heads, perhaps it would be as well for all of us in this country to realise that if we pay ourselves too much we are going to find ourselves in even worse trouble.
LORD COOPER or STOCKTON HEATH: My Lords, may I preface my question by the remark that I think, as most of us do, that the country is in a rather parlous state and that what is to be done should be looked at from that point of view. Is the noble Lord aware, as has been said by my noble friend Lord Blyton, that what the T.U.C. have offered so far is the greatest commitment in the

1311
whole history of the T.U.C. to any Government? I am sure the noble Lord is aware that the only way we shall win the battle against inflation that all Governments have been fighting since 1945 is by clear understanding and co-operation. Whether or not it is desirable is another matter, but it needs co-operation from the T.U.C. and the C.B.T. if we are to make progress.
When the Government say, as they say in the Statement, that they accept the assurance of the T.U.C. and yet they are not prepared to move at all in regard to the miners' claim, that it must be contained within Stage 3, do they not appreciate that this is the complete abrogation of collective bargaining? There has to be give and take even in this situation. I am sorry that the Government are in this situation, but it is not the only Government to have been in such a situation. There has to be give and take if this matter is to be settled. Finally, would it not be desirable for the Government to start thinking in terms of organising conciliation and arbitration to try to find a means of solving the problem?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I do not think anybody in the House could possibly disagree with what the noble Lord, Lord Cooper, said in his opening sentences. Indeed it is contained in the Statement by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. I think there are two things involved, and I must repeat one of them again. I think that all your Lordships, everybody in this country, the Trades Union Congress and the employers, must now realise that the economic situation which this country is facing is very difficult indeed. We must also realise that what has been offered to the miners is more than anybody else will be offered under Stage 3. They have been treated, and are being treated, as a special case. It restores them to the position they were in after Wilberforce, and if Stage 3 is held they will retain that priority. I really do think that in these circumstances it would be right for the National Union of Mineworkers to look again at the very generous offer that has been made to them.
LORD BESWICKa: My Lords, if we accept, as some of us are disposed to do, the economic assessment which the noble Lord is now offering us, and if we remember
1312
that Phase 3 was worked out at a time when Her Majesty's Government were prophesying, or planning for, a 3½, per cent. growth in our national economy, does it not make it all the more absurd that we should have this confrontation on the basis of Phase 3, which so patently is completely unrealistic at the present time?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, if I may use the same language as the noble Lord, it makes it all the more absurd that people refuse an offer which is more generous than anybody else has under Stage 3.
LORD POPPLEWELL: My Lords, would not the noble Lord agree that the nation as a whole welcomes the general idea that the national interest and the wellbeing of the nation must come first, as the noble Lord outlined? However, is he not also aware that at least the majority of the nation greatly deplore the attitude that the Government have adopted in this very serious situation? It would appear, particularly to the trade union movement, that in all the talks that have taken place between the Government and the Trades Union Congress and others, it has not been a question of the Government seeking to find a compromise and to gain the co-operation of the trade union movement in getting out of these difficulties, but that the trade unions have been called together to hear the diktat laid down by the Government in this particular series of situations. This is not something that can go down very well in a free society. Are not the Government aware that their insistence on this talk about Phase 3, and the attitude they have adopted, has led to more serious inflationary tendencies than would have taken place had a compromise been arranged? In view of the statement that this is the best offer that has ever been made to the miners, often referred to as l6½ per cent., are not the Government aware that this is not 16½ per cent but, to the vast majority of the miners, only 7 per cent., and that the rest is made up ultimately of fringe benefits? Is it not time that the Government got the nation back to reality?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, the offer to the miners will be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT, and noble Lords can see this. The offer amounts to 13

1313
per cent., with 3½ per cent, for production increases, and the total is 16½ per cent. Your Lordships may like to be reminded that the miners are insisting at the moment on an increase of 30 per cent. on their present pay. That is something that I think your Lordships should remember.
May I say this to the noble Lord opposite? Can he really justify what he has just said when, in the Statement, the Prime Minister not only says that that is the offer under Stage 3 to the N.U.M., but as soon as normal working has been resumed the Government are prepared to start discussions immediately on the future of the coal industry, on improvements in pensions, in provisions for health hazards, and on pay arrangements appropriate in the longer term to the industry's future and its manpower requirements? In fairness, I do not think that anybody could say that the Government have not tried, so far as they possibly can, to treat the miners as a special case.
LORD ROYLE: My Lords, many of us have inhibitions about turning a Statement of this kind into a debate. Can the noble Lord tell us how soon we can have a debate on this Statement?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I am not a "usual channel"; but the usual channels are here.
LORD ROYLE: My Lords, will the noble Lord influence them?
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord a practical question, not an academic question, in his capacity as Minister for Energy? On the assumption that the miners continue their ban on overtime, what are the prospects for a resumption of a five-day week, or even a four-day week? Does he envisage the possibility that the miners—and it may not happen—may respond to the appeal from the Prime Minister? Even if they have a ballot, there may be such a favourable response from the Prime Minister's point of view. But what does the noble Lord envisage if the miners, as a result of a ballot, have a full strike? Is there then any prospect of a five-day week, or a four-day week?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, if the miners responded to the appeal that has been made by my right honourable
1314
friend the Prime Minister, we could go back to a five-day working week to-morrow because the coal will be there. I am going to answer the noble Lord's question. Does he want to interrupt me before I do so?
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, the first question was the most important. What are the prospects of a resumption of the five-day week, or even a four-day week, if the miners continue the ban on overtime?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I was only answering the questions in the reverse order. If the noble Lord will allow me to do that, I will. I was saying that if there was a full resumption of work by the miners, there would be no problem about going back to a full five-day week tomorrow morning. If the industrial action now being taken by the miners continues, and if there is average weather, and if, when I see the figures this week, they do not appear to have deteriorated from what one might expect compared with last week, then I think that there is a good chance that we shall be able to go to the equivalent of a four-day week. If there were an all-out strike by the miners, then naturally the prospects would be very much worse indeed.
LORD SLATER: My Lords, as a practical miner, may I say on the Statement the Minister has made in regard to a five-day week, that it is impossible under the present circumstances? People have had to man the pumps, look after the winding gear, the shafts, the airways, and so on, but there will still be an amount of damage inside the mines in this country which will take some time to overcome. From the practical point of view, it will take some time for the miners to put the mines into proper working order and condition. I say that quite seriously to the Minister. Arising from his Statement, would he not agree that while much tribute has been paid by his right honourable friend the Prime Minister to the attitude of the T.U.C. — and this has been commented on by my noble friends on this side of the House—because of what has been done in response to the attitude and manner of the T.U.C., is it not true to state that more credence has been given to the point of view expressed by the C.B.I., and that the Government have given more support

1315
to their view as compared with the proposal made by the T.U.C.?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, the Government seek to act, and I believe in this case are acting, in the interests of the country as a whole.
LORD TAYLOR OF MANSFIELD: My Lords, I have two points. First, is the noble Lord intimating to the House that our present economic difficulties are due to the overtime ban by the miners? Secondly, I contest his assertion that what has been offered to the miners is more generous than offers to other workers. It is not 16 per cent. to all the miners. To some of them it would be only 7 per cent., and only 2½ per cent. of the manpower in the industry would get the maximum amount.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I think I have answered the noble Lord's first question, and the second will be answered when he sees the figures circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
LORD BROWN: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he recognises, as I certainly do, the fact that in the long run the only people who can settle the differential wage pattern of this country are those with the power to do so; that is, the trade unions? If he recognises that as a principle for the future, does he also recognise that this olive branch held out by the trade unions is the first time that they have taken a hand in settling at least one differential? On those grounds will the noble Lord please go back to the Prime Minister and say, "This is not only an important olive branch, but is the beginning of a pattern of behaviour on the part of the trade unions which has the greatest possible significance for the future, and to turn it down in this way is possibly to cut off a highly productive attitude which has been shown for the first time."?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I should not for one moment seek in any way to suggest that the T.U.C. have not come a very long way. But if the noble Lord looks at what the T.U.C. have offered, I think he will agree that the result will not lead to what he suggests.
LORD BALOGH: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that it is difficult for
1316
us to accept the Government's view when the Government have been so often wrong? In effect, there has been no policy which has not been a complete U-turn of a previous policy, which they have asserted with the same arrogance, with the same certitude, as the noble Lord now asserts his views.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Lord should find it difficult to believe the Government because they have been so often wrong. I find myself in much the same position with regard to the noble Lord.
4.13 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I think that the question of an early debate becomes very pressing indeed. It is even arguable that the House ought to order an immediate debate. I would say to the Leader of the House and his noble friends that we really must have a debate, possibly later this week. Many of us in this House feel, however important the legislation on the environment which is in front of us, that there is an air of unreality coming into our life in this country to-day. The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, has made a number of statements. I recognise their seriousness and the anxiety he feels but, even so, there were still errors. He said that the miners are insisting on 30 per cent., but the miners have repeated, again and again, that they are prepared to negotiate. They are not insisting. It is the Government who are insisting on a position which they have taken up. I shall really despair of the future of this country unless, even at this last moment, the Government accept the offers that are made to them. Probably we ought to talk through the usual channels, but I would say to the Government Chief Whip that we are exercising restraint in not pursuing the matter further now.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, of course I will talk both to my noble friend the Leader of the House and to the Chief Whip, and I hope that the usual channels will talk together, about the possibility of a debate. If it is the wish of noble Lords opposite and of the House as a whole, I am sure that that can be arranged.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, may I ask whether the noble Lord will then be prepared to answer not only

1317
some of the questions that have been asked, by my noble friend Lord Shinwell, and others, but also some of the questions which I specifically asked him on the last occasion and which he did not answer?
LORD CARRINGTON: I thought I had, my Lords, and I am sorry. I certainly answered all of the questions of the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell. In fact, I answered one of them twice.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I do not want to pursue the point beyond saying that if the noble Lord would like me to do so I will repeat the questions. But I do not intend to do so, and the Liberal Back-Benchers can relax. But I ask the noble Lord to have a look at some of the questions asked in the last debate and to answer them, so that we can really survey the prospects for this country.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, may I assure the noble Lord who is responsible for energy that he has not answered any of my questions, and indeed I never expected him to do so. The Government are in a mess, and everybody knows it; and some of us would like to take the Government out of the mess, in the interests of the country. But the Government themselves are preventing that by their severity, by their ineptitude and by the fancy idea that they have in their heads that they can have an Election and then adopt what is in the mind of the Prime Minister, though not in the mind of the Minister for Energy—a squeeze on wages. That is what they are hoping to do if they get what they call a mandate from the country. They are now entering upon the most bitter opposition from the workers of this country, the miners and others, that ever they have encountered.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (LORD WINDLESHAM): My Lords, some of those comments show the danger of embarking on an immediate debate following a Statement such as we have had to-day. There has been the opportunity to question my noble friend for something approaching 40 minutes. The Government Chief Whip and I will certainly discuss through the usual channels a further debate on this extremely important matter, but I think it is now the wish of the House that we should again resolve ourselves into Committee upon the Pro
1318
tectionof the Environment Bill. My Lords, I beg to move accordingly.

PROTECTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT BILL [H.L.]
4.16 p.m.
House again in Committee on Amendment No. 100.
LORD MERRIVALE: To return to consideration of Amendment No. 100, may I say that I always hesitate to tread on legal ground, especially when I may be in conflict with what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stow Hill, has said. I understood him to say that the object of this Amendment is to make subsection (2) a little more effective, but I hope and trust that the Minister will agree with me that it is doubtful whether a magistrates' court would be sufficiently knowledgeable about the technicalities involved to amend a notice issued by a disposal authority. It is also open to question whether it would be within the propriety of a court to amend such a notice. I shall therefore be grateful to hear what the Minister has to say.
LORD STOW HILL: May I venture to answer what the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, has just said? I quite agree that it might well be that a magistrates' court would say, in an individual case, that it did not feel qualified to substitute something else for the requirement contained in the notice, and if that were the case it would have to avoid using this third alternative. However, cases may arise when, clearly, a sensible change could be made. After all, one is dealing with intelligent people in magistrates' courts and whereas in some cases they might feel disinclined to make a change, in other cases it might be a very obvious and sensible thing to do, but as subsection (2) is worded they could not do that. All that the Amendment seeks to do is to create the power, so that it could be used in appropriate cases, and I submit that now and again appropriate cases are sure to present themselves.
4.20 p.m.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: Of course, it is essentially a legal point that the noble Lord is raising, and I only hope I have understood him correctly. May I also say that when he

1319
talks about a third alternative I am not wholly sure that this expression would commend itself to the noble Lord, Lord Conesford; but I hope we shall not enter into an argument on that one. Clause 15(2) enables a person served with a notice under Clause 15(1), which deals with the removal of waste deposited in breach of licensing provisions, to appeal to a magistrates' court against it and to rely on any of the four statutory grounds of objection in support of his case. If the court is satisfied that any of them is met, it will quash the notice. If the noble Lord is intending to extend Clause 15(2)(d), which makes it a defence that there is a material defect in the notice, then I am informed that his drafting would be defective and that this matter would need to be considered further. I can only say, as I have so often said before to the noble Lord, that this is what I am advised, and I must stand on it.
Another way of saying this is that if the Amendment is designed to allow the courts simply to amend an error in the notice and, by so doing, to enable a notice to remain intact, then we would support its aims at least, but we would contend that this is already achieved in substance by the use of the word "material" to qualify the defects in the notice. However, as the noble Lord has drafted the Amendment it seems to provide a very much wider power for a court to delete anything in a notice which it considers unsatisfactory, and we would not support an extension of the power of the courts on these lines. We would also resist the Amendment if it is meant to cover the grounds of objection against the notice listed in Clause 15(2), since it would equip the courts with a far greater control than is considered desirable over the contents of a notice, which may be technical. These are the notices issued under Clause 15(1). Logically, the Amendment could be applicable only to Clause 15(2)(b) and (d), so the Committee will appreciate the point being made by my noble friend Lord Merrivale, that the courts do not regard it as part of their duties to amend the terms of notices on which they adjudicate. This would seem to be somewhat of an extension of their judicial powers. After all, there is no difficulty in the local authority itself serving a revised notice immediately after the court proceedings in
1320
the light of what has been decided in the court. Therefore, I must recommend the Committee to resist this Amendment.
LORD STOW HILL: First, may I answer the questions that were put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal. I do not think, if I may say so, that paragraph (d) is appropriately worded to bring about what I seek to achieve. The phrase "material defect" is not appropriate as wording, in my submission, to cover the case where you have a requirement which the court, when it looks at it, and after hearing argument of course, thinks is an unreasonable requirement. That is something outside the scope of those words. Secondly, the noble Lord says that, after all, if the court thought there was an unreasonable requirement and allowed the appeal, the authority could serve a fresh notice not containing that unreasonable requirement. What a shocking, silly waste of time! What is the point of loading that kind of unnecessary complication upon the courts proceedings? If the court hearing the case which is being argued listens to the appellant and is satisfied that one of the perhaps half-a-dozen requirements contained in a notice is an unreasonable requirement, and if, when it listens to the other side, it is still of the opinion that it is an unreasonable requirement, is it really sensible to say to the local authority, "We propose to allow this appeal because there is one requirement out of the half-dozen which we think is unreasonable. We have not got power to amend it; you go away and amend it, serve a fresh notice, let there elapse the number of days which it is required should elapse, and then, if the appellant appeals again, we can deal with it"? It really does quite unnecessarily complicate procedure, it involves more expense and, I would submit, is absolutely unnecessary.
I do not want to appear (may I use the word?) unreasonable, but I am not trying to be obstructive here. I really am trying to make this clause work better than I think it would work at the moment. This clause, one assumes, is going to be operative for years and years before it is amended. Many people will have their interests decided in accordance with its present wording. Surely the Minister can say that he will at least

1321
consider seriously with his advisers as to whether his answer is satisfactory. I submit it is quite unsatisfactory, and I ask him to say that he will take this clause away and look again at this Amendment to see whether the arguments which I have ventured to suggest to the Committee do not carry force, and whether he ought not to accede to the proposal which is made.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: Of course I fully accept that the noble Lord is not trying to be obstructive, and I assure him that no more am I. I am perfectly certain that it would be reasonable to say that of course we will study every word that he has said. But I am bound to say, as I understand the advice I have been given, that I would not want to hold out too much hope of a very sympathetic hearing for what he has said.
LORD STOW HILL: The noble Lord, Lord Strathcona, when he uses language like that, means it, and he has told me that he will consider the matter. I accept that at once, and I would therefore be grateful if I may have the leave of the Committee to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL moved Amendment No. 101:
Page 22, line 3, leave out ("or withdrawal ").
The noble Lord said: On behalf of my noble friend Lady Young I beg to move Amendment No. 101. This is a simple, tidying-up Amendment designed to tighten the drafting of the clause.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
4.28 p.m.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL moved Amendment No. 102:
Page 22, line 27, at end insert ("necessary forthwith to remove the waste and to take such other steps; or").
The noble Lord said: On behalf of my noble friend I beg to move Amendment No. 102, and perhaps I may speak at the same time to Amendment No. 103. These Amendments are designed to make it clear that in the case of waste deposited in breach of licensing provisions a collection or disposal authority can remove the waste or take other steps to eliminate the danger, or remove
1322
the consequences of deposit, or both. This brings the paragraph into line with Clause 15(1), where one or other or both steps are specified, thus giving the greatest possible flexibility for dealing with the problems. I beg to move.
BARONESS WHITE: I should like to be entirely clear about this matter. I am sorry, I may well be at fault, but am I right in supposing that the consequences referred to here are not necessarily connected with water pollution or danger to public health, but could be unsightliness or general disagreeableness? Is that what is meant by "consequences"? Are they different consequences? It is by no means clear from this subsection as drafted. I may say that I am entirely in favour of the provision
"forthwith to remove the waste and to take such other steps".
That is all right, but I am not quite certain whether it covers matters which are not affected by pollution of water or danger to public health.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: I do not think I can give an answer to that question straight off the cuff. Perhaps my best course is to say that I will get in touch with the noble Baroness when I have taken advice on that particular point. I think she is raising a rather new point beyond what we are in fact seeking to do by this Amendment.
BARONESS WHITE: I am sure the noble Lord will agree that if he cannot answer it off the cuff and I do not understand it, there must be something unclear about it.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: I think the case has been made.
BARONESS YOUNG: The point has been made that it covers either of the two points made by the noble Baroness, Lady White, or both. It could be extended to cover other matters included in the general amenities of the area.
BARONESS WHITE: The noble Baroness has touched on the precise point of which I wanted to make certain. I do not know whether we can pursue it further at this stage, but I should be grateful if the noble Lord, Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal, or the noble Baroness, Lady Young, would take advice and let us know specifically; and maybe draft the

1323
Amendment in such a way that it is made plain to all precisely what it is these consequences are meant to refer to.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: I beg to move Amendment No. 103.
Amendment moved—
Page 22, line 32, at end insert ("or, as the case may require, may remove it and take such other steps").—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: This Amendment, No. 104, and Amendment No. 105 were dealt with when we discussed Amendment No. 99. I beg to move Amendment No. 104.
Amendment moved—
Page 22, line 39, after ("nor") insert ("caused nor knowingly").—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: I beg to move Amendment No. 105.
Amendment moved—
Page 22, line 41, after ("deposited") insert ("or caused or knowingly permitted the deposit of").—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
4.36 p.m.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL moved Amendment No. 107:
Page 22, line 42, at end insert ("except such of the cost as the occupier or other person shows was incurred unnecessarily")
The noble Lord said: On behalf of my noble friend Lady Young I beg to move Amendment No. 107. This qualification to a collecting or disposal authority's power under subsection (6) to recover the cost of removal of waste follows the principle that a person should not be required to bear the cost of an unnecessarily extravagant expenditure by the local authority in remedying the consequences of deposits of waste. This Amendment seeks to bring the subsection into line with Clause 15(4)(b) where the word "reasonably" is used.
LORD MERRIVALE: May I seek clarification from my noble friend on this Amendment, and ask whether I am
1324
right in believing, bearing in mind the previous subsection, subsection (5), that it will be the authority which removes the waste from the land, or takes other such steps as may be required, and consequently it will be the authority alone which will have the relevant information on which to decide what the action is to be taken? I agree that an Amendment of this nature is needed. But does not my noble friend think that this Amendment could lead to unnecessary complications because the occupier or other person did not have all the necessary facts available to him? It could also, I think, lead to the undermining of a co-operative attitude between the occupier or other person and the authority. Therefore, would it not be preferable to place the onus upon the authority to justify the cost incurred, rather than to place the onus upon the occupier or other person to prove that the costs, or parts thereof, were incurred unnecessarily? Would not my noble friend agree that it would be more simple, practicable and particularly fair to place the onus upon the authority? Maybe I am asking a hell of a lot, and no doubt the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, would say that I am—
LORD GARNSWORTHY: The noble Lord usually does.
LORD MERRIVALE: —but could my noble friend possibly consider, not withdrawing the Amendment—that would be going too far—but whether the Government might put in what would, in effect, be another Amendment to shift the onus in the way I am advocating?
VISCOUNT AMORY: If my noble friend Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal does give him a reassuring answer, would my noble friend Lord Merrivale consider withdrawing the words "hell of a" before the word "lot"?
LORD CRAIGTON: I think that my noble friend Lord Merrivale has made a good point and I hope that the Minister will support it.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: We are getting into a fairly broad issue of principle when we talk in this way. This brings us back to what we have said so often during the

1325
Committee stage, that we want to set up responsible authorities who may be respected by the public they are attempting to serve. Of course I can see the case for putting the onus of proof on them, but I am inclined to feel that there would be a real danger in doing that if someone wanted to frustrate a waste disposal authority. It would open the door to an individual to make life impossible for the authority by asking for the production of a whole series of figures which it might be difficult to produce; and then having what no doubt my noble friend Lord Merrivale would call "a hell of an argument" about it. I think it best to leave the wording in this way. One hopes that the authorities will be reasonable. Certainly, according to the way the Amendment is drafted, I should have thought that if an authority were unreasonable, an individual would have a good chance of making a claim against them stick. So I should be reluctant to follow the suggestion of my noble friend.
LORD HUGHES: I am a little disappointed by that answer. I do not want to go along the road suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, and place the onus upon the authority to prove that the cost was reasonable; and I accept the argument put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal. But I am unhappy about the way in which this Amendment is worded:
"except such of the cost as the occupier or other person shows was incurred unnecessarily."
To whom does the occupier or other person show this? How does he go about showing that it is unnecessary? And having found out to whom he shows it—presumably it would be to the local authority—who decides that it is unnecessary? Is it the authority which made the decision in the first instance? And if the occupier has made out what seems to him a good case, but the authority says, "Sorry, chum, we do not agree with you", is that the end of the matter? Where does the individual go from there? Does this give him the right to go to the court and say, "I have shown that this is an unnecessary or an unreasonable cost", and does the court then decide the matter? If it is merely a case of going to the authority then it could turn out to be a waste of time.
LORD CRAIGTON: I support what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Hughes. I feel that at least the authority should not unnecessarily withhold information which is requested.
BARONESS YOUNG: I would not wish the Committee to think that there is something very unusual about this Government Amendment or that it is trying to incorporate something which is going to do anybody down. The purpose of Clause 15 is to enable either a disposal or a collection authority to remove or take other remedial action to deal with waste deposited on land which is not licensed for disposal purposes. This is exactly the point which has come up on a number of occasions: it is a point over which several noble Lords have expressed concern, and we must do something about it. In the specific Amendment which has been put down, the question of costs would be either those incurred by the disposal or the collection authority. But in the last resort it is the courts who would hold the ring between the occupier and the collection or disposal authorities and would perhaps have the last word in determining what was right. I should have thought that this was an accepted procedure on these matters.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 15, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 16 [Special provisions with respect to certain dangerous or intractable waste]:
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL moved Amendment No. 108:
Page 23, line 2, leave out ("specified in the regulations as being waste")
The noble Lord said: I beg to move this Amendment on behalf of my noble friend Lady Young. This makes a small contribution by cutting out seven words and thus shortening what is by any standards a rather lengthy Bill. It is a purely drafting Amendment and I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYALI beg to move Amendment No. 109.
This is a purely drafting Amendment, and I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 23, line 11, leave out from ("to") to end of paragraph and insert ("matters connected with the disposal of special waste.")—[Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.]
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
4.42 p.m.
LORD STOW HILL LORD STOW HILL moved Amendment No. 109A:
Page 23, line 33, at end insert—
("Provided that nothing in any regulations made under this subsection shall be deemed to exempt the occupier of any premises from any requirement to obtain a licence under the provisions of the Petroleum (Consolidation) Act 1928 or from any conditions contained in any such licence in circumstances where special waste comprises a petroleum spirit or other substance to which the licensing provisions of the said Act of 1928 apply.")
The noble and learned Lord said: Your Lordships will know that Clause 16 contains very wide regulation-making powers covering a number of aspects of what is described as "special waste". "Special Waste" is waste which is particularly dangerous because of certain of its ingredients and it is therefore thought to require special treatment. There already exists in existing legislation (namely, the Petroleum Consolidation Act 1928) a very full system of registration and controls relating to special waste, if I may so describe it, which has a petroleum content.
The object of the Amendment I am now moving is in effect to prevent duplication. To take Greater London as an example, the Council is the licensing authority already for the purposes of the Petroleum Consolidation Act 1928 and under the terms of this Bill the Council will also become the disposal authority. In those circumstances, it may well be that the Council in Greater London would have to prescribe by regulations for registration and control of precisely the same special waste: first viewed as special waste per se and otherwise viewed as special waste with a petroleum content. That makes for unnecessary complication. It would mean there was duplication of the registration procedure, and I am sure your Lordships will agree that that is a situation which should be avoided. The proviso I seek to introduce would enact as follows: namely, that no regulations that are to be made under Clause
1328
16 will exempt the occupier of premises from any requirement under the 1928 Act to register waste which has a petroleum content and which as a result falls within the scope of the 1928 Act. This, in my submission, makes for simplicity of administration, avoids unnecessary duplication and the waste of time and money. I beg to move.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: We can certainly say that we are in sympathy with the intention of this proposed Amendment, but there are one or two points I should like to clear up right at the start. I am advised that, as a matter of law, the regulations under Clause 16 would not have the effect of exempting the holder of a licence issued under the 1928 Act, the Petroleum Act, or any similar Act, from complying with its conditions. In practice, there is not likely to be any conflict between the regulations and any licence condition. As I understand it, regulations governing the disposal of special waste are likely to deal, in the interests of preventing pollution, with such matters as procedures and precautions to be preserved during the handling on waste disposal premises of equipment and plant used for disposal and segregation from other wastes. On the other hand, licence conditions are concerned with the siting of the storage places, methods of storage and the precautions designed to prevent fire and explosion; and of course we should consult the Home Office (who are responsible for the 1928 Act) before making any regulations relating to petroleum spirit or indeed any other substance to which the licensing procedures of the 1928 Act applies, in order to ensure that there was no overlap.
We think it could conceivably prove harmful to accept the Amendment put forward by the noble and learned Lord, because it could suggest that there should be other saving provisions for other statutory codes which Clause 16 could not, as a matter of law, displace. So I hope the Committee will accept that this Amendment is in fact unnecessary, though I should like to assure the noble Lord that any overlaps of this kind are being and will be discussed and sorted out by the various Ministries concerned.
LORD STOW HILL: I am grateful to the noble Lord for what he has said. As

1329
to the first point he made, when the Amendment was put before me I rather wondered myself whether there could be duplication in view of the wording of Clause 16(1), but I came to the conclusion that there was a risk in it because of wording appearing in paragraph (a). That paragraph provides that regulations may be made in the case of dangerous waste, requiring
" … that it should be disposed of by disposal authorities or other persons in accordance with the regulations …".
Rightly or wrongly, it seemed to me that that introduced some doubt, and for that reason I thought it was appropriate to trouble the Committee with this Amendment. However, if the noble Lord will be so kind as to say that he will consider the matter with his advisers I will ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNTROYAL: I beg to move Amendment No. 110. This is a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 23, line 44, leave out paragraph (b).—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
BARONESS WHITE: Surely this is more than a drafting Amendment. Could the noble Lord clarify it slightly? I should have supposed it was taking out quite an important provision.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNTROYAL: I accept what the noble Baroness, Lady White, is saying. Perhaps I should have explained it. Clause 80 already provides sufficient powers of entry for the purpose stated, so this paragraph is thought to be unnecessary.
BARONESS WHITE: Had the noble Lord said that at the outset I should not have had to ask my question. I thank him very much.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 16, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
BARONESS WHITE: May I ask a question for information? At the end of the page, in line 43, it says that certain wastes are,
"to be disposed of only by the Secretary of State;"
One can hardly see the Secretary of State in person going round the country
1330
disposing of waste. May we be told what type of organisation exists for this purpose? The Department is not normally a disposer of waste. I confess my ignorance in this, but I assume that under the Deposit of Poisonous Waste Act there must be some special arrangement for dealing with this. I wonder whether we could be enlightened as to what the organisation might be?
BARONESS YOUNG: Could the noble Baroness give me the reference in the Bill?
BARONESS WHITE: It is on the clause that we are discussing, Clause 16, on page 23, at the end of subsection 2(a). It says,
"to be disposed of only by the Secretary of State;".
BARONESS YOUNG: This clause refers to toxic substances and provides for the Secretary of State to make further safeguards on the more dangerous substances.
BARONESS WHITE: He actually disposes of the waste.
BARONESS YOUNG: This is referring to the regulations he makes for the disposal of the wastes. If I am not interpreting that correctly I will write to the noble Baroness.
BARONESS WHITE: I should be obliged because, according to this subsection, he disposes of the waste. I was puzzled at to what organisation of the Department equipped it to deal with these particularly intractable forms of waste.
VISCOUNT AMORY: The Secretary of State may require instruction from the noble Baroness herself who carried out exploration in depth in waste disposal during the Christmas Recess.
Clause 16, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 17 [Application of preceding provisions to other waste]:
4.53 p.m.
VISCOUNT AMORY VISCOUNT AMORY moved Amendment No. 110A:
Page 24, line 14, after ("effect") insert ("generally or").
The noble Viscount said: Having not moved 19 Amendments which have stood in my name, I hope it will be considered not unreasonable if I summon up enough resolution to propose an Amendment

1331
now. I therefore propose Amendment No. 110A. The object of the Amendment is purely probing. I hope that I may secure an assurance from my noble friend that the regulations made by the Secretary of State under this subsection may, in appropriate cases, refer to the whole of England and Wales as the prescribed area, and not only part of England and Wales. I am referring only to regulations for which such application may be appropriate. I hope that my noble friend can assure me that the words "prescribed area" could carry that connotation in appropriate cases.
BARONESS YOUNG: This clause provides power for the Secretary of State to bring other classes of waste within the controlled waste category by regulation, subject to Affirmative Resolution in both Houses of Parliament. The objective of my noble friend's Amendment would be that these particular regulations could bring such categories of waste under the definition of controlled waste throughout the country or in selected areas. The intention behind the Amendment is one we should be glad to accept and I shall therefore be glad to consider this Amendment.
BARONESS WHITE: Is the noble Baroness not in a position to say for once that she simply accepts it? All that is suggested here is that the words "generally or" might be inserted. It seems to me that an Amendment of this kind is one she might bring herself to accept. Just to get it on the Record, and make it plain to all concerned, could the noble Baroness indicate what is meant by, "waste other than controlled waste"? I am not asking this question frivolously it makes it so much easier for people who occasionally look at Hansard to understand what it is that we are about. I am assuming that it is mine waste or quarry waste. It would be helpful if the noble Baroness could say what kind of waste might be referred to in any regulations under this clause.
BARONESS YOUNG: If I may deal with the first point, this is a matter on which I have taken advice and I must look at the matter again. I could not accept this Amendment just as it stands.
The noble Baroness asked me a question about wastes other than controlled
1332
waste. They are, as she mentioned, wastes from quarries and mines and farm wastes, which we have discussed at intervals. These are examples of that type of waste.
VISCOUNT AMORY: I do not quite know where I stand. I feel disappointed after my tremendous restraint—I thought I was going to carry all before me with this Amendment. I am not sure whether my noble friend is saying that she agrees. The sole aim of this Amendment is to ensure that in appropriate cases the prescribed area might be the whole of England and Wales and not part of it. I think my noble friend said she would need to consider this. But on the principle of the Amendment, I should have thought she could have told us whether it seemed reasonable that in appropriate cases it might be the whole area. If not, is she asking me to withdraw my Amendment because she will produce other words to the same effect, or simply that she will think further about it? If it is the latter, I will have to reserve the right to put down this Amendment again if her thinking is unproductive in meeting the point that I have raised.
BARONESS YOUNG: I am sorry if I have not made myself clear. What I meant by saying that I would consider the Amendment was not that it needs to be re-drafted, but because our understanding of the position is that the clause as drafted meets the point that my noble friend wishes to make. If this is not the ease, then this would be another matter. That would be the point that we would look at. I hope my noble friend will withdraw the Amendment.
VISCOUNT AMORY: My noble friend's reply is entirely satisfactory. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 17 agreed to.
Clause 18 [Powers of disposal authorities as respects other waste]:
On Question, Whether Clause 18 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD HENLEY: Does the noble Baroness think that under Clause 18 a disposal authority might be able to concern itself with the question of straw burning? Unfortunately, at present there is no alternative to burning straw. In

1333
spite of great efforts by the N.F.U., by codes of practice and other matters, to try to prevent the callous and reckless burning of straw, it is sometimes burnt in a callous and reckless manner. Fairly recently a new by-law has been brought out by the Essex County Council and this is being looked at with great interest by other local authorities. It may well be that something could be done about it under Clause 18. What does the noble Baroness think?
BARONESS YOUNG: I must say that when I was going through this Bill and considering all the kinds of matters which might cone up I had not thought of straw burning as something which the waste disposal authority should concern itself with. This is a matter which has been brought to my attention. I know that it causes concern, but I do not believe that it would come under the waste disposal authority. I should not have thought that within the powers of this clause, though I know it indicates that disposal authorities may collect information about non-controlled waste—which of course would include farm wastes—straw burning would necessarily be one of the things which they would be obliged to discuss. However, as I have indicated, this is a matter that has caused concern, and discussions are in fact going on now with the Home Office about the whole subject.
Clause 18 agreed to.
Clause 19 [Street cleaning]:
5.2 p.m.
VISCOUNT AMORY VISCOUNT AMORY moved Amendment No. 111:
Page 24, line 31, after ("(1)") insert ("Except in so far as the next subsection provides to the contrary")
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 111, which is a paving Amendment for No. 112. With permission, therefore, I should like to speak to both Amendments at the same time. As I understand it. Clause 19 is based on Section 77 of the Public Health Act 1936, under which the present district councils have the power, but only the power, to undertake the cleansing of streets. Under this clause, the new district councils have a statutory duty to undertake the cleaning of all highways in the new districts except in the case of inter-urban highways. Section 77, to which I have already
1334
referred, enables the local authority to make arrangements with the highway authority to do the work on terms agreed between them and to recover from the highways authority that part of the costs which was held to be due to the maintenance of the street and the safety of traffic. Clause 19 substantially repeats these provisions. Section 77 also enabled arrangements to be made conversely between the two authorities concerned.
While the practice varies, I understand that generally in country areas the county council carries out the street cleaning which is in the interest of the maintenance of traffic and safety, but no more. In town areas, district councils do the work to a higher standard required for public health purposes, recovering from the county council an appropriate part of the cost. The new Association of County Councils is anxious that the arrangements made for highway cleansing in the future shall be effective and economical, and it believes that the best way of ensuring that would be to have the highway authority remaining responsible for cleansing in country areas, as at present. It is also concerned about ensuring that the respective responsibilities of the two authorities should be clearly defined.
The new local government organisation, coupled with the proposals in this clause, makes highway cleansing the duty of district councils rather than merely giving them the power to carry out the work. This may lead to some district councils seeking to take over much of the highway cleansing in country areas. This would seem to be an uneconomic and inefficient use of resources. The clause as it stands runs the risk, it is thought, of confusing the public health duties of districts with the highway duties of counties or the Secretary of State. The aim of these Amendments is to clarify the responsibilities of the two authorities and, at the same time, to enable counties and districts to make the most sensible arrangements in each particular area. The agency arrangement under the Local Government Act 1972 is one instrument that is available, and a national formula for sharing expense could be agreed and adopted for these new proposals, as has been the practice in the past. In these circumstances I hope that the aim of these

1335
Amendments may be acceptable to my noble friend.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: I have no wish to repeat all the arguments that the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, has used. It seems to me that the Government would do well to accept his Amendment to bring clarity where at the moment there is room for confusion. I very much hope that the Minister will indicate acceptance of the Amendments.
BARONESS YOUNG: I listened very carefully to what my noble friend Lord Amory said, and I recognise that difficulties can arise through shared responsibilities of highway authorities and the district councils in matters of street cleaning. As he has indicated, highway authorities maintain streets and are responsible for the safety of traffic on them, whereas district authorities are much more concerned not only with the cleansing of the streets but with the amenity of the area and the public health aspect. So not only do the authorities have two slightly different functions, but there is of course this question of the area for which each authority would be responsible. In these circumstances, I am very glad to consider the Amendments that the noble Viscount has put down. In fact, we will bring forward Amendments on this point to clarify the situation. I cannot promise that the Amendments will be down in time for the Report stage in this House, but we are glad that this matter has been brought to our attention by the noble Viscount, Lord Amory and the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy. As I say we shall be bringing forward our own Amendments on the point.
VISCOUNT AMORY: I am very grateful to my noble friend, and I shall be glad to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 19 agreed to.
Clause 20 [Litter]:
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (VISCOUNT GOSCHEN): I have to advise your Lordships that if Amendment No. 116 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 117 to 124 inclusive.
5.9 p.m.
LORD GARNSWORTHY LORD GARNSWORTHY moved Amendment No. 116:
Page 25, line 23, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
("(1) It shall be the duty of a local authority in England and Wales to consult with such other local authorities and voluntary bodies as the authority considers appropriate and as agree to participate in the consultations, about the steps which the authority and bodies are to take for the purpose of abating litter in the authority's area; and it shall be the duty of the local authority—

(a) to prepare and from time to time revise a statement of the steps which the authority and bodies agree to take for that purpose; and

(b) to take such steps as in its opinion will give adequate publicity in its area to the statement; and

(c) to keep a copy of the statement available for inspection by the public free of charge at all reasonable hours.

In this subsection "local authority" means a collection authority, a parish council, a parish meeting and a community council.")
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 116. May I say, before I go any further, that have an idea that I am cutting out Amendment No. 124, by cutting across a line that I had not intended to cut, and that my noble friend Lady White intended to pursue?
I have tabled this Amendment because it seems to me that, at any rate so far as England is concerned (although I appreciate that my Amendment goes beyond England), litter abatement is a matter which can be dealt with better at local level than at county level. The clause as drafted confers the duty of dealing with litter upon waste disposal authorities as well as local authorities. It is as well to take a look at the definition of "local authority" set out in the clause, because "local authority" here means not only a collection authority, which of course is a district council, but a parish council, a parish meeting, or a community council. Those local authorities are invited to involve voluntary bodies as well. It seems to me, unless I can be persuaded otherwise, that this is a function that the top-tier authority ought not to be saddled with. If we leave in the disposal authority, it seems to me that it is going to be up to the county council to take the initiative. I should have thought this was a case where local initiative, local enterprise, could best deal with the situation.

1337
It seems to me that if the top-tier authority remains in this area of activity, we run a considerable risk that we shall get one meeting at county level, whereas we could have meetings all over the place if the matter were left in the hands of the local authorities.
I ought to say that this Amendment accords with the views of the Greater London Council, with all their considerable experience in this field. We want to get rid of litter. We want to involve as many people as we can in securing its abatement, and it seems to me that this is a matter which we could leave to the local authorities as defined. I beg to move.
BARONESS WHITE: It might be convenient if, in disposing of this Amendment, we looked also at some of the subsequent Amendments. What worries me about my noble friend's Amendment is this. I knew that he was not proposing to move Nos. 117 or 118 and that there was a slight disparity between us on No. 116. The reason why I hope that Amendment No. 118 or the Amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Young, No. 120—which might be the better way of doing it—or No. 124 will be included so far as Wales is concerned is because of the position of national parks. This applies also in England, where the county authorities have interests in litter in national park areas and where it would seem undesirable for them to have no locus standi in this matter of litter collection. It was partly for this reason that we were anxious to include in this process of consultation the county authorities—as I say, certainly in Wales. I have not had any particular approach from English counties on this matter, but I would have supposed that in certain areas in national parks in England similar considerations apply. I wonder whether, before we make up our minds on any of these Amendments, the noble Baroness may like to say a word about this. I was glad to see her own Amendment, No. 120, and was proposing in the circumstances to accept that, in preference to my own Amendments, Nos. 118 and 124. Perhaps she would like to discuss these matters in relation to No. 116.
BARONESS YOUNG: It may be helpful if I intervene at this point to say something about the drafting of this clause
1338
and the Government's view about this very vexed question of litter. One only wishes that one could produce a solution that would somehow improve the situation. I accept that the Amendments that have been put down are all designed to that end. May I say right away that I am very glad that the noble Baroness, Lady White, is prepared to accept my Amendment about Wales, and I hope that that meets her points about this question in the Principality. Under the clause as drafted we have given disposal authorities overall responsibility for the problem of litter. We have suggested—indeed, our view is—that there are various ways in which they can tackle this. There is immediately the question of more education and publicity; there is the very practical way of producing more litter bins and receptables. There is the method of enforcement with fines for offenders; and, finally, there is a very good cleaning-up service so that even if litter is dropped the place does not look as bad as it did before. All these various methods are being tried out.
The noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, was concerned that the top-tier authorities, the counties, should not themselves be responsible for the entire arrangements for the disposal of litter. If that were simply our view, it would be wrong; but we feel that the clause enables the parties to get together. It requires a disposal authority to consult the districts, the parishes, and such voluntary bodies as are appropriate, to find out what they think about the problem and see whether they have any ideas for dealing with it. It seems to me that there will be plenty of scope for co-operation and using our imagination. We hope they will make use of such organisations as the "Keep Britain Tidy" group; possibly make good use of charitable organisations and youth groups which contribute their ideas and experience on this matter. There could, for instance, be an annual conference organised on a county basis to draw attention to the problem and to see what could be done. I think and hope that efforts will be made in schools to make children very conscious that dropping litter is an anti-social habit. So I hope the noble Lord will feel that in drafting the clause as we have done we are trying to give the major authority, the disposal authority, overall responsibility for the

1339
disposal of litter, but we would expect them—and indeed they are required—to consult the statutory authorities, and we would expect them to consult any other organisations that could offer good advice on this matter, including the national organisation, the "Keep Britain Tidy" group.
The noble Baroness, Lady White, raised a point about national parks. I am bound to say that she has a real point. This is something we should look at again. In fact, the counties would be the disposal authorities, but of course one hopes that very high environmental standards will always apply in national parks. Having visited a number of them personally, I know the care that is taken to have extra collections of litter and well-designed litter baskets, in order that the beautiful country shall not be spoilt. I think, therefore, that we should look at that particular point again. I hope I have said enough to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, on our general principles on this, and that he will feel able to withdraw his Amendments in the light of what I have said. And I would say again to the noble Baroness, Lady White, that I am glad she feels able to accept my Amendment about Wales.
LORD CRAIGTON: I was worried about the statement in Clause 20(1)(a), "to prepare and from time to time revise a statement of the steps". I almost put down an Amendment saying, "not less than every two years", or something like that, because, as the noble Baroness said, the whole idea is to get the voluntary bodies swinging along with the authority. What does the phrase "from time to time" mean? If the authority is lagging, then the voluntary body has no chance of giving it a kick, whereas if it is once every two or three years then one can be sure that it would be looked at more regularly.
BARONESS YOUNG: The clause is drafted in this way in order to give the freedom to the disposal authority to make their arrangements as they think best. I should be surprised if any amenity organisation which is really concerned about litter problems, as I think many are, would allow the disposal authorities to get away with doing nothing or being tardy in this matter. It could soon rouse
1340
public opinion about it if it felt that the disposal authority were not being as effective as they could be. This issue is simply concerned with the general problem of litter. It is a quite separate issue from the statutory responsibilities on street cleaning and so on.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Young, for what she has said. It is useful to have on record the comments that she has made. There is perhaps more in the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, than has been appreciated this afternoon, and I hope that that question might be looked at again. The clause is very loose in regard to the matter he has raised; namely, the question of preparing and revising a statement.
I wanted to get the responsibility for litter abatement firmly placed with the local authorities, since it seems to me that they would be more sensitive than the top tier authority to pressure from local amenity groups or other voluntary bodies which might be involved in collecting litter. I feel that the county conference which the noble Baroness suggested might be held, in some cases would be the only meeting that might take place. After all, we are not concerned with a campaign for a limited period of time; we are concerned with a campaign that will continue indefinitely.
In regard to schools, one would like to think that appreciation of the need to avoid littering the countryside is already being taught and that if any further effort is needed we could well rely on the disttrict councils, the parish councils and the community councils to indicate dissatisfaction with the behaviour of children in their locality, if it was thought that children were irresponsible or were not playing as useful a part as they could do.
In the light of the reply that the noble Baroness has given, I must reserve the right to return to this matter. I am not saying that I will do so, but I should like to examine it and to consult with others with a view to seeing whether it will be necessary to return to it at Report stage, because I do not find the answer which the noble Baroness has given—on my understanding of it this afternoon—wholly satisfactory, although I appreciate that she has done her best to deal with I the situation as the Department sees it at

1341
the moment. It would be to the credit of the Department if it had another look at this matter. But having regard to what has been said, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.26 p.m.
BARONESS YOUNG BARONESS YOUNG moved Amendment No. 120:
Page 25, line 25, after ("authority") insert ("and, in Wales, the council of the county which includes the area of the disposal authority").
The noble Baroness said: I beg to move Amendment No. 120. In Wales the districts are the disposal authorities and are required by this clause to take the initiative in co-ordinating a litter plan. This Amendment seeks to provide for the districts to consult the Welsh counties in view of their general planning responsibilities—for example, the preparation of the structure plan—and to ensure that consultation in Wales, as in England, will be undertaken at all levels of local Government. It is in a sense the reverse of what is being done in England. Whereas here the disposal authority are required to consult the districts, it is the other way round in Wales. The underlying principle behind this Amendment is the same; that is, to bring the situation in Wales in line with that in England. I beg to move.
BARONESS WHITE: I should like to emphasise that the point I made about National Parks is one which the noble Baroness has promised to look at, because she might wish to modify this clause in the light of that situation. But with that understanding I am very happy to accept this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 20, as amended, agreed to.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL moved Amendment No. 125:
After Clause 20 insert the following new clause:
Disposal of waste underground by Coal Board etc.
".—(1) Where the Coal Commission or the National Coal Board (hereafter in this section referred to respectively as "the Commission" and "the Board") or any licensees of the Commission or the Board have, in the course of operations carried on for coal-mining purposes, exercised in respect of any underground land a right conferred on the Commission or the, Board or the licensees by virtue of section 15
1342
of the Coal Act 1938 (1938 c. 52) (under which the Commission had and the Board have among other things, subject to the restrictions mentioned in that section, the right in the course of such operations to enter and to execute works and do the other acts there mentioned in underground land not vested in them), that section shall have effect in relation to the land as if the reference to coal-mining purposes included the purposes of disposing of waste.
(2) The preceding subsection shall apply to any underground land which—

(a) is neither land included in a mine of coal which is vested in the Board nor land to which the said section 15 as modified by the preceding subsection applies apart from this subsection; but

(b) is included in the boundaries of a cavity adjacent to such land as is mentioned in the preceding paragraph,

as if the Board had, in the course of such operations as are mentioned in the preceding subsection, exercised such a right as is so mentioned in respect of the underground land.
(3) Paragraph (e) of the proviso to the said section 15 (which provides that the Board and its licensees shall not by virtue of that section be entitled to do any act which apart from that section would be actionable as a trespass or nuisance and likely to cause damage of more than a nominal amount) shall not apply to any right exercisable by virtue of subsection (1) or (2) of this section; but a person having an interest in any underground land who suffers damage by reference to that interest in consequence of the exercise of such a right shall be entitled to recover compensation from the Board in respect of the damage if the amount of the compensation will exceed £50, and any dispute as to a person's entitlement to compensation in pursuance of this subsection or as to the amount of the compensation shall be determined by arbitration.
(4) The Board and any licensees of the Board shall not be entitled by virtue of subsection (1) or (2) of this section to exercise any right in respect of any underground land unless they have not less than twenty-eight days before exercising the right, published in a local newspaper circulating in the locality in which the land is situated a notice specifying the right and indicating the location of the land and a place in the said locality at which a plan showing the location of the land may be inspected by the public free of charge at all reasonable hours.
(5) Expressions used in this section and Part I of the Coal Act 1938 (1938 c. 52) have the same meanings in this section as in that Part."
The noble Lord said: On behalf of my noble friend I beg to move Amendment No. 125. I hope that your Lordships will not be too frightened by this rather formidable-looking clause which is in fact designed to implement a comparatively small proposal. The clause is designed to implement the Government's decision that a legal obstacle to the disposal of waste

1343
in coal mines should be overcome. This is intended to permit the greater use of underground coal mine workings for the disposal of wastes where this is appropriate. There are at present about a dozen old coal workings which are used in this way. For example, there is one at Walsall Wood near Birmingham which has apparently achieved a considerable reputation in the West Midlands as it is one of the few safe places to dispose of toxic wastes in the region, and is extensively used for that purpose.
The problem is that in some cases the National Coal Board does not own the underground voids once the coal has been extracted from them. That can give rise to some difficulty and therefore the object of our proposal is to overcome this obstacle to enable the N.C.B. to make use of their voids to dispose of waste, subject to the proper examination of the technical problems and any pollution risks in each case, and subject to the site-licensing procedure which will apply to all waste disposal operations. We are well aware of the possible dangers of pollution through dumping in mines. Finally, may I add that the Department of Trade and Industry entirely endorse and support this proposal and have taken a lead with the National Coal Board in drafting this clause. I beg to move.
BARONESS WHITE: I must admit that I am a little concerned, not particularly about this proposed new clause in itself, but about the whole problem of depositing waste in mines. It seems to me in some respects regrettable that we could not have had a separate section of this Bill dealing only with the position of the deposit of waste in mines because it is referred to in this Part and Part II in various places. Some are working mines, although this would apply primarily to abandoned mines. Abandoned mines are outwith some of the provisions of this Bill and some of us who come from mining areas are worried because we feel that there is a great temptation to put waste into mines, and in some cases into worked-out quarries, about which we do not know enough. Mines, after all, are apt to be very wet places and therefore any substance which is deposited in a mine, and which may be harmful or toxic in some respect, can frequently seep into other waters. We shall be coming in
1344
Part II of the Bill to the question of underground waters. In the South Wales coalfields, for example, abandoned mines are apt to be at the upper end of the coalmining valleys because the strata there are usually worked out first. As we all know, water flows down hill, and if any toxic matter is deposited in an abandoned mine there is considerable danger, in spite of precautions which might be taken, that the noxious material might, through seepage, escape.
I do not for a moment want to oppose this new clause. I am only saying that this whole area fills those of us who come from mining districts with certain apprehensions, largely based on what we believe to be the insufficient knowledge, both scientific and in a sense geographical, about what actually happens, particularly to effluent. This Part of the Bill, of course, is dealing with solid waste, but solid waste in a very wet mine could quickly lead to effluent. The site licensing procedure, it seems to us, is something which in the case of mines should be carried out in conjunction with the river authority, not only the local authority which under Part I is the site licensing authority. It seems to me that we ought to be quite sure that we are not, by agreeing to this new clause, agreeing to some procedure whereby the river authority (the water authority under this new arrangement) will not have adequate consultation. I should like to be reassured on that point. In this Part of the Bill we are not dealing with water authorities and yet I hope that, certainly where Welsh mines are concerned, this would be a matter of concern to the water authority and not only to the site licensing authority.
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: I should like to endorse what the noble Baroness has said. This question of waste in disused coalmines affects the part of the world in which I live, the Forest of Dean. If waste is put into a coalmine, which is often wet and has to be pumped out, one does not know where the water is going. It gets into springs and rivers. It is a matter which needs very careful thought. Speaking perhaps as a lawyer, I would suggest that to tack this on to the end of a clause dealing with litter is extraordinarily bad draftsmanship. I think it is really a matter which ought to be

1345
further considered. I would support what the noble Baroness has said.
LORD SOMERS: Some years ago, when we had that terrible disaster at Aberfan, I remember a suggestion being made that disused mines should be used for the purpose of disposing of material which at present goes into tips. In that way the disused mines would be made solid again and would, incidentally, avoid the danger of subsidence. Whether or not that is still a practical proposition I do not know, but I should be grateful if the noble Lord would say something about it.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: I always find it easier to deal with things by starting at the end and working backwards while they are fresh in my mind. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Somers, is quite right in mentioning the possibility of stopping subsidence by putting stuff back into the mines. This is very much in the minds of many people, though we do not believe that there are going to be many places and occasions where disposal of waste in this way will be possible. This is part of my answer to the noble Baroness, Lady White. May I point out to my noble friend Lord Bledisloe that this is a new clause, and therefore I would refute any suggestion that it is being tacked on as a footnote to another clause.
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: It may be possible to deal with this more specifically when we come to Part II dealing with water. It worries me because the water authorities should have a considerable interest in this.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: It does have some impact on Part II, but we are dealing here with solid waste disposal. Perhaps that gives me the opportunity to answer the noble Baroness, Lady White, and the noble Lord at the same time. The point which the noble Baroness made is perfectly correct. There are problems which are recognised about depositing toxic waste in mines, and there is no doubt whatever—and I should like to give a total assurance about this—that this would have to be extremely carefully gone into. One group of authorities which would have to be consulted first would indeed be the water authorities. I am sure that this is a point that is going to crop up a number
1346
of times when we are dealing with Part II.
As I said a moment ago, there would probably be fairly few mines which are sufficiently dry and sufficiently safe to allow this kind of procedure to be adopted. I did not quite understand what the noble Baroness meant when she said that this was outwith some of the provisions of the Bill. If I am missing a point which she was trying to make, I will do my best to deal with it in a minute or two. Of course we have a problem here. We do not want to minimise the reservations she may have; we do not at this moment want to claim that we have complete knowledge about any of these things. This is one of the things which increasingly comes out in any ecological studies that are going on in the contemporary world. The difficulty is that if you go too far the other way you end up by saying that you cannot do anything. There is no question whatever that if mines are dry and safe, they are exceptionally suitable places in which to deposit waste. I hope, therefore, that I have satisfied the Committee that there are suitable safeguards in this clause and that they will feel disposed to accept it.
BARONESS WHITE: I should be happier if the noble Lord could refer us to the section in Part II which would reassure us about this. There are certainly clauses in Part II in which abandoned mines are quite specifically exempted. For example, I have found one of these references on page 30, in Clause 23. After paragraph (f) it reads:
"a person shall not be guilty of an offence by virtue of the preceding subsection by reason only of his permitting water from an abandoned mine to enter relevant waters."
There is one case in which you can do something in an abandoned mine which you are not allowed to do in other areas It was because of that kind of provision in Part II that I became somewhat concerned as to whether we were entirely satisfied here. This deals ostensibly with dry waste, but it is because in many conditions it would become wet waste that I am worried. I do not think we can pursue this usefully at this moment, but I should like to have an undertaking from the noble Lord that he will let us know in specific terms where we stand in this clause in relation to other provisions

1347
in Part II which do exempt abandoned mines in certain conditions.
LORD HENLEY: I think it is imporant that we should clear this up. When the noble Lord introduced his Amendment he implied that the full range of anti-pollution controls would apply to this clause, but when he answered some of the questions it became apparent that they could not be applied in full. I think to some extent this ties up with what the noble Baroness, Lady White, has said, that we simply do not know enough to know whether we can in fact apply the full range of controls.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Henley, for that intervention because this is really the point. This is solid waste and it is by no means exempt. If I gave the impression that the intention was to exempt it from the Clause 3 regulations about litter I was quite wrong in doing so.
BARONESS WHITE: It is waste, not litter.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: I beg your Lordships' pardon. The reservations and the regulations which apply to all solid waste apply just the same to waste being dumped down the mines. It is not particularly the limitations in Part II that we are looking for, although what the noble Baroness said is perfectly true. I think the short answer is that you are not allowed to release polluted water because you are not allowed to pollute the water under this Part of the Bill.
BARONESS WHITE: There is the other important point, about the position of the water authorities, and that they should be consulted or should have some sort of locus standi before the waste is deposited in any abandoned mine.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: I think that is indeed covered. We have spoken about the water authorities being consulted in Part I of the Bill. There is nothing in this new clause which exempts those who wish to deposit waste down a mine from still having to carry out all the requirements which go right through Part I of the Bill, about which we have spoken; and in particular, the
1348
noble Lord, Lord Henley, has raised the question about consulting the water authorities.
LORD HENLEY: Another interesting point is that the ownership of the soil—and the noble Lord raised this point—presumably reverts from the Coal Board to the original owner, whoever that might be. It is possible that this point will be raised under another Amendment later, but is it possible for such an owner to apply for a writ of injunction if he thinks that something is being done which should not be done?
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: I do not think I can give a really satisfactory answer to the rather technical point which the noble Lord has raised. In any case I think it would only be the holder of a licence who would be allowed to deposit waste down a mine. All the other provisions in Part I of the Bill would continue to apply; we are not treating a mine in a very different way from any other part of a licensed tip.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 21 [Interference with refuse tips and dustbins etc.]:
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL moved Amendment No. 126:
Page 26, line 29, after ("authority") insert ("or council").
The noble Lord said: On behalf of my noble friend I wish to move this Amendment. It is essentially a drafting Amendment and is designed to cover the case of litter bins provided by parishes, of which account was taken earlier in the clause. This Amendment is needed so that they may be included. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
5.45 p.m.
BARONESS WHITE BARONESS WHITE moved Amendment No. 127:
Page 26, line 31, at end insert ("or by the owner of the waste").
The noble Baroness said: My noble friend Lord Garnsworthy and I tabled this Amendment because, as I think one or two noble Lords indicated on Second Reading, we were a little concerned about the absolute nature of the provisions made in Clause 21, whereby it becomes an offence if one sorts over or disturbs rubbish, not only in a tipping area (which I

1349
think would be reasonable enough) but also if one does anything at all to disturb the contents of any receptacle for waste, unless one is authorised to do so by the authority or, in the case of a receptacle, by the authority of a council or other person having the function of emptying the receptacle.
Perhaps one is being pernickety about this but there are occasions when, for instance, even probably a Member of your Lordships' House might have taken a discarded newspaper out of a receptacle on the underground station, for instance. I have seen it done. This is not regarded as being particularly reprehensible. Also another aspect of this matter was put to me. Fortunately, we have not so many tramps these days, but there are still "gentlemen of the road", as they used to be called, who occasionally help themselves to things from receptacles or dustbins.
I will be quite frank with the Committee: I am not particularly happy about the way in which we have tried to improve the situation, because normally the owner of the newspaper would not be present and the owner of the waste in a dustbin might not be there to tell the chap that he could help himself if he wanted to. I am sure the noble Baroness will agree that this clause seems to be too absolute in its application, and I should have supposed that it would be extremely difficult to enforce. I am wondering whether a clause of this kind, which applies to any sort of receptacle supplied by any authority, is a sensible thing to include in any legislation. The question of tipping areas is an entirely different one because we do not want people messing about around those. I beg to move.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: I should like to support what the noble Baroness has said. It seems to me that this is legislating de minimus. To make it an offence for someone without the proper authority to go and look to see what is in a dustbin seems to me to be going too far. I would ask the noble Baroness whether she is able to give me a positive answer to this question: Supposing by mistake her handbag, containing no doubt (as it so often does) a large sum of money, was put into the dustbin, is she really saying that she would have to get the consent of the authority or
1350
other person who had the function—that does not mean anyone who likes to come along and empty it, but someone whose duty it is to empty it—before she could look in the dustbin for her handbag if she was not going to commit a criminal offence? As I read the Bill—and I may have read it wrongly—that seems to me to be the position and, if so, it seems to me to be a nonsense.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: I have wonderful visions of the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, totting for the missing handbag in local authority dustbins, which I presume exist somewhere outside your Lordships' House. I can assure the noble and learned Viscount that we would not want to see him prosecuted for this kind of activity.
I think there is a genuine difficulty here. The common-sense answer is that we just do not want people rummaging in dustbins which are awaiting collection, and I think the noble Baroness would be inclined to agree with that. I cannot conceive that anybody is going to worry if a householder by mistake has tipped her engagement ring out with the rubbish from her house—I should say "waste" and not "rubbish" because we have had a little argument about that, too, have we not? I do not think there will be any trouble about that.
But the plain view is that once the dustbins are put out, there are good reasons of public health for saying that no one should be allowed to tamper with them. We believe that it would be rather excessive to start legislating in detail about the circumstances in which this tampering might be permitted. While what the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, said is true, one could imagine an even worse situation if the lawyers were allowed to have a field day arguing the circumstances. Indeed, I am advised that there is some question about who in fact the waste belongs to once it has been discarded in the way we are all envisaging. We are seeking a good common-sense answer to this problem. I am advised that this is the most commonsense decision that we have been able to arrive at so far, and we must stick to it. But in the light of what has been said, it is something that perhaps we ought to have another look at.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, I am not very happy about the answer. The noble Lord has treated my admittedly rather facetious question in a rather facetious fashion. I do not complain about that, and certainly I would not if he had answered the question. He has not said whether he agrees that anyone who went to his own dustbin to try to extract something from it which had been put in by mistake would commit an offence unless that person had obtained the necessary consent to extract that object. But that, as I read the clause, is its result, and I think that is wrong. We talk here about the rule of law. We ought to be careful about the criminal law in particular, and about creating innumerable criminal offences. So far as I can see, this clause creates a criminal offence which goes far too wide. I hope the noble Lord will have a serious look at it, apart from the fun, because I should not like to think of the noble Baroness taking the chance of being charged because her handbag was taken away in the dustbin and she commited an offence by taking it out herself.
LORD CRAIGTON: I am still in difficulty after listening to the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne. As I see it, all the noble Baroness could do to get her handbag back is to get an authorisation from the authority to "sort over or disturb" the receptacle. There is nothing about taking the handbag out of the receptacle.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: I doubt whether one could take it out without disturbing the receptacle.
BARONESS EMMET OF AMBERLEY: My grand-daughter found a dead mouse in a mousetrap. She has feelings about dead mice, so she threw mouse and mousetrap into the dustbin. I wanted the mousetrap back, but I should have committed a criminal offence if I had taken it out of the dustbin.
BARONESS WHITE: My Lords, although we have treated this matter, as the noble and learned Viscount said, in a rather facetious way, there is a serious point here. It seems to me to be bad law if it has in it an element of the ridiculous and creates a situation which it is virtually impossible, it seems to me, to enforce. It is for these two reasons
1352
that I would hope that noble Lords on the Government Bench will look quite seriously at this. I appreciate that there is sometimes the problem that people do disturb dustbins, but the number of people who go around tipping over dustbins is not, fortunately, very great. I imagine there is something else in our criminal law to deal with that situation, should it arise. I hear the word "bylaws" murmured in my ear, and that might also be a way to do it. I am going to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment, but on the understanding that we are really quite unhappy about this part of the Bill, and seriously hope that it may be looked at again. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL moved Amendment No. 128:
Page 26, line 32, leave out from ("Scotland") to end of line 34 and insert ("for the references to a parish or community council there shall be substituted references to a highway authority within the meaning of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1970")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend, Lady Young, I beg to move Amendment No. 128. This is a piece of legal drafting. I am sorry to see that the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, has left the Chamber, because this is a Scottish matter. It remedies the reference in Clause 21 (1)(a) to "a parish or community council", since there are no parish councils in Scotland, and community councils would not provide receptacles for waste in Scotland. Instead, there is inserted a reference to the highway authority within the meaning of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1970 which will ensure that receptacles provided by the highway authority will be safeguarded from disturbance by unauthorised persons. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 21, as amended, agreed to.
5.57 p.m.
BARONESS YOUNG BARONESS YOUNG moved Amendment No. 129:
After Clause 21, insert the following new clause
Modification of Parts I and II to avoid duplication of control
". The Secretary of State may by regulations make such modifications of this Part of this Act and Part II of this Act as he considers appropriate with a view to securing that

1353
the provisions of one but not both of those Parts apply to prescribed acts and omissions."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 129. The purpose of this new clause is to enable the boundary between Parts I and II to be adjusted by regulation. There is not always an easy definition of discharge into water or deposits of waste, either solid or liquid, which makes clear exactly which is which. This regulation-making power will enable anomalies to be sorted out. We expect problems of this nature to be brought to our attention by those involved once the provisions are in operation, but it is important that the Bill should net make any confusing or unnecessary demands on waste disposers through overlapping controls and responsibility between waste disposal and regional water authorities.
To give an example of the kind of thing I have in mind, there might well be the use of settling lagoons or pipelines fitted with filters which might produce both effluent to water and solid or semisolid sludges for disposal on land. There might also be problems of interpretation over the use of new techniques such as deep well injection whereby geological conditions might safely allow the pumping of wastes into porous strata, or cavities such as those left by the extraction of salt. This has been developed by the United States of America and it is thought by many to be of possible application in this country. I agree that this may perhaps appear to be a futuristic scheme, but the first example is one that is very relevant. This new clause will enable the Secretary of State by regulation to define under which part of the Bill the particular problem falls. I beg to move.
VISCOUNT AMORY VISCOUNT AMORY moved, as an Amendment to the Amendment No. 129B:
Line 1, after ("may") insert ("after consultation with such bodies as he considers appropriate").
The noble Viscount said: I beg to move the Amendment to the Amendment standing in my name. Its object is to ensure that consultation with appropriate bodies should take place on the principle behind any regulations made by the Secretary of State tinder this new clause. While I have no doubt that the Secretary of State would in fact carry out consultations, the absence
1354
of a provision to that effect looks a little odd here, compared with Clause 17 where there is such a provision. The regulations made under this new clause for the avoidance of overlapping can assign responsibilities to a waste disposal authority to the detriment of a water authority, or vice versa. It does seem in matters that could be of importance that it would be as well to put in a provision that appropriate consultation would take place. I would put in a plea to my noble friend that in due course, in the case of these many regulations that are to be made under this Bill, the Secretary of State will wherever possible be careful to enter into consultations with the local authority bodies, and in good time, so that their views may be put before the regulations are made. I beg to move.
LORD INGLEWOOD: Before the noble Baroness replies, may I ask her to let us know not only what process of consultation the Government have in mind but also what part Parliament will play in the passage of these regulations before they become law?
BARONESS YOUNG: I would like to begin by assuring my noble friend Lord Amory that it is our intention that the Secretary of State will consult over all these regulations that could be made under this new clause. I realise that, as the President of the County Councils Association, my noble friend is naturally concerned that the local authorities might feel that something was to be done by regulation about which they had not been consulted. I am sure he will agree with me, however, that although the clause does not lay a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to consult, it is the normal practice of the Secretary of State to consult the local authorities when there is any question of making regulations of this kind. I hope that my noble friend will feel that the assurance I have given meets the case. As I am sure he must know very well, there is constant communication at many different levels between central and local government, and I am sure that if the local authority associations felt that some matter was being considered which materially affected them and on which they had not been consulted they would raise the matter themselves, so that in effect the point would be met.

1355
I may say that we should expect these regulations not to be on a major issue. They are provided for to cover something that might not be clear, but we hope that they would not be used to consider a major redistribution of functions between waste disposal authorities and water authorities. It is really intended to redefine minor anomalies that might arise between Parts I and II of the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, asked me how far Parliament would be involved in this. I do not think this is usually a matter for Parliament, because this will be laid down by regulation under the general terms of the Bill.
VISCOUNT AMORY: I realise there must be some limit to the number of times one can put in a Bill, "after consultation with appropriate bodies", but it seemed to me a little illogical to include it in subsection (1) of Clause 17 and not in this particular case; because there is always a slight risk that if you mention it in one case and not in another some people might conclude that in the second case there was not the same need for consultation. However, I think in this case I must be satisfied with the very genuine assurances the noble Baroness has given that consultation will take place in all appropriate cases, and if it does not, no doubt the local authority bodies who felt inadequately consulted would raise the matter in one way or another. It still seems to me a little illogical to include it in the previous clause and not here, but I accept the assurance given.
BARONESS YOUNG: I am very glad to hear that the noble Viscount accepts the assurance I have given. We will certainly read and note what he has said. I should say further to the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, that in Clause 92 of the Bill most of the regulations, including the ones in this clause, will be subject to the Negative Resolution procedure in both Houses.
VISCOUNT AMORY: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment to Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 22 [Interpretation etc. of Part I]:
6.6 p.m.
LORD ENERGLYN LORD ENERGLYN moved Amendment No. 129A:
Page 27, line 1, leave out from ("means") to end of line 2 and insert—
("house refuse, industrial or commercial waste or any such refuse or waste").
The noble Lord said: I beg leave to move Amendment No. 129A, fully realising that decisions have been previously made regarding the word "refuse" as against "waste", but in this case it seems to me that perhaps it might be wise to define it in terms of house refuse and in that way clear up a number of future ambiguities. I beg to move.
BARONESS YOUNG: We did in fact discuss this Amendment at the same time as an earlier one. I am sorry the noble Lord was not present in Committee when that matter arose. I can understand his concern because I think it is in common usage that concerning the household we do use the word "refuse" rather than "waste". Therefore, this wording does perhaps have a common understanding. The reason why the word "waste" has been used is that in Part I of the Bill it includes many other sorts of waste besides household refuse. The term "household" is defined in the Bill as being a house, or I think a caravan on a licensed site. The waste that is collected from thesd places is collected free. A distinction is drawn between such premises and commercial and industrial premises. The general word "waste" is used because it covers so much more than "refuse". Indeed, after hearing in speeches on many of the Amendments about the things that people might possibly put in dustbins, perhaps it is a better generic term than "refuse", which particularly applies to what one would normally think of as refuse from the house but has often included things like do-it-yourself materials, which was one example. I hope that the noble Lord will feel that this general term covers the matter better.
VISCOUNT AMORY: I am not quite sure that the word "waste" covers the handbag to which the noble Baroness, Lady White, referred.
LORD ENERGLYN: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.10 p.m.
LORD GARNSWORTHY LORD GARNSWORTHY moved Amendment No. 131:
Page 27, leave out from begining of line 35 to end of line 44.
The noble Lord said: We have had some discussion during these proceedings on builders' rubble, and I think on something to do with the output of hens other than eggs, and both matters were raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hawke. I wish he was here, because I think we might at this stage have a more useful discussion on the definition of " waste " than we have had up to the present time.
I should like to ask the Minister where builders' rubble fits in. Is it simply a substance, or substances, no longer needed? It may well be that builders' rubble is not intended to be included in the definition of " waste " that we have set out at page 27. If it is, then subsection (3) of the clause would appear to include it in three different categories. It could be included in household waste, industrial waste, or commercial waste. It would seem that builders' rubble arising from alterations to a school sports pavilion is regarded as household waste, whereas from a factory sports pavilion it would be regarded as industrial waste, and from a council's sports pavilion it could be regarded as commercial waste. It is not clear from the clause whether agricultural waste, such as quantities of animal manure, is meant to be included in Clause 22, when one has regard to the definition of " trade effluent " in Clause 48. The Amendment is tabled as a probing Amendment, and anything that the Minister can say by way of making the position more clear would be welcome.
BARONESS YOUNG: I have listened carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, has said. He has put his finger on what is, in effect, a very great difficulty; that is, the difficulty of the definition of " waste ". As he has indicated, in a sense it is not a substance that one can define very clearly, and it simply does not fit into any clearly defined pigeonhole where you can say, " This is one particular thing ". It embraces a wide variety of substances and materials.
1358
The way that the Bill has been drafted indicates, in general, the definition of " waste ", and it has excluded wastes from mines and quarries, and farm wastes. On the question of farm wastes, this again is a complicated matter, and my Department has set up a group with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and representatives of the local authorities and the farming interests, to study all the problems in detail and to explore the scope, and even the desirability, for greater local authority involvement with farm wastes within the general framework of the Bill. If, in the light of these investigations, it is thought desirable to bring some parts of the farm wastes within the ambit of the Bill, regulations could then be made under Clause 17 to bring this about. To make such regulations would be to take a substantial step, and we have therefore provided that they should be subject to Affirmative Resolution procedure in both Houses of Parliament so that they may be properly debated.
As I indicated, we also left out mining and quarrying wastes. They have been left out of the controlled wastes. I accept that there are very large quantities of waste involved here, but there are some statutory controls over their accumulation and disposal in the Mines and Quarries Acts, and in Part II of this Bill. Mineral extraction is also subject to planning control; and the whole question of planning control over mineral operations, including the accumulation of waste, is currently under examination by the Stevens Committee. The noble Lord asked me specifically about builders' rubble. So far as builders' waste is concerned, that will be one of the matters which will be decided by regulation under Clause 22(4). So far as do-it-yourself waste is concerned, that will arise from the household and will be subject to the normal provisions governing household waste. Commercial builders' waste would come under the provisions for either commercial or industrial waste. Here again, I think that this would be a matter for consultation with the industry—into which category it would fall.
I should like to be able to give the noble Lord a more definite answer but, as I am sure he appreciates, the situation is one in which it is difficult to give him the kind of definition that he would like.

1359
We feel that we have gone as far as we reasonably can to give sensible guidelines to the new disposal authorities in their work.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for what she has said. It is useful to have it on the Record. May I say that the Association of Municipal Corporations raised this with me, and it was because I could not reply to the points that were made that I thought it proper to probe the matter. The noble Baroness will appreciate that the subject of builders' waste is a serious matter. Even on the question of do-it-yourself there are some people who are enthusiasts in this field, and the collection authority may occasionally have reason to think seriously about the situation that might arise. I am grateful to have on the Record what the noble Baroness has said. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.18 p.m.
LORD MERRIVALE LORD MERRIVALE moved Amendment No. 131B:
Page 27, line 36, leave out (" a ") and insert (" an abandoned ")
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this Amendment in the interpretation clause of Part I of this Bill is so that the term " waste " includes—
" (a) any substance which constitutes an abandoned scrap material or an effluent or other unwanted surplus substance arising from the application of any process;"
Unless scrap material is qualified by the word " abandoned ", or similar wording, the term " waste " could apply to all scrap material, including that which is to be reclaimed and used as a raw material. Therefore, this Amendment is designed to make it clear that the scrap material has been abandoned. It brings the definition of " waste " into line with that contained in the Deposit of Poisonous Waste Act 1972, Section 1(2), which reads as follows:
" For the purposes of this Act, a person is to be treated as depositing waste if he deposits any substance (whether solid, semisolid or liquid) in such circumstances, or for such a period, that he may reasonably he assumed to have abandoned it where it is deposited … "
In effect, this is also in line with Amendment No. 24A moved by my noble friend
1360
Lord Amory and which, after discussion, was withdrawn. I hope that for this small point my noble friend will see fit to accept the Amendment. I beg to move.
BARONESS YOUNG: When I read this Amendment I thought the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, considered that the definition of " waste " in Clause 22 would include scrap metal only if it was abandoned—
LORD MERRIVALE: Scrap metal or scrap material?
BARONESS YOUNG: I beg the noble Lord's pardon. I meant " scrap material". I thought the noble Lord was interested in the effect on recycling operations in industry. As I have already indicated, this is a matter on which the Government will put down an Amendment. We very much accept the general principle. The noble Lord has now talked about the effect on the Deposit of Poisonous Waste Act. I have already agreed to look at the Amendments of my noble friend Lord Amory to consolidate that Act into this Bill, so I will also take note of what the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, has said.
BARONESS WHITE: We are very grateful to the noble Baroness for what she has said, because whatever the Government may be saying in their rather belated conversion to recycling—and we await the Amendment with the utmost interest and attention, and hope that we shall have it fairly soon so that we have adequate time to consider it—a point on the definition clause will hardly be covered by a broad Amendment on reclamation or recycling which the noble Baroness may later put down. So I am very glad that she will seriously consider this point.
VISCOUNT SIMON: I should like to follow what the noble Baroness, Lady White, has said. Surely we want to exclude non-abandoned scrap from the definition of " waste ". Otherwise the whole paraphernalia of the Bill will apply to non-abandoned scrap and people will have to get permission to put it down anywhere. With great respect, this point will not be affected by an Amendment dealing with recycling. So is it not sensible to accept this Amendment to the definition clause, which cannot be

1361
intended to include scrap material that is to be used?
BARONESS YOUNG: During the course of this Committee stage I have been pressed on many occasions to accept Amendments right away, and I really do not think that I can accept this one. I have indicated that we believe we can meet the point of the Amendment by a different Amendment concerned with recycling. I have given an undertaking on the other point, and I cannot go beyond that promise.
LORD HUGHES: The noble Baroness, Lady Young, has been very conciliatory on quite a number of occasions. She has indicated that she will look at Amendments and consider them and, in some cases, has said that the Government will put down their own Amendment if they decide it is necessary. I have no doubt that the noble Baroness has looked at all the 213 Amendments in preparation for this Committee stage, so does she contemplate accepting any of them?
BARONESS YOUNG: Without any disrespect to the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, may I say that he is somewhat ungrateful as I have undertaken to look at a great many Amendments. When it was agreed that this Bill should first be introduced into this House, it was the view of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State that we could make use of the very valuable experience and enorous interest of noble Lords in all parts of the House on matters to do with environment. Therefore, whenever a useful point has been made—and a great many very useful points have been made—I have said that we will consider it. I have accepted one or two Amendments as they stood, and the fact that I have not accepted more does not mean that they will not be looked at again. When I say that I will consider an Amendment I mean just that, and in many instances we shall bring back an Amendment of our own. I should have thought that was being conciliatory and I am sorry if it is not thought to be so.
LORD HUGHES: I did not say that the noble Baroness was not conciliatory. Perhaps the practice changes from one Government to another. When I was a Minister and had to deal with Amendments
1362
in Committee, I tried to see in advance what was intended so that I could decide whether to accept an Amendment. What the noble Baroness is doing, every time she says that she is prepared to consider an Amendment and, perhaps, to bring forward an alternative, is piling up a very big Report stage. Furthermore, some noble Lords, among them the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, have reserved the right to put down Amendments again at Report stage. This has already been a long Committee stage and it is not yet finished, and it will not be helpful to bring legislation of this kind before this House in the first instance, if we always find that a long Committee stage is to be followed by a very long Report stage.
There are times when a Minister must wait to hear what is said about an Amendment in order to understand the intention behind it, but it seems to me that the purpose of many of the Amendments, including ones which she is prepared to look at, has been absolutely clear. There has been no need to wait until the mover has spoken about it to know what he intends. I cannot believe that not one of the Amendments which the noble Baroness has considered looking at is not capable of being accepted in its present form. I do not wish to appear ungrateful because, as I said, the noble Baroness has been conciliatory, but it would be helpful to our proceedings if an Amendment could sometimes be accepted in the form in which it is moved. The Bill does not need to be absolutely perfect in its wording; otherwise, many of the things which are already in the Bill would not be there. Some of the language which the Government have been forced to use is not perfect but is the most reasonable in the circumstances, and the same can be said of some of the Amendments.
VISCOUNT AMORY: While I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, that it is very sweet to have one's Amendment accepted in the form in which it is moved, I sympathise very much with my noble friend about this extremely complicated Bill. I remember that when I was a Minister I sometimes accepted Amendments in the hope that all would be well with the drafting. But on one or two occasions which were painful to me—perhaps this never happened to the noble

1363
Lord, Lord Hughes—the Parliamentary draftsman said to me, " With profound respect, Minister, I understand why you accepted the principle of this Amendment, but I wish you had given me a chance of looking at the wording before you accepted it." So, in the long run, the fact that the Minister has adopted a more cautious approach may not add to the length of the Report stage. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, that there is a tendency in this House to have a more protracted Report stage than is customary in another place, and that is something for which we ought to watch out. But I do not wish to join in the rather severe, though very courteous, castigation which the noble Lord has inflicted on my noble friend.
LORD HUGHES: May I very briefly say that I did not intend a personal castigation of the noble Baroness. That would be most ungenerous of me. I was rather criticising the procedure which the Government have adopted.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: I hope that what the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, has said will not discourage the noble Baroness from saying as frequently as she has done in the past during this Committee stage, that she will consider proposals put forward. It is a very useful practice to adopt. So seldom, in my experience, is any Amendment drafted by anyone except Parliamentary counsel which is acceptable to any Government of any colour, that, despite what the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, has said, if the noble Baroness accepted a great many of these Amendments she would be told that they contained all kinds of drafting errors, and probably language to which my noble friend Lord Conesford would object. Therefore, very often she is probably most wise to say what she has in fact said. Nevertheless, I think I am right in saying that if the noble Lord feels strongly that that undertaking to consider the matter is not sufficient, it is open to him and his noble friends, if they wish, to have a Division and to move the words into the Bill.
LORD CONESFORD: I should like to support what my noble friend Lord Amory has just said. I think it is very important that Ministers should not accept words without the fullest consideration
1364
and advice, and I think that applies particularly to a definition clause.
LORD MERRIVALE: I must say that I never thought that trying to insert the word " abandoned " into a Bill would lead to such a debate in your Lordships' House at Committee stage, but I am very glad indeed for this support. I am also delighted that the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, should have supported me by stressing the distinction to be made, which I think is so right, between abandoned and non-abandoned waste, because I think it is very important indeed that we should get this point right. In that respect, I think that my noble friend Lady Young is well seized of the necessity to insert something into the Bill so that any waste material which can be used for recycling purposes should not be confused with abandoned material. Therefore, with the assurance that she has given to me, and also the consideration that she has promised to give to Section 1(2) of the 1972 Act, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.35 p.m.
LORD INGLEWOOD LORD INGLEWOOD moved Amendment No. 131A:
Page 28, line 19, after ("home ") insert (" or an hotel, boarding house, guest house or a restaurant ").
The noble Lord said: On reading this Bill it was a surprise to the hotel and catering industry to find that their waste had been classified as commercial. That was something novel. Previously, it has been classified as house refuse, and not as trade refuse. I have put down this Amendment partly with an exploratory intention; to give the Government a chance to explain their reasons for making the change. I hope, too, that after hearing me they will feel that my arguments are convincing and that this will in fact give the noble Baroness a chance to please not only the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, but others by accepting an Amendment which is extremely straightforward and extremely innocent, and which is framed in such language that I do not think that any official or any Parliamentary draftsman can object to it. But we are in the early stages of the passage of this Bill through Parliament, so if the noble Baroness feels that she cannot go as far as that I hope that at least she will say

1365
that she will consider it; and perhaps together with those interested her officials can try to frame words acceptable to everyone which we can put forward at a later stage.
There are two ways of classifying waste. You can classify it by its nature or you can classify it by its origin. Hotel waste, by long usage and by certain decisions of the court, has always been classed with household waste, and if noble Lords look, on page 28, at what is now subsection (3)(a), they will see that household waste is defined as,
" waste from a private dwelling or residential home ".
I should have thought that the waste from an hotel and the waste from a residential home was very much of the same nature, and that what the Government are trying to do is to find a distinction without, in fact, there being any real difference.
Under the Bill as drafted, this traditional way of classifying hotel waste has been changed, and I am asking the noble Baroness why this is so. Could it be just because hotels are run for profit? If that is so, so are some schools, and so are some nursing homes. From their charges, I should think that some nursing homes in London make a very considerable profit—much more profit, in fact, than hotels—and their waste is still to rank as household waste. Nursing home waste or hospital waste I should have thought came nearer in its nature to commercial waste than waste from an hotel, which is indistinguishable except in quantity from the waste from a private house. I should also like to ask my noble friend how waste from a block of flats with a restaurant on the ground floor is to be classified. Some years ago I lived in such a block of flats not very far from this building. Under the Bill, waste from the flats would rank as household waste and yet waste from the restaurant would rank as commercial waste; and they might well get mixed up and might either go down the same pipe or in fact get mixed up in the different bins which we were talking about earlier in this debate.
Then, again, there is the description " educational establishment ". In general, I suppose that would cover art galleries, and so far as an art gallery is a museum in the wide sense that we all understand it, then clearly it is an educational establishment. But if a picture dealer's shop
1366
in Bond Street has " Art Gallery " over its door—and I am not being personal in this; I have not been along Bond Street to see whether there are in fact any such shops, but in the art world some shops do refer to themselves as " galleries "—would such a shop benefit by having its waste classified as " household waste " and not as " commercial waste "? The definition of an educational establishment here, I would submit, is altogether too loose. Furthermore, I should like to draw the attention of the noble Baroness to the fact that, as a result of this change of reclassifying hotel waste, hotels will lose the concessions in Clauses 10, 11 and 12 which apply to household waste.
Now is this all a search for more revenue? It could, I admit, be important in an area with a highly-developed tourist industry, but if this change is made in isolation then hotels and restaurants will get the worst of both worlds. Under this Bill, they would have to pay charges, like commercial or industrial premises, for the disposal of their waste—and these charges are as yet unknown—and they will not attract such benefits as comparable depreciation allowances, which industrial premises attract. I would therefore submit that the Bill as drafted is patently unjust. I beg to move.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: I should like to support my noble friend in this Amendment. It is perfectly true, as my noble friend has said, that hotel and restaurant waste has always been classed as household waste; it has never been classed as commercial waste. In fact, this was the decision of the High Court. The two leading cases which decided this, and which I have here (local authorities have always followed this ruling), are Westminster City Council v. Gordon Hotels in 1906 and J. Lyons & Company v. London Corporation in 1909. The decision in both those cases established that hotel and restaurant refuse was not commercial waste. In fact, the decision in these cases laid down that you define waste from its nature, not so much from its origin or the manner of its production. Hotels and restaurants have just the same sort of waste as households or homes, or residential property in general. They do not have any commercial waste, in the meaning of those judgments to which I have referred. As my noble friend says,

1367
we shall get into trouble here. If the Government are to assess household waste as commercial waste, if there is a profit involved, what will they do about a block of flats with a restaurant and a bar? You may as well say that if there is a block of flats without a restaurant or bar the flats are, presumably, run to make a profit. So I do not think the argument of the Government holds water. My noble friend mentioned schools, museums and art galleries. I do not think it is practicable to have hotel and restaurant waste described as anything else but household waste, and so I support the Amendment.
6.42 p.m.
BARONESS YOUNG: I certainly do not want the Committee to think that because the Government included hotels, boarding-houses and guest houses in the commercial category they were in some way trying to get at the hotel and restaurant business. The first question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, was how the categories were arrived at. As I think I indicated on Second Reading, this Bill is based on a number of major Reports on the whole of the subject under discussion, and this particular part of it is based on the Browne Report, Refuse, Storage and Collection. The Report proposed this threefold definition of waste which was to be dealt with by local authorities. It was divided into household waste, trade or commercial waste and industrial waste, according to the kind of premises from which the waste originated. That is why there are these categories in the Bill.
The Government are aware that the British Hotels and Restaurants Association is concerned about what appears to be a change in policy, because previously local authorities gave one free collection a week to hotels and restaurants. If restaurants or hotels required a refuse collection every day—and of course big hotels and restaurants would require it—the local authority usually made a charge for the other collections. What we are discussing is not a complete change of policy but the abandonment of the one weekly free collection of refuse from hotels and restaurants. As I have indicated, the definitions show that, broadly speaking, domestic, public and charitable purposes fall into the category
1368
of household waste for which there is a free collection; and the commercial premises, including hotels, fall into the category for which a charge is made. I should like to make it absolutely clear that there is a duty on the collecting authority on request to collect the waste, so that there is no question of restaurants or hotels being in difficulty about having their refuse collected.
The noble Lord raised the point about a block of flats with a restaurant and asked what a local authority would do in that case. It would have to decide how to tackle the problem. Strictly, under the terms of the Bill the authority could collect the refuse separately from the restaurant for which it could make a charge. But if it considered that this was quite unnecessary and would create a lot of work, the charge could, under the provisions of Clause 10(3), be waived. The noble Lord asked about art galleries which might sell a few pictures, and whether they were an educational establishment. We recognise that under these categories there could be some difficulty with borderline cases in deciding into which category they fell. We shall consult in detail with interested parties about such classifications with a view to making regulations under Clause 22(4) to sort out any anomalies of that kind which may arise. The provisions in the Bill are based on a Report which the Government have accepted, and they have given a special category to commercial premises which includes restaurants, catering establishments and hotels. We consider it fair in the context of the Bill that there should be a charge for the collection of their waste.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: I should like to ask the Minister about one matter. I am interested in the work of my local authority where we are embarking on an up-to-date system of refuse collection. If you try to separate restaurants and homes in the rural areas you will have some difficulty. Nearly every village has a village pub, where the publican lives with his family, and attached is a little restaurant. The publican is used to getting his refuse collected in the normal way, as though the premises were an ordinary home. I think the Government will stir up a great deal of complication about this. It is a simple matter to collect refuse if you have the necessary

1369
equipment. But to say that some refuse will be called home refuse and some restaurant refuse and boarding-house refuse, or whatever it is, will create an artificial division and the whole thing will become unnecessarily complicated. I beg the Government to look at this matter again. In big cities, where there are very large restaurants in which people do not live, a classification can be made. But all over the countryside you will find homes and small restaurants and lodging houses all mixed up together, and if you try to divide them the matter will become very complicated.
BARONESS YOUNG: I listened carefully to what the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, had to say and I am sure that she was referring to Scotland.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: Yes.
BARONESS YOUNG: One of the objects of the provisions about waste in this Bill is that it will be the counties or (I think I am right in saying) in Scotland the districts, which are equivalent to the English counties, which will be responsible for drawing up the plans for waste disposal. Each plan and system will vary from district to district and from county to county. It is the object of the exercise to give the local authorities freedom. I do not see that this will be organised; it will be a question of sorting out the waste which is collected. It will be for the collection authority to decide what charges it will make for collecting refuse from commercial premises. How the authority levies the charge and what arrangement it comes to is up to the authority. Clearly, in the country districts arrangements may be completely different from those obtaining in the big cities, somewhere like London. So I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, will feel that we are not producing a set of arbitrary rules which would apply everywhere. It will be up to individual authorities to decide how this is done.
LORD INGLEWOOD: I am grateful to my noble friend for that information, and in particular for referring us to the Browne Report. I admit that I am not an expert on the Browne Report. I had hoped my noble friend would say that she would consider my Amendment.
1370
As she has not said it, I will say that what I intend to do is to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment and hope the noble Baroness will send me a copy of the Browne Report. Then I shall study it and see what action, if any, I think it would be appropriate to take on the Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.50 p.m.
BARONESS YOUNG BARONESS YOUNG moved Amendment No. 132:
Page 28, line 28, after (" undertaking ") insert (", excluding waste from any mine or quarry ")
The noble Baroness said: I beg to move Amendment No. 132. Clause 22(3) provides definitions of household and commercial waste in relation to controlled waste under Part I of the Bill. Mine and quarry waste was intended to be excluded from the category of controlled waste, but the clause as drafted inadvertently left this category in the definition of industrial waste, and the Amendment will remove it from there. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 22, as amended, agreed to.
LORD CRAIGTON LORD CRAIGTON moved Amendment No. 132C:
After Clause 22 at end insert the following new clause—
Responsibility of water authorities for the condition of inland waters
".—() In addition and without prejudice to the duties conferred on water authorities by or by virtue of Part II of the Water Act 1973 it shall be the duty of such authorities to ensure the restoration and maintenance of the wholesomeness of rivers and other inland water."
The noble Lord said: We have finished with the dustbins and now turn our attention to water. I shall speak very briefly on this Amendment. In Section 1(2)(c) of the Water Act, 1973 the responsibility given to the Secretary of State is
"…the restoration and maintenance of the wholesomeness of rivers and other inland waters ".
Part II of this Act, which refers to the functions of water authorities, does not put strictly enough on the water authority the same responsibility, that is—
"…the restoration and maintenance of the wholesomeness of rivers and other inland waters."

1371
I thought it might be the case that something had gone by default and I wished to give my noble friends and the Government the opportunity of including this responsibility if they thought it right to do so. I beg to move.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: I must say I do not quite understand the point of putting this in if it is already in the Water Act 1973, as it is imposing a duty on the Secretary of State to secure effective execution of so much of that policy as relates to " the restoration and maintenance of the wholesomeness of " inland and other waters. I think the noble Lord has drawn attention to a very serious point. The Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Act, 1951, made the river boards responsible for the institution of prosecutions for offences under Section 2 of that Act. Indeed I think I am right in saying that prosecutions could only be instituted by river boards or by leave of the Attorney General. I am glad to know that in recent years the number of prosecutions has increased from a fairly small number to a fairly considerable number.
What strikes me as a very serious omission in this Bill—and it may be that this is the purpose for which the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, put down this Amendment—is that it does not impose a duty on anyone to try to stop pollution. I know that you have the water authority and that the water authority has become the sewage disposal authority which is responsible for sewers, for all water and for effluent; and that the majority of its members are nominated by the local authorities. Up till now, local authorities have been among the worst offenders with regard to the pollution of water, yet here we have a Bill under which the water authority can assent to other people polluting streams (which is something we shall have to consider in some detail later); and it is a Bill which imposes no duty, so far as I can see, on any body to take steps to prevent pollution. I think that is a grave defect in this Bill. I understand from correspondence that I have seen that an assurance has been given that by tabling an Amendment an attempt will be made to remedy this defect. I believe that assurance was given a considerable time ago and I shall wait with interest to see
1372
its terms and, in particular, to see whether there is any sanction imposed for failure to perform the duty which I expect that Amendment will impose.
Coming back to this new clause—and of course this Amendment may be only a probing Amendment—I do not myself see that it will serve a very useful purpose, but I will join with the noble Lord if it is merely a probing Amendment and I hope that he will join with me in pressing very hard that the duty of preserving the purity of our streams should be positively imposed on these water authorities.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND SCIENCE (LORD SANDFORD): I very much agree with the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, that whatever my noble friend's intentions may have been in seeking to import his Amendment at this point, it is not as effective at this point of the Bill as it is where the same words appear in the Water Act, 1973. It is largely from the duties, as set out there, that the positive responsibilities and duties of the water authorities derive. They are particularly effective at that point in the Water Act, 1973, because the duties in connection with restoring and maintaining the wholesomeness of rivers and other inland and coastal waters in areas of water authorities—these are the effective words—are linked with such things as the carrying out of a survey of water in their area, preparing an estimate of future demand for the use of water during the following 20 years and preparing a plan of action to be taken during that 20 years by them for the purpose of securing more efficient management of the water.
My first and superficial reaction to the words of the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, is that the prosecutions would all form part of that more efficient management. I hope I have said enough to assure my noble friend who has moved this Amendment that, while my right honourable friend and I entirely agree with the objective he has in mind, we think the terms of his Amendment are better and more effective where they stand now in the Water Act of 1973, and that to seek to put them in here adds nothing effective, I hope he will not feel it necessary, in

1373
view of that assurance, to press the Amendment.
LORD CRAIGTON: My noble and learned friend Lord Dilhorne has to some extent voiced the uneasiness we felt, but in view of the assurance that has been given I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD SANDFORD: I think this may be a convenient moment to adjourn the Committee stage on this Bill until 8 o'clock and to resume the House in order to receive the Royal Assent and to continue with the other business on the Order Paper. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed by the Lord Chancellor.

ROYAL ASSENT
7 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD HAILSIIAM OF SAINT MARYLEBONE): My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Act:

Consolidated Fund Act.

RABIES BILL [H.L.]
TIIE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD (EARL FERRERS): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, that the Bill be now read 3a.—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Bill read 3a.
EARL FERRERS EARL FERRERS moved:
After Clause 5 insert the following new clause:
Proceedings for offences connected with importation
" . Without prejudice to section 80 of the principal Act (summary proceedings) an offence against that Act which is declared to be such by an order made under section 24 and expressed to be made for the purpose of preventing the introduction of rabies into Great Britain may be prosecuted on indictment; and a person convicted on indictment shall be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding twelve months or to a fine or to both."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this Amendment has been put down because there was a good deal of discussion at the earlier stages of the Bill on the problems which are posed by the smuggling of animals which were subject to rabies control. It was generally accepted that people who deliberately attempt to bypass our quarantine controls offer the greatest risk that we have for the importation of rabies. We all share the view expressed in Corn-mince by the noble Lords, Lord Shepherd and Lord Beswick, that the penalties imposed by magistrates when such offenders were detected and prosecuted had generally been very low relative to the maximum possible fine of £400 and to the cost of quarantining an animal.
My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor explained that the only way of imposing higher penalties for particular types of offence that would be compatible with our general policy on penalties, was to make them optionally indictable. We undertook to consider whether this should be done and we concluded that it should be done. I hope therefore that the Amendment meets the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd. The affect of the Amendment, when orders have been made declaring the particular offences optional and indictable, will be to give prosecuting authorities a choice according to how serious they consider the offence to be. They will still be able to apply for summary trial before magistrates, but if they consider art offence to be particularly serious they will have the option of prosecuting on indictment. The defendant will then face trial by jury, and if he is convicted he may face a prison sentence of up to one year or an unlimited fine, or both, as compared with the maximum present penalty of £400.
There is one technical point: the terms of the Amendment will enable Ministers to distinguish between the more serious breaches of orders made under Section 24 of the Diseases of Animals Act, such as the deliberate smuggling of animals, and less serious offences where, for example, people land their animals without having obtained the necessary licence in advance but who nevertheless openly declare them to the Customs and Excise authorities. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, and the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, for the views which they expressed so strongly. I hope that this Amendment will help to meet them. I

1375
am certain that it will be an improvement to the Bill. I beg to move.
LORD HOY: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, for moving this Amendment. We had very considerable feeling about this matter because this is a dangerous disease. We felt that we ought to deal with it in this way. I should like to record our thanks to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for his help in this direction. On two occasions when I was at the Ministry we had to deal with cases of this kind. We felt ourselves handicapped because of the limitation regarding the prosecution of the people concerned. We came to the conclusion that if people deliberately do this sort of thing they ought to be made to face up to their responsibilities. It was not efficacious if we fined them £20 for doing this. We thought that the fine ought to be much greater than that because this disease is a killer disease—do not let us pretend anything else. If we are to have an Amendment to the Act it ought to be substantial, and show our awareness of the dangers which could result from practices of this kind. We are grateful to the noble Earl for having done this, and on behalf of my noble friends and myself I want to thank him for having moved this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL, FERRERS: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Moved, that the Bill do now pass.—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

DUMPING AT SEA BILL [H.L.]
7.6 p.m.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now received.
Moved that the Report be now received.— (Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 1 [Restrictions on dumping in the sea]:
LORD STOW HILL LORD STOW HILL moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 26, after ("satisfied") insert ("by the prosecution ").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the object of this Amendment is to try to remove what is possibly a slight uncertainty in the language of Clause 1(5). I submit that the Amendment is not without importance because one is dealing here with a criminal provision in the Bill. Clause I, subject to a number of qualifications, forbids dumping at sea. When one looks at Clause 1(4), one finds that dumping, contrary to Clause 1. is a serious criminal offence. Serious criminal penalties are provided, and I have no complaint about that. Obviously it is a matter which requires the courts to be invested with serious powers of punishment.
Then one looks at subsection (5), and one finds that it provides certain defences for a person who has been charged with the offence of dumping contrary to Clause 1 of the Bill. The defences are these: he is not to be found guilty if the dumped material in question is (and I quote from line 19):
" for the purpose of securing the safety of a ship, aircraft, hovercraft or marine structure or of saving life:"
Then in paragraph (b) it says that he is to give notice of what he has done, but this is not relevant for the immediate purpose of my Amendment. Then when one looks at line 26 one finds that a qualification, a very important one, is introduced by the words,
"unless the court is satisfied that the dumping was not necessary for any of the purposes mentioned above and was not a reasonable step to take in the circumstances."
I propose to insert after the word " satisfied " the words " by the prosecution ". It is always of great importance to know on whom 'the onus rests of establishing facts which create a crime, or which afford a defence to the crime which has been created.
Let us suppose that it is shown that a person has dumped material at sea contrary to Clause 1 and he wishes to avail himself of the defence in question. What has he to do and what answers are there to that defence? If one is considering the matter of onus, I submit that the subsection should operate as follows: if it is shown by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt in the first place that the person charged has dumped material contrary to Clause 1, then that is a matter which has to be proved in the ordinary

1377
way beyond any reasonable doubt by the prosecution. Then the person charged, wishing to avail himself of the defence, should be in this position. The onus would be on him to show, not beyond a reasonable doubt but on the balance of probabilities, that he had dumped the materials, for the purpose set out in paragraph (a) of subsection (5)—namely:
"the purpose of securing the safety of the ship, aircraft, hovercraft, or marine structure or of saving life".
If he could show that, he would have surmounted the first step of the building up of the defence of which he wished to avail himself. Then one asks: how is the qualification to operate? I submit that the qualification, in theory, between the Crown and the subject should operate in the following way. If the accused person has shown, on the balance of probabilities, that he dumped the material, for example, to save life, it then should be for the Crown to show, beyond a reasonable doubt, that in point of fact the dumping was not necessary, and that it was not a reasonable thing to do in the circumstances.
My Lords, I submit the following as the right approach. Somebody in charge of a ship dumps material. He says, "I did it because I was in extremis. I thought I had to do this to save life." It is hardly fair, supposing he is telling the truth, to seek to apply to him a very nice judgment as to whether he was acting reasonably and whether what he did was necessary to save life. He is at the time, after all, in a state of extremities, and has perhaps to form a quick judgment in a matter of a few seconds, and one cannot expect him to weigh up very accurately the conflicting considerations which might urge him either to dump or not to dump. My Lords, that is how he should be; that is the position in which he should find himself.
The Crown might wish to say to the man advancing that defence, "No doubt you are telling the truth when you say you dumped this material to save life, but your behaviour was utterly unreasonable; it was quite unnecessary to dump this material for the purpose to which you refer. You behaved in a panicky and quite unjustified manner. Nobody can really justify your action, dumping a whole lot of material at sea, because you acted in a moment of panic, without reflection,
1378
in the belief that that was the best thing to do to save life. It was not necessary, and it was not even reasonable." I submit that, faced with a situation of that kind, the Crown, ex post facto, looking at what took place in a moment of crisis when the accused person dumped the material, should, if it wished to defeat the defence (the first step of which he had erected), take upon itself to show, beyond any reasonable doubt, both that the dumping of the material was not necessary and also that it was not a reasonable step to take in the circumstances.
I submit that that is the way the subsection ought to work if one wants to deal justice between the Crown and the subject. I know that the House will agree with me at once when I say that it is of the greatest importance that the wording of the subsection should make it clear whether or not it does work in that way. I should have thought, if I may respectfully say so, that something very like the wording that has been chosen, namely, "unless the court is satisfied", would produce that result. But it is not so. In my submission it does leave room for some uncertainty as to the precise effect of the subsection. Therefore, in order to remove that slight doubt, and to make it perfectly clear to the subject where he stands in the face of the criminal law of this country, I seek to insert, after "satisfied", the words, "by the prosecution", in order to make it clear beyond any controversy that if the Crown wish to defeat the defence, the first step of which has been erected, the Crown must show beyond any reasonable doubt that what was done by the accused person was neither necessary nor reasonable in the circumstances in which the accused acted.
My Lords, it is for that purpose, and for that purpose only, that I seek to insert these words. If the noble Earl feels that I have indicated at any rate some doubt, I hope he will be able to say that he will consider, with his advisers, whether my words would improve the wording of the subsection and whether it is not desirable, in the interests of achieving certainty, to insert either those words or some words like them. Possibly to achieve complete certainty one should insert the words, "unless the court is satisfied by the prosecution beyond any reasonable doubt." However, I think that those last words are not in fact necessary, and that

1379
the result for which I contend will be achieved by the insertion simply of the words, "by the prosecution." It is those words which I seek to insert by this Amendment. I beg to move.
7.16 p.m.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stow Hill, for explaining his Amendment and the purpose behind it. Any remarks that I may have to make. I will make with due deference to the noble and learned Lord's ability and knowledge of the law courts and its procedures. He is of course quite right when he says that the Bill is designed to prevent dumping unless there are certain qualifications to permit it; in other words, unless there is a licence. The noble and learned Lord is also quite right when he says that subsection (4) lays down the penalties to which a person who dumps erroneously may be subjected. Subsection (5) then goes on to say that it is a defence to dump for various reasons—and the noble and learned Lord gave the reasons, such as if one's ship is in extremis, or if there is danger to life. It is up to the authorities to prosecute a person for having dumped illegally, and it is up to the person accused of dumping to show that in fact he has a defence under subsection (5) and that he was in fact dumping because he had no other option, because his ship was in danger or lives were in danger.
My Lords, if in fact he does that, then of course the court will acquit him. But I would suggest to the noble and learned Lord that the only reason, the court would not accept the defence would be if the prosecutor turned round and said, "Ah; but for this, that, or the other reason, it is my submission that the dumper has not shown that he has got a case under subsection (5)." In those circumstances the court may come down against the dumper. But of course it will be up to the prosecutor to make his case against the accused. I would have thought, with the greatest of respect to the noble and learned Lord, that it is almost axiomatic that it must be the prosecutor who would have to show that the case which the accused was trying to make out was not in fact satisfactory. I should have thought that the inclusion of the words which the noble and learned Lord has suggested was unnecessary because it will be
1380
up to the prosecuting counsel to show that the accused has not made his case.
But, having said that, I will look at the point which the noble and learned Lord has explained so carefully, and if what I have said is wrong, insufficient or inadequate, or should be altered in view of what the noble and learned Lord has said, I will certainly write to him about it.
LORD STOW HILL: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Earl for what he has said. If he will be so kind as to consider the language, I shall be amply content. Having thanked him. I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 [Licences]:
7.21 p.m.
BARONESS WHITE BARONESS WHITE moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 3, line 9, at end insert—
("Where a licence granted in pursuance of this section permits dumping within United Kingdom waters before issuing it the licensing authority shall obtain the agreement of any relevant regional water authority or of the Welsh National Water Development Authority as the case may be.")
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name on the Marshalled List. My reason for putting it down is that it seems to me there can be some confusion in the responsibility between the authorities covered in the Bill which is now before us and the authorities covered in the Bill which was before us until 20 minutes ago and will be before us very soon hereafter.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, may I ask whether the noble Baroness will be speaking to Amendment No. 3 together with this Amendment? Will she move No. 3 separately and speak to it separately?
BARONESS WHITE: My Lords, I thought they should at any rate be put down as separate Amendments. If it is for the convenience of the House I will take them separately because they deal with separate points. The short point in Amendment No. 2 is that should a licence be granted under the Dumping at Sea Bill for the deposit of any substance or article in United Kingdom waters (which is provided for in Clause 1(1)(a)), then we shall have two different authorities controlling the condition of our waters, which include

1381
the tidal estuaries as well as the territorial waters of the coastline. This seems to me to be extremely unsatisfactory.
I am certain that the answer I shall receive from the Minister is that of course the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, or the Secretary of State for Scotland, as the case may be, is unlikely to grant any licences for dumping within United Kingdom waters of any substance which might be detrimental. That I entirely accept. The point is that legally they would be entitled so to do. Therefore, one has the situation potentially arising with the two Bills which are in front of your Lordships' House tonight that we shall have the responsibility placed upon the water authorities, or in Wales the Welsh National Water Development Authority, to control the quality of water, including the tidal estuaries, but there is no obligation of the licensing authority under the Dumping at Sea Bill to obtain their agreement as to what might be dumped in these waters. This seems to me to lead to a position where we have two authorities, both in a position to sanction dumping of effluent in the same water, but neither having any obligation to consult with the other. It seems to me that the obligation to obtain the consent of the water authority should rest with the authority in charge of the dumping at sea, because the number of occasions on which licences will be granted in these circumstances will probably be small and therefore the sensible course is ask the authority in charge of the smaller number of transactions to obtain the agreement of the authority which will be primarily in charge of the quality of these waters.
I cannot think that the situation as it now stands is satisfactory. Noble Lords who have been working on the Protection of the Environment Bill will appreciate that under Clause 24(3) of that Bill, the Dumping at Sea Bill (which is already called an Act, I may say, which slightly shocked me) will take precedence over the Protection of the Environment Bill. Therefore, the water authority would be absolutely helpless if permission were given to dump within territorial waters. It would have no redress that I can see, because in the Protection of the Environment Bill it is made perfectly plain that subsection (1) of Clause 24, which deals
1382
with discharges into rivers and coastal waters,
"shall not apply to any discharge which is from a vessel or is authorised by virtue of any provision of the Dumping at Sea Act 1974".
I think I have made the point quite clearly. I repeat that if the Minister's answer is that it will not happen, then I am sorry to say that that is not the way one has to legislate, because it might.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for explaining her Amendment. I understand her concern that the water authorities should be consulted, because the Water Act has established major new authorities which have extremely important powers, including the powers which are proposed under the other Bill which is in front of your Lordships' House to which the noble Baroness referred. The powers in that Bill will be exercised in rivers, streams, estuaries and in coastal waters where discharges emanate from the shore; that is, through pipe-lines. On the other hand, this Bill provides for the exercise of quite distinct functions for a different set of authorities who have the essential scientific expertise to maintain oversight of control of—this is important—marine pollution. I absolutely accept the need for an integrated approach to the control of marine pollution, but one reaches the point where a decision has to be made as to who is to exercise the executive responsibility for any given function. Because close co-ordination in some circumstances is necessary—and I accept that it is—that does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that statutory provisions have to be made in each case for agreement to be given by another set of authorities.
What I suggest is required is not so much statutory provisions but a flexible administrative arrangement which can be agreed between all concerned to ensure that everybody knows exactly what is going on so far as they are affected. I can assure your Lordships that considerable thought was given to exactly how these arrangements should be made to work. On this basis, where a dumping took place within a defined area—near the coast, for instance—the neighbouring water authority would of course be kept in the picture. I am naturally aware that the Protection of the Environment Bill, which is before your Lordships'

1383
House, has different provisions. However, this Bill provides that the licensing authority, which is the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, will be enabled to give licences for dumping of various commodities. What I can tell the noble Baroness is that where this takes place within an area which is within the definition of a water authority, of course these people will be consulted and taken into account before the licence is ever issued. I can understand the noble Baroness's concern that water authorities should not find themselves ridden roughshod over. I do not believe there is any chance of that, because a licence will be issued in those cases where water authorities are concerned only after consultation with them. In the end the protection of the marine environment must be the responsibility of the Ministry of Agriculture because they are the people who have the scientific knowledge about it.
BARONESS WHITE: My Lords, with great respect, the river authorities have, too, and the water authorities are being made the authorities responsible for everything other than dumping licensed by the licensing authority under the Dumping at Sea Bill. It is the river authorities—I use the wrong expression because under the new legislation it will be the "water authorities" who take over in April. It is they who will be responsible for the quality of the tidal estuaries and the coastal waters. The responsibilities and expertise of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, which extend very largely to fish—that is their reason for being the Department concerned as opposed to the Department of the Environment—lie far more outside the territorial waters in the habitats of fish. What happens within the territorial waters and particularly in the great tidal estuaries like the Thames and the Humber, will be the responsibility of the water authorities. Therefore simply to say, "Of course, we do not need to bother to legislate for this", seems to me to be getting the priorities in these particular water areas quite out of perspective.
I am not speaking of the deep waters of the oceans; that is another matter. It seems to me that it is quite wrong to pass legislation to give the major responsibility—and the noble Earl cannot deny
1384
that the major responsibility for the tidal estuaries and the coastal waters will be so given—to the water authorities. There is no obligation whatsoever in the Dumping at Sea Bill for this consultation. The Minister says, "Of course it will happen". But, my Lords, it does not always happen and consultations between rival authorities, each of them having responsibility for the same water, do not always occur. The Ministries themselves are not necessarily very closely in communication on some of these matters. Still less are the local organisations necessarily closely in communication.
The Minister could have said that perhaps the Amendment is going a little far in saying that they must obtain agreement, but the least he should have said was that he would accept an Amendment which provided for obligatory consultation. I do not think that the number of occasions on which consent will be given for dumping in territorial waters and tidal estuaries under the Dumping at Sea Bill will be large. I should be surprised if it were. But I am informed that there are occasions even now where matter is dumped in the estuaries and where at present the river authorities have no knowledge of it. They are not consulted—they have no statutory right to be consulted—they have no locus standi. Possibly they can make complaints after the event but that is not a very sensible way of doing things; I am sure that the Minister will agree. Therefore, although I am prepared in the circumstances to ask leave to withdraw this Amendment, I give notice that I shall put down another Amendment at Third Reading which will provide for statutory consultations.
VISCOUNT SIMON: My Lords, before the noble Earl replies, I should like to say that I was rather surprised at the answer which he gave to the noble Baroness. He will recall the Committee stage, when we were discussing a similar problem about people who had to get permission from the Department of Trade and Industry as well as licences under this Bill, and I thought that the answer given then was, "Of course, if people have to get permission from some other body they have to get licences none the less". I do not see why the same should not apply to people who have to get permission from the water authorities. They

1385
have to get permission from them and also a licence from the licensing authority under this Bill. As I understand it, the noble Earl is now saying that the licensing authority will override the water authority, and that is the noble Baroness's difficulty. But why should not the position be the same as in the case of the people who have to get two licences, one from the licensing authority and one from the Department of Trade and Industry?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, may I have the leave of the House to reply? This is not a Committee stage and one should not speak twice but may I have the leave of the House to clear up two points? With regard to the point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, it is a fact that the need to get a licence under this Bill does not supersede the need to get any other licence which would have been required other than for this Bill. In other words, where there is an obligation to get a licence from the Department of Trade and Industry for the functions for which that Department is responsible, the need to get a licence under this Bill does not detract from the need to get a licence from the other Department. I think that that is slightly different from what the Amendment of the noble Baroness seeks which is that it should be statutorily put into the Bill that there should be consultation with the water authorities to ensure that they should be consulted over anything that is put within their territorial waters. The noble Baroness said, and quite rightly so, that not much would be placed within their territorial waters, but the Ministry of Agriculture is responsible for the control of pollution of the marine environment, and particularly in territorial waters where fish are of very great importance.
Water authorities do not have this responsibility over fish. The Ministry of Agriculture has the competence and expertise to know what type of things will pollute the water, to know what is likely to flow where and what the tides and currents do. That is the reason they have the particular expertise which is necessary to issue a licence to dump. I can assure the noble Baroness that there is no question that there would not be consultation, but I would say to her that if this is to be put into the Bill where are we
1386
going to stop? Why should it be only water authorities which should be consulted? What about the Sea Fisheries Committee or the harbour authorities or the Crown Estates Commissioners, all of whom have in various areas responsibilities for water contiguous to the shore? Once one starts to say that one shall consult with one specific body that automatically infers that one does not necessarily have to consult with another body.
The least that I can do is to look again at what the noble Baroness has said, and I shall do so and look at the points that she has made. But it is my belief at the moment that it is correct that this particular licence should be issued by the licensing authority and I can only repeat the assurance which I have given to the noble Baroness, that it will of course be done in consultation with those authorities which are the appropriate ones to be consulted in the nature of each specific licence.
LORD BALERNO: My Lords, I should like to support my noble friend and give him an argument which he has not used; that is, that it should be the Ministry of Agriculture's responsibility. Undoubtedly there will be, in the next ten years or so, a great extension of fish farming in the sea and that extension must be protected by the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries. Therefore, the question of any pollution of the sea will loom very large in their sphere of influence.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.40 p.m.
BARONESS WHITE BARONESS WHITE moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 3, line 9, at end insert—
(" () Where a licence granted in pursuance of this section permits the discharge of any trade effluent or sewage from land in Great Britain through a pipe in the sea outside controlled waters, the licensing authority shall satisfy itself that the applicant has obtained consent from the relevant water authority.")
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, it is a great pity that this is not the Committee stage as then I should have been able to answer the noble Lord, Lord Balerno.
Amendment No. 3 makes a somewhat different, though cognate point. This also refers to Clause 24(1)(a)(ii) of the Protection of the Environment Bill. Clause

1387
24(3) again takes out of the jurisdiction of the water authorities the discharge of—
"any trade effluent or sewage effluent … from land in Great Britain through a pipe into the sea outside controlled waters …"
As I understand it, under the Dumping at Sea Bill that would come under the jurisdiction of the licensing authority. Thus, the point at which this discharge took place, which would be in waters outside the territorial waters, would have to be controlled by them. This is referred to in Clause 1(2) of the Dumping at Sea Bill:
"… a structure on land constructed or adapted wholly or mainly for the purpose of depositing solids in the sea."
At an earlier stage in our deliberations on this Bill I recall this was taken to include, for example, sewage sludge. It appears to me to be unsatisfactory that the authority which would normally be controlling effluent at one end of the pipe should not necessarily be consulted by the authority which controls the effluent at the other end of the pipe. Under the Protection of the Environment Bill it might be quite undesirable from the point of view of the authority that such sewage or trade effluent should be disposed of in this way at all. It may have quite different ideas as to what ought to be done with it, particularly in an age when reclamation and re-cycling, and the processing of sewage and other matter, is likely to become more and more important and our knowledge of the processes for dealing with it is likely to become more advanced and sophisticated.
Therefore it appears to me to be desirable that if we are to have these pipes for the disposal of sewage or trade effluent—and I am told that in the United States, for example, some of them extend for eight or ten miles into the sea—then we should make sure that the authorities at the two ends should each have their own responsibility. I do not see how the landward authority, so to speak, can exercise responsibility unless it grants a licence for its end of the discharge, leaving the licensing authority under the Dumping at Sea Bill to exercise its jurisdiction about the disposal of the matter into the waters of the sea. This Amendment therefore suggests that where, in the Dumping at Sea Bill, the
1388
licence is granted which permits the discharge of
"any trade effluent or sewage effluent … from land in Great Britain through a pipe into the sea outside controlled waters …"
the licensing authority concerned should satisfy itself that the applicant has obtained consent from the relevant water authority which would be responsible for land or for any discharge of this type of matter into waters other than the sea.
If this Amendment does not appeal to the Minister I should like to know how he would deal with this situation. It appears to me that one Department and one set of draftsmen have dealt with one Bill and others have dealt with the other Bill; thus there are these essential discrepancies between the two. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, is going to intervene, but I know that he has been in consultation with the C.B.I. on this matter and I know that they among other people are very much disturbed about this position. Therefore it seems incumbent upon us to attempt to meet the situation. I beg to move.
LORD MERRIVALE: I think this Amendment justifies certain fears that this Bill could be taken to cover effluent discharged by a pipeline to the sea. Clause 24(1), to which the noble Baroness referred—and I should like to include it for the Record—reads:
"Subject to subsections (2) and (3) of this section a person shall be guilty of an offence if he causes or knowingly permits—(a) any trade effluent or sewage effluent to be discharged … from land in Great Britain through a pipe into the sea outside controlled waters … unless the discharge is made with the consent in pursuance of section 27 of this Act of the water authority in whose area the discharge occurs …".
A copy of the application for consent by the water authority must be sent to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food under Clause 29(1).
BARONESS WHITE: Would the noble Lord forgive me a moment? The Government are moving an Amendment to delete that.
LORD MERRIVALE: That is even worse. The point I am making is that I would have thought it preferable for this question of the discharge of effluent by pipeline to be covered solely by the Protection of the Environment Bill and not by the Bill which we are considering now.

1389
Before the Government move any Amendment, when this application for consent is sent to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Ministry then has the right to make representations about it. This arrangement of control by a single authority and a requirement to consult the Ministry is, I would have thought, totally satisfactory and should work well in practice. I would also think it undesirable for a person discharging effluent by pipeline into controlled waters or beyond those controlled waters to need to obtain both the licence from the Ministry and also the consent of the water authority. Dual responsibility for controlling such discharges would surely lead to unnecessary duplication of effort and possibly to some friction between the authorities concerned.
Bearing in mind the wording of the Amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady White, would my noble friend consider amending this Bill? From what the noble Baroness has just said, I have a horrible feeling that the Government would not, but it seems to me to be preferable that this question of controlling the discharge of effluent through pipelines, particularly outside controlled waters, should be covered by the Protection of the Environment Bill, as, in effect, laid down in Part II of that Act. I can only express great disquiet if what the noble Baroness says is true, that the Government are proposing to bring in under this Bill the question of trade effluents discharged through a pipeline rather than under the Protection of the Environment Bill.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I hope I shall be able to comfort both the noble Baroness and my noble friend, because I think they are under a misapprehension, although possibly an understandable one. All pipelines and what they discharge, and all licences to deal with pipelines, come under the Protection of the Environment Bill and not under this Bill. I think possibly one of the reasons why both the noble Baroness and my noble friend Lord Merrivale were a little concerned is because subsection (2) says that
"ߪ substances and articles are dumped in the sea for the purposes of this Act if they are permanently deposited in the sea from a vehicle, ship, aircraft, hovercraft or marine structure, or from a structure on land constructed or adapted wholly or mainly for the purpose of depositing solids in the sea."
1390
What emanates from a pipeline is not a solid, and the licensing authorities for pipelines are the water authorities. It does not come under this Bill at all and therefore I hope the noble Baroness will be content that all pipeline licensing comes under the Protection of the Environment Bill.
BARONESS WHITE: My Lords, I am delighted to hear it, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 [Right to make representations]:
EARL FERRERS EARL FERRERS moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 5, line 33, at end insert ("and shall send him a copy of the committee's report").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, Clause 3 of the Bill provides for an applicant for a licence or a licence holder to make representations to the licensing authority about proposed decisions on licensing for dumping. The Minister can refer such matters to a committee which will hear the representations and report to him. The Minister has then to advise the person or the company making representations of his (the Minister's) decision, giving his reasons. This procedure has been developed with the help and advice of the Council on Tribunals. Since the Committee stage we have reviewed how the procedure would operate. In the light of further consultations with those who might be affected, the Government have concluded that the person making representations should have a copy of the report of the proceedings and the advice of the committee to the Minister, who will be able to refer directly to it in giving the reasons for his decision. This is in accordance with the practice recommended by the Council on Tribunals and I hope that your Lordships will accept this Amendment as an improvement to the Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL FERRERS EARL FERRERS moved Amendment No. 5:
After Clause 3, insert the following new clause:
Publicity
".—(1) A licensing authority shall compile and keep available for public inspection free of charge at reasonable hours the notifiable particulars of any dumping licensed

1391
by them under this Act, and shall furnish a copy of any such notifiable particulars to any person on payment of such reasonable sum as the authority may with the consent of the Treasury determine.
(2) In subsection (1) above "notifiable particulars" means particulars which Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom are required to notify to the international organisation."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, perhaps we might speak to Amendments Nos. 5 and 10 together. The noble Baroness will remember that during the Committee stage of the Bill she inquired whether a register of licences would be kept which would be open to inspection. The noble Baroness was concerned that local authorities and scientists should be able to establish the nature and the quantities of materials that were being dumped from the United Kingdom. I said at the time that we recognised that the public was entitled to have such information.
As signatories to the London and Oslo Conventions, the Government have accepted an obligation to notify to the Commissions set up to implement the Convene Lions, particulars relating to licences issued, and we believe it right that the public should have access to this information. This is the purpose of this Amendment, and I beg to move.
BARONESS WHITE: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Earl very much and say that I am happy with the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4 [Enforcement of Act]:
7.53 p.m.
BARONESS WHITE BARONESS WHITE moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 6, line 26, after ("Kingdom") insert ("or in United Kingdom waters").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the point about this Amendment is that in the Bill as it now stands we have a definition of the places and things which are liable to inspection under this Bill, and under Clause 4(5)(b) these include ships in ports in the United Kingdom—that is to say, ships of any nationality, our own or other ships, provided they are in the port. But we have no authority to inspect such ships once they have left the port, even though they may be still in our territorial waters, which might include a tidal estuary. Therefore it seems
1392
to me that there is a gap in this legislation, and I have had representations made to me about this. It would surely be much more satisfactory if we were able to inspect a ship if it was in a tidal estuary, because it might very much affect the conditions in our own waters if such a ship was believed to be polluting the water, though apparently as the Bill stands we have no right to do anything about it.
If I am incorrect in this supposition in regard to the provision of Clause 4(5)(b), and this does not in fact detract from some other authority, some other legislation that would enable us to inspect a ship to see whether or not it was polluting our waters, then of course that would be perfectly satisfactory. But reading the Bill, and having had representations made to me about this, it seems to me that we ought to make quite certain we do not put ourselves into a position in which we might suffer damage and have no redress. I beg to move.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, the noble Baroness has referred to an important point in this Amendment, and I would tell her that before the Bill was drafted we gave the most careful consideration as to what powers were appropriate for our inspectors in the supervision of their licensing arrangements which were to be made under the Bill. Obviously, a balance has to be struck. On the one hand, we have to ensure that the powers in Clause 4 are adequate for a British enforcement officer, who has reasonable cause to believe that substances are present, to inspect a vessel; on the other hand, we do not wish to provide stronger arrangements than are necessary, particularly having regard to the international repercussions which the conferment of over-weighty powers could have on our shipping interests. I suggest that this is very important.
Clause 4 provides for the appointment of British enforcement officers and gives them routine powers of inspection. They will be able to board British and foreign ships in our ports where there is reasonable cause to believe that a vessel has been loaded for dumping or has returned from dumping. These arrangements will enable licensing authorities to exercise general oversight over wastes which are loaded in this country. As the clause makes quite clear, British enforcement

1393
officers will have power to inspect British ships at sea, wherever they are. As the noble Baroness has made clear, her Amendment would give them power to inspect foreign vessels in United Kingdom waters. I believe that it would be quite wrong to embark on an extension of arrangements which are regarded as normal under international law as it exists and I think the Amendment proposed by the noble Baroness might have this effect. It would be entirely inappropriate to confer on inspectors powers to permit them to board and to inspect foreign vessels which are at sea, albeit within our own territorial waters.
It might be helpful if one were to consider this a little further. The essential point, it seems, is that it is extremely unlikely that a vessel of any other State which intended to undertake dumping would in fact enter our territorial waters to do so without a licence, since it would obviously be much easier and cheaper for it to dispose of its waste on the high seas. Therefore I suggest that the situation would be unlikely to arise. Another factor that has weighed heavily with us in considering what powers will be appropriate is that the 1958 Convention on the Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone gives a ship the right of innocent passage for the purpose of transit through the territorial sea. I am advised that a passage is innocent so long as it is not prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of the State. Clearly, if a ship came into territorial waters to dump a whole lot of noxious substances within those territorial waters it would be prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of the State.
I believe that it is not necessary to take powers in this Bill to inspect foreign ships passing through our waters because, as I have said, the international repercussions of such a thing would clearly be undesirable. I hope that what I have said will persuade the noble Baroness that while I understand the reasoning behind her argument, the balance lies on the side that we should not put these powers into the Bill.
BARONESS WHITE: My Lords, I do not profess enough knowledge to argue against the noble Earl. Nevertheless, I rather hope that this might be looked at when it reaches another place. Mean-
1394
while, I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
EARL FERRERS EARL FERRERS moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 7, line 2, leave out ("it to stop") and insert ("the person in charge to stop it").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is basically a drafting Amendment on a point to which the noble Baroness drew attention in Committee. The basis of it is that one cannot order a ship to stop; one has to order the person in charge of the ship to stop it. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 8 [Offences—general provisions]:
EARL FERRERS EARL FERRERS moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 9, line 8, after ("again") insert ("and punished").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this also is basically a drafting Amendment. It brings the wording of the clause into line with precedent and makes it clear that a responsible person in a body corporate who has been found guilty of being party to an offence is liable to be punished. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 10 [Financial provisions]:
EARL FERRERS EARL FERRERS moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 10, line 7, leave out from ("the") to end of line 10 and insert ("international organisations").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment. When I moved Amendment No. 5 I spoke at the same time to Amendment No. 10, which is the next Amendment to be called. This defines international organisations, and therefore it is unnecessary to have the explanation in this part of the Bill; hence the Amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 11 [Interpretation]:
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 10. This is consequential on Amendment No. 5.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 28, at end insert—
(" " international organisations" means any organisation established in pursuance of Article XIV of the London Convention or Article 16 of the Oslo Convention and any similar organisation established in pursuance of a designated Convention; ").—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, Amendment No. 11 is also a drafting Amendment, to insert the revised title of the Department responsible for licensing of dumping in Northern Ireland. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 41, leave out ("Ministry of Development") and insert ("Department of the Environment").—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, I beg to move the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.20 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended at 8.4 p.m. and resumed at 8.20 p.m.]

PROTECTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT BILL [H.L.]
House again in Committee.
Clause 23 [Control of pollution of rivers and coastal waters etc.]:
BARONESS WHITE BARONESS WHITE moved Amendment No. 132B:
Page 29, line 15, leave out ("specified").
The noble Baroness said: This seems to me to be an Amendment of some significance. It is a complicated one, but I hope that I shall be able to make it reasonably clear. The Amendment is to leave out the word "specified" in Clause 23(1)(a) where it refers to " any specified underground water ". The reason why we are worried about this provision will I think become clear to anyone who looks at the Water Resources Act 1963, Section 72. This section stands to be repealed under this Bill, and it was a much wider one because, instead of referring to "specified underground water" it referred to "any underground strata" within a river authority's area, and it was a function of the river authorities—which are now, of course, to be replaced by the water authorities—to control trade or sewage effluent
1396
and other poisonous polluting matter and so forth which might find its way into "any underground strata". This point was touched on at Second Reading by the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford. Because of his responsibilities as Chairman of the Water Council he feels perhaps a little inhibited in taking part in the detailed stages of our debates, but he expressed some apprehension that the narrowing of this reference in Part II of the Bill before us might have some unfortunate effects.
One cannot, I think, understand what is meant by "specified underground water" unless one looks at Clause 48, the Interpretation Clause, which tells us what exactly is meant by this term. Your Lordships will see that "specified underground water" means underground water specified in,
"(a) a report prepared by a water authority in pursuance of section 24 of the Water Act 1973".
I have looked at that section and it does not seem to help us very much, it refers to periodical reviews plans and programmes. Then the definition goes on:
"(b) a report prepared in pursuance of section 14(1)(a) of the Water Resources Act 1963 …"
That also does not seem to get us very much further. Then it proceeds,
"water which is used"
and there is to be an Amendment which will make it read:
"or is or was expected by the authority to be used for any purpose".
In other words, if an authority, in its wisdom, is not able to think of any pur pose for which the water might be used, then we have no control over the noxious and polluting matter which might get into it. Oddly enough, so far as Scotland is concerned (again I have to look forward to Amendments which are about to be made) at the top of page 57 one sees that in Scotland "specified underground water" is going to mean, when the appropriate Government Amendment has been made, "such underground water as may be prescribed". So one will not be obliged to signify any purpose for which it is going to be used; one has only to prescribe it. I am not sure what the criteria for prescription will be.
This is very far from being a simple matter. The reason why we are so concerned about it is that we have grave

1397
doubts as to whether at any one point of time it will be possible to indicate for what purpose underground water might be used. We do not know all that much about underground water. In some areas there is considerable knowledge and it has been carefully investigated, but there are other are as which were covered, as I understand it, when one was referring to "any underground strata" in Section 72 of the 1963 Water Resources Act, so that one was taking no chances. Anything which might get into any underground strata would be controlled. Now we say, "If you are going to discharge it into underground water which has been specified according to the definition clause then you have to get the necessary consents and so forth; but if it has nor been specified, and if the authority has not thought of any use to which it might be put, then it is not specified, and you can do what you like without any control and without any let or hindrance."
I am advised by those who are much more knowledgeable than I that there are undoubtedly areas with underground water which have not been fully explored or recorded, where one simply does not know, where noxious matter might find its way; and therefore it is dangerous to go back on the 1963 Act and legislate now for much more restricted conditions. It may well be that there have been difficulties over the administration of Section 72 and the immediate following Sections of the 1963 Act. If so, I think we should be told exactly what the difficulties have proved to be.
This section in the 1963 Act is to be repealed under the Bill and will have no further effect. We are substituting something which is less wide. We are substituting something which, I am advised, because it is not fully inclusive could lead to very serious difficulties in the future. This again to some extent ties up with my South Wales mining connections. I know that the scientists who are working in the South Wales coalfield area have very grave apprehensions as to the possible effects. This applies not only in South Wales but in other parts of Wales, and I have no doubt it applies equally to parts of England, but I am not very well aware of those. This again links up with what we were discussing earlier, the disposal of specially toxic wastes the effects of which are not fully
1398
known, and the desire on the part of the authorities to use abandoned mines or quarries in order to dispose of them. So often in these abandoned workings are underground waters which may go in directions which may change in the course of time, and which may not be fully known. So I feel we are entirely justified in moving this Amendment. Whether we press it or not depends partly, of course, on the explanation we have from the Government as to why they now wish to take narrower powers than were included in the 1963 Act, what difficulties have been encountered in administering that Act, and why in fact they propose to make this change. I beg to move.
8.30 p.m.
LORD SANDFORD: The Committee will be grateful, as I am, to the noble Baroness for moving this Amendment, because it gives me an opportunity to explain what was in my right honourable friend's mind in regard to the present wording. I would be the first to admit that this is wording which we hope it will be possible to improve upon, but perhaps not in the way the noble Baroness suggests. She is quite right in referring to Section 24 of the Water Act 1973, and Section 14 of the Water Resources Act 1963, to get at the meaning of "specified underground water". I cannot agree that the 1963 Act is wider than the present Bill. The 1963 Act related only to discharges by way of well, borehole, or pipe into underground strata. All those discharges will now be controlled under Clause 24(1)(a)(iii). Furthermore, that particular clause has been strengthened as indicated on page 102 of the Bill, where there is a requirement that the relevant material should be publicised and made available for inspection. That is rather a side issue.
Perhaps I could deal with this matter in two ways. First, may I indicate why the simple omission of the word "specified" cannot be accepted. If you omitted this word, it would be an offence to add fertiliser to an allotment in such way that it got into, and polluted the water which had fallen as rain, or a shower, a few hours before and had soaked through into the ground. It would make it an offence to permit polluting matter to enter any underground water, even though the water concerned was already in such a state, as for instance crude brine, as to make is unusable. It would expose everybody

1399
to the danger of prosecution for the pollution of underground water, without providing any means of enabling them to discover whether there was underground water under, or anywhere near, their property.
Those are some of the difficulties in accepting this Amendment as it stands. Nevertheless, my right honourable friend would be the first to admit that the qualification "specified", as defined in Clause 48 of the Bill and in the references that the noble Baroness mentioned and that I confirmed, still leaves something to be desired. For instance, it will be a year or two before the new water authorities will have completed their first surveys under Section 24(1)(a) of the Water Act 1973. The surveys under Section 14 of the Water Resources Act 1963 were not carried out with the purposes of this Bill in mind; on that the noble Baroness is quite right. In consequence, this Bill will initially probably provide rather less complete coverage than we should have liked. The noble Baroness is quite right there. But a comprehensive approach to the protection of underground water of the kind which we intend—broadly, underground sources which are already used, or for which some future use can be foreseen—is an entirely new feature in the protection of water. It is a large step forward, and we can only use the best method available to ensure that it does not have unintended and repressive effects.
It will be in the interests of the water authorities in their dual role as controllers of water pollution and providers of water resources—or rather, in their single role as the comprehensive managers of the whole water cycle—to ensure, as soon as may be, that all the useful underground water is identified and specified in reports of surveys. I hope that the Committee will agree that it follows from what I have said that the Government will be prepared to consider what the noble Baroness has said, and to consider any other suggestions that might be forthcoming between now and the next stage, for a more satisfactory definition of the underground water to be the subject of the general offence in Clause 23(1)(a).
I hope that I have said enough to satisfy the Committee that just to leave the term entirely unqualified would, for
1400
the reasons I have given, not be an acceptable solution. I hope that that will satisfy the Committee for the time being, and will encourage the noble Baroness and other Members of your Lordships' House to assist us to improve on what I admit is not an entirely satisfactory situation at the moment.
8.36 p.m.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: I think that the noble Baroness, Lady White, has put her finger on a problem which this Bill at the present moment does not satisfactorily solve. I could not support her if she were to press this Amendment now, because I think the noble Lord has made it clear that there are good reasons for having some limitation and not leaving it as an offence to discharge "any poisonous, noxious or polluting matter" into any underground water without any limitation.
The real trouble is the definition in Clause 48. That does not give a free hand to the Secretary of State. It is a limiting definition. There have to be reports either under the 1973 Act or the 1963 Act (and a report of which a copy is kept available if it is under the 1963 Act), before any underground water can be treated as "specified underground water". I must say that I cannot see the object of having such a restrictive definition. I think it would be much better if you had, "underground water prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State", for this reason. Pressure could then be applied to the Government of the day if they over-prescribed or if they under-prescribed, and you would not have to wait to obtain one or other report from a body before you could bring that particular underground water within the purview of Clause 23 and have it protected from pollution.
I think one can leave this part of the clause as it now stands. The real trouble arises with the definition in Clause 48. This debate may perhaps serve a useful purpose, because if an Amendment is put down on the lines which I have suggested, and it is supported by the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, a joint effort on our part might get the Government to accept it when we get to Clause 48 and they will not just say that they will think about it.
LORD HUGHES: The noble Viscount must be reading my mind. It was in my

1401
mind to get up immediately he sat down; not on this aspect, but on the Scottish aspect. If he will look at the Amendment which the Government propose to make to the Scottish definition of underground water, this certainly will not be giving a wider discretion to the Secretary of State than what is proposed in Scotland. As my noble friend pointed out, the definition in Clause 48 for Scotland at the top of page 57 paragraph (b) reads:
"for the definition of 'specified underground water' there shall be substituted the following definition—
'specified underground water' means underground water specified in regulations as water which is used or expected by the Secretary of State to be used for any purpose."
That is little wider than the English definition. The Amendment, which reads rather ridiculously but could certainly not be wider, is to alter that to,
"'specified underground water' means such underground water as may be prescribed".
So far as I can see, taking an ordinary reading of English, this simply means that specified underground water is such water as may be specified.
If it is accepted that there is sound reason for making this the definition in Scotland, then a somewhat similar definition in England would meet the purpose of the noble and learned Viscount. Therefore, I suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, that when the Government are looking at this point they should look at the reasoning which they found acceptable in the case of Scotland, and consider whether it is equally acceptable on this side of the Border.
BARONESS WHITE: I am extremely grateful to both noble Lords who have taken part in the debate, as well as to the Minister. I am in no way wedded to this Amendment, the purpose of which was to draw attention to what we thought was a significant problem, so I have no intention of pressing it. But I would respectfully agree with the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, that this point can probably best be dealt with when we come to the definition clause. It is very odd that there should be a discrepancy between England and Wales on the one hand, and Scotland on the other, which is not so much a legal question as a matter of common sense. In
1402
all the circumstances, we should leave the matter as it is for the moment, but ask the Government to look closely at this serious problem. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.42 p.m.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE VISCOUNT DILHORNE moved Amendment No. 132A:
Page 29, line 24, at end insert ("and for the purposes of paragraph (a) of this subsection a local authority shall be deemed to cause or knowingly permit to enter a stream any poisonous, noxious or polluting matter which passes into any stream or controlled waters from any sewer or sewage disposal works vested in them, in any case where either the local authority were bound to receive the matter into the sewer or sewage disposal works, or they consented to do so unconditionally, or they consented to do so subject to conditions and those conditions were observed.")
The noble and learned Viscount said: Clause 23 deserves very careful study, as I am sure the whole Committee will agree, and I do not profess to have spent as much time in considering it as I should have liked. But I have contrasted it with Section 2 of the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Act 1951 on which it is modelled, and I can say straight away that this Amendment is modelled on a provision in that section. In Section 2 of the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Act, there is a provision which specifies certain circumstances in which a local authority is to be deemed to cause or knowingly to permit pollution. It is a deeming provision, and a not unimportant deeming provision, putting a burden on local authorities who were, I am sorry to say, over the years some of the worst sources of pollution, with the no doubt desirable objective of saving their ratepayers a good deal of money. But that is the fact and one must not disguise it.
The circumstances in which pollution could be deemed to be a local authority's responsibility were where a local authority were bound to receive polluting matter into their sewer or sewage disposal plants, or where they had consented to receive it. They would then be deemed to have caused the pollution by that polluting liquid escaping into a river from their sewage works or sewer, or knowingly to have permitted it. So where those facts could be proved, and subject to no defence succeeding, a conviction would result. That had the

1403
advantage that a local authority could not say, if polluting liquid was traced to their plant "We are not responsible. We did not cause it. We cannot be convicted. You must find the people who tipped that polluting matter into our sewer, and if you can trace them you can go for them." Section 2 overcame that difficulty and it was an important provision in the 1951 Act. Clause 23 does not contain any similar provision.
I know—although I cannot claim to be very familiar with all the provisions of the Water Act—that overall responsibility for sewerage and sewage disposal now rests on the shoulders of the water authorities. But, as I understand it, responsibility may also rest on the district councils and London borough councils in relation to management for the water authorities of sewers and sewage disposal plants. If I be right about that, then I suggest that the need for the provision in the 1951 Act still remains. If I am told that if the effluent from a sewage plant in a borough is found to be highly polluting in character the people who should be prosecuted are not the people who are actually managing the sewage plant but the water authorities, I shall wonder whether that is right. But if it be right, may not the same or a similar deeming provision be necessary so that neither a local authority nor a water authority can escape a responsibility which should properly fall on their shoulders by being able to say, "We are not responsible, someone else has put that into our sewers; it has come to our sewage disposal plant and from there gone to the river. The persons you must prosecute are the people who put it in"—and of course they will be very difficult to trace.
As I said, the provision in the 1951 Act has been left out of the Bill and in some respects the existing law as created by the 1951 Act has been significantly weakened. I hope that this omission was not with that intention. I shall await with interest the explanation for this departure from the provisions of the 1951 Act, which must have been carefully considered. I beg to move.
LORD SANDFORD: I should like to start by assuring the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, that it is certainly
1404
not the intention to weaken in any way the provisions in the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Act 1951, which are to be repealed because similar provisions are now contained in this Bill. During the passage of this Bill through this House we must take great care to make sure that there is none of the loopholes which the noble and learned Viscount apprehends.
He was quite right in saying that this is a matter which is specifically dealt with in Section 2 of the 1951 Act. The last part of Section 2(1)—that is, the part of the text which follows paragraph (b)—and Section 2(2) are interrelated so that "any such case as aforesaid in Section 2(2), is the case mentioned in Section 2(1) where either the local authority were bound to receive the matter into their sewer or disposal works, or the matter was discharged into their sewer or works in accordance with their consent. The noble and learned Viscount and the Committee will know that the effect of those two provisions is that where poisonous, noxious or polluting matter is discharged into a stream via a local authority sewer or sewerage disposal works, then, if the matter was lawfully discharged into the sewer or works in the first place, the person who so discharged it will not be guilty of the offence of causing or knowingly permitting it to enter the stream, but the local authority which received the matter into their sewer or sewage disposal works are to be deemed to have caused or knowingly permitted its discharge into the stream.
The reason for this is that anyone who has a legal right to discharge sewage into a local authority sewer, or who discharges trade effluent into a sewer in accordance with a consent, ought not to be penalised if the matter so discharged eventually pollutes a stream. The local authority, on the other hand, can properly be expected to provide adequate treatment for all matter which is lawfully discharged into their sewer or sewage disposal works before discharging it into a stream, and they should not be allowed any opportunity to argue that it was not they but the person who discharged the polluting matter into their sewer or works who caused or knowingly permitted it to enter the stream via the sewer or works. By implication, where a person unlawfully discharges matter into a local authority sewer

1405
or disposal works—for example, where he discharges trade effluent without a requisite consent or in breach of some conditions—it is he and not the local authority who can properly be held responsible for causing the matter to enter a stream via the sewer or disposal works.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: Is the noble Lord saying—I want to follow him—that that is the position now under the 1951 Act?
LORD SANDFORD: Precisely so. I should like to put it to the Committee that there appears to be no need for the inclusion of similar provisions in Clause 23 of the Bill because, as the noble Viscount says, responsibility now rests squarely upon the shoulders of the regional water authorities. My advice is that however the regional water authorities may arrange for their functions to be discharged, that is where the responsibility remains. I am grateful to the noble and learned Viscount for explaining his doubts about this, because it will mean that this matter is now carefully looked at again to ensure that that is so. That it my advice at the moment, but if the noble Viscount has doubts about it then certainly it needs to be looked into.
Clause 23(2)(f) as it is proposed to be amended by Amendment No. 38 will exclude from the scope of Clause 23 trade or sewage effluent discharged as mentioned in Clause 24(1)(a). Such a discharge will in future be governed entirely by Clause 24, where the question is not whether someone has caused or knowingly permitted the effluent to enter any relevant waters but whether someone has caused or knowingly permitted it to be discharged otherwise than in accordance with a consent. I entirely agree with the noble and learned Viscount that we must make quite sure that this provision, primarily contained in Clause 24, is no weaker than, or is at least as strong as, the provision in the Prevention of Pollution Act 1951. I am grateful to him for having raised this, and I assure him that it will be looked into to make quite sure that it will not be possible for the regional water authorities, by arranging for their functions to be discharged by some other authority, to shift their responsibility.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: I am grateful to the noble Lord for his reply. I must
1406
say that I am rather puzzled about the number of different hats the water authority will have to wear. It is the water authority that will give consent to the polluting discharge being made, in which case it cannot be prosecuted for an offence under this clause. On the other hand, if it does not consent to its own discharge it will be responsible for the polluting discharge and will be liable to prosecution and conviction. It seems to me a very odd position.
Again, the noble Lord says that the water authority will be ultimately responsible. That may be, but the water authority may be a long way away from where the actual pollution occurs. I shall come back to this later, when we come to the Question, That the clause shall stand part. But I should have thought (I do not know whether the noble Lord will agree) that the people actually running the sewage farm would be liable to be prosecuted. There is nothing in the Act to say that only the water authority must be prosecuted. The person who commits the offence will be the person who causes or knowingly permits the pollution, so you can go for him. Under the law as it now stands, if you go for the local authority, and the local authority have allowed out of their sewer, without purifying it, an effluent which they were bound to receive, they are deemed to be guilty. As the Bill stands, I do not see that that will happen.
The noble Lord has referred to Clause 24. I shall be interested to hear exactly how that happens in relation to this matter. But are we not getting into a very odd position, with the water authority being the person, the noble Lord says, liable to be prosecuted and the water authority being itself the body which has to consider and determine—and finally determine for at least a year, unless the matter is called in before the Secretary of State—that a certain polluting effluent can be discharged, in which case it can exonerate itself, exclude itself, from all responsibility for the pollution and take itself outside the scope of this particular provision? It seems to me very odd, and I say frankly that I am not happy about it for the reason that, as one knows, the water authority must have on it a majority of persons appointed by local authorities, and I fear that after this we shall see very much what I fear we have seen over the

1407
years—a reluctance to take steps that ought to be taken for purifying our rivers.
In this connection, I think it would not be improper for me to say that I remember one instance, when I was Attorney General, when there was a great reluctance on the part of a river board (which also, I think, had local authority representatives serving upon it) to institute proceedings under the 1951 Act in a clear and very bad case. The person suffering from this pollution did all he could to persuade the river board to take action. He finally, I think as a last resort, wrote to the Attorney General, and I had to say to the river board quite firmly—and it did start things moving—"If you do not start proceedings I shall give my consent to proceedings being brought as a sort of longstop, and then all this delay which you have caused will come out. You had much better do it yourselves"; and I think it then happened. I am fearful that, despite all that may be said about the responsibilities of the water authority, when the water authority is so constituted we will still get the same reluctance to prosecute other people and we will still find them in the position of consenting to their own polluting discharges to prevent themselves from being prosecuted for an offence under Clause 23. That seems to me very odd, and I do not think it is right.
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: I find it very difficult to follow the answer given by my noble friend Lord Sandford because, as I understand it, he says that the last thing the Government want to do is to alter in any way the powers that were given under the 1951 Act, and for various reasons he does not think that is what is being done. We have grave doubts whether that is so; but the Amendment down in the name of my noble and learned friend Lord Dilhorne and I. as I see it, reproduces what was in the 1951 Act. My noble friend Lord Sandford says that that is what the Government want. The Amendment does it. Why not accept the Amendment?
LORD SANDFORD: If I may answer the two noble Lords, I think the answer to the last point is that what I said was that we do not want to weaken the provisions of the 1951 Act but we do
1408
have to fit them into a different frame-work, and that is what Clause 24 primarily seeks to do. The noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, is anxious about the regional water authorities being judges in their own cause; but he will have noticed Clause 47, I think, under which regulations will be made whereby discharges by the water authorities themselves will require the consent of the Secretary of State. That, perhaps, will add to my assurances on that particular point. But certainly I am grateful to the noble and learned Viscount for having moved this Amendment. He having raised these doubts, we shall have to look into them.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: I am very glad to hear that the noble Lord will look into them. I must say that I am very unhappy. I will make a further study of Clause 24, but I doubt very much whether it covers the same point as this deeming provision. Under Clause 24 the discharge is in certain cases "into any relevant waters" et cetera "from land" "or from a building" and "any matter other than sewage effluent"—and so on. That is the real question here which was covered by this deeming provision. The discharge was deemed to be that of the local authority. This is the question to which I should like an answer. Have you now to go back to find out who is the person who actually discharged into the sewer? If so, that is a retrograde effect of Clause 24. I do not want to press the noble Lord to go further into the matter to-night. I am grateful for his assurance that he will carefully consider this problem; and I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment on his understanding that, unless I am satisfied before the next stage, I shall be in order and quite entitled to put down an Amendment on the same lines and, if need be, to press it to a Division.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.2 p.m.
LORD SANDFORD LORD SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 133:
Page 29, line 27, after ("by") insert ("virtue of").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 133 and at the same time to speak to Amendments Nos. 134, 135 and 136. All four are drafting

1409
Amendments designed solely to achieve consistency of wording.
BARONESS WHITE: I wonder whether we may be told what is the virtue of "by virtue of"? Presumably the Amendment is put down for some purpose and not merely for elegancy of style.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: It is not elegant.
BARONESS WHITE: I should be grateful to know whether in any sense it widens the significance of this part of the clause. We are referring not only to polluting matter but also to possible poisonous or obnoxious matter, so that the matter is extremely important. One wishes to know how specific this is to be. If an entry in question is authorised by the consent given by the Secretary of State, how is it changed it it is to be by virtue of the consent given by the Secretary of State? Is that something which is broader? This is not by any means a frivolous question. If you are dealing with poisonous substances it is important to be absolutely specific, and one should not allow a somewhat wider sphere of activity by bringing in some phrase which could be used as an element in a defence if some poisonous substance was introduced into the water in question. I do not want to make heavy weather of this, but presumably this Amendment has some significance, and if in any sense it widens, and therefore weakens, specific consents which might be given, we should be rather worried about it.
LORD SANDFORD: There is no reason for the Amendment beyond that which I gave, to provide consistency. An example of words already in the Bill may be found in Clause 24(3) at page 33, line 27. There is no other significance at all.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: I thought that was so—there is no significance at all, You might just as well say "by" instead of putting down four Amendments to make three words do the work of one, It would be better to amend the Bill where you have the words "by virtue of" by taking out "virtue of". I do not know why there is this passion for inserting "virtue" in this Bill. It is bad drafting to push in these words. There
1410
is no significant change in the meaning. I suggest to the noble Lord that he had better think again, withdraw these Amendments and table an Amendment to take out the unnecessary words "virtue of" where they appear later. It really is bad drafting unnecessarily to insert this verbiage.
LORD SANDFORD: I shall be glad to consider that point. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM LORD WINTERBOTTOM had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 134A:
Page 29, line 29, leave out from ("State") to ("in") in line 30.
BARONESS WHITE: I am sorry that my noble friend Lord Winterbottom is indisposed and is not able to be present in the Committee to-night. I know that this Amendment is one in which he has a great personal interest. I cannot move it, but I thought that I should give that explanation to the Committee.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: I think that I can move the Amendment, can I not?
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: No.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: I think that the noble Baroness, Lady White, can move it.
BARONESS WHITE: I hesitate about this because I happen to know that my noble friend Lord Winterbottom has a very close personal interest in this Amendment and I think that he would wish to be here to speak on it. It could be brought up at a later stage. I am in that difficulty. Any noble Lord could have moved the Amendment on his behalf, but I happen to know that it is a matter in which he has long taken a personal interest.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: I was not pressing the matter, except that I thought it might be of interest to get on the Record what the Government had to say about it. I can raise the points I wish to raise on the Question, Whether the clause shall stand part of the Bill?
BARONESS WHITE: I am not proposing to move the Amendment. If the noble and learned Viscount wishes to

1411
move it to obtain an explanation from the Government, that might be done. But I have no permission to move it.
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (VISCOUNT Hoop): Amendment No. 134A is not moved.
9.10 p.m.
BARONESS WHITE BARONESS WHITE moved Amendment No. 134B:
Page 29, line 29, leave out ("or a disposal authority")
The noble Baroness said: This is an Amendment which I beg to move. The reason for it is that we are not at all happy that, when dealing with poisonous, noxious or polluting matter, we should rely on a consent given by a disposal authority. So far as we can understand it, a disposal authority, which is dealt with in Part I of the Bill and not in Part II, licenses the disposal of waste on land. In our opinion it is not part of the function of a disposal authority to given consent under Part II of the Bill. The disposal authority would have no particular knowledge of the conditions which would be applicable to consent under Part IL which relates to the control of pollution of rivers and coastal waters. Therefore it would appear to us to be far from satisfactory to confine the consent under this clause either to the Secretary of State or to the water authority, which is the responsible body.
We do not believe that the disposal authorities, as defined in Part I of the Bill, would have the necessary expert advice at their disposal and therefore we cannot see why they should be included among those who are apparently to be given power to,
"permit the discharge of poisonous, noxious or polluting matter into streams, controlled waters or underground water".
I should be very glad to know from the Minister why it was thought necessary to include disposal authorities in this section. I beg to move.
LORD SANDFORD: I am glad to respond to the Amendment of the noble Baroness. I cannot see that there would be any difficulty or objection if I were to speak at the same time to the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom (though it has not been moved) without prejudice to his putting
1412
it down at a later stage if he so wishes. Therefore, with the agreement of the Committee, I should like to speak to both these Amendments together. They limit the defence provided in Clause 23 (2)(a) against prosecution for causing or knowingly permitting polluting matter to enter water.
As the Bill stands, if the person concerned has a consent from the Secretary of State or a water authority or a disposal authority and the entry is in accordance with the conditions, then he is not to be guilty of any offence. The Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, would leave no defence based on a consent by a water or disposal authority, and the Amendment of the noble Baroness would leave no defence based on the consent of the disposal authority. Consent will be given by the Secretary of State only in very exceptional circumstances, so the effect of the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, would be virtually to remove the defence altogether.
One of the points which may have prompted the noble Baroness to move her Amendment may perhaps be met when I say that disposal licences are to be issued by disposal authorities only after reference to the water authority. So there seems to be no justification for distinguishing, so far as the defence is concerned, between these two types of authority. In either case the person who may otherwise be prosecuted for the offence will have taken all the requisite steps to obtain authority to dispose of waste or to carry on a prescribed activity referred to in Clause 23(5); and I do not think that it would be acceptable if, having done all that and having observed all the conditions imposed, he still were to be subject to criminal prosecution for the consequences of his act. I would therefore suggest to the Committee that it is not equitable or fair to accept either Amendment. I do not think that the noble Baroness made this point, but she is quite right in taking exception to the word "consent" in this clause, because (as we have been hearing in Part I of the Bill) the authorities do not give consents but licences and certainly the Bill needs amendment in that respect. The Government will undertake to move such an Amendment at a later stage.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: I think that the removal, at this particular stage, of the water authority would go too far, because it would put in the hands of a Government Department the licensing arrangements; and that would be too centralised. However, I must say that I support the noble Baroness in thinking that it really should not rest with the disposal authority to give consent, using the terminology of the Bill, and I am strengthened in that belief by the speech which we have just heard from the Minister. I have not seen this point in the Bill, but if it be the case that the disposal authority cannot give consent without referring to the water authority, would it not be much better to let the water authority do the whole thing and grant all the licences? They would then have full knowledge of what licences are given. Is it not possible, without infringing the dignity of the disposal authority, to say: "You must apply. No doubt the water authority will pay a great deal of attention to your application. You pass the application for consent straight on to the water authority who will deal with it."? There would be a lot to be said for that. I should like to ask the noble Lord to consider that, at least.
LORD SANDFORD: That is certainly a point that can be looked into.
BARONESS WHITE: I hope it might be looked into because there might be real difficulties in this respect in administering this Bill when it becomes an Act if one brings in a disposal authority into Part II of the Bill. I made the point about the difference between consent and licence. It is true that in Clause 7(1)(a) it is incumbent upon a disposal authority to ensure that the activities to which the licence relates do not cause pollution of water, among other things; so the disposal authority has that obligation as well as an obligation to consult, which I have not yet bean able to "track" in Part I of the Bill. I do not propose to press the Amendment at this stage, but I hope very much that the Government will look at this carefully and possibly write to one or two of us who are specially interested in this, so that we know exactly what their reasons are and can decide whether it would be appropriate to put down this Amendment or another one at a later stage. There may be great difficulty in administration if this Part of the Bill
1414
remains unamended. I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.16 p.m.
BARONESS WHITE BARONESS WHITE moved Amendment No. 135A:
Page 29, line 33, after ("a") insert ("necessary").
The noble Baroness said: This Amendment is not so significant, but nevertheless it appears to us necessary to put it down as at least a probing Amendment. We are not happy about it. We feel that some such word as "necessary" should be inserted because various things might be a consequence of something which has been permitted but not a necessary or desirable consequence. It has been suggested to me that one might have a consent to certain work, say in a tidal estuary, which would lead to the excavation of waste in a building construction. It might be as a consequence of that excavation that the waste was then thrown in the tidal estuary. It might be very undesirable. It would not be a necessary consequence, but it would be a consequence, and it could be used as a defence.
The Government may or may not feel disposed to accept the Amendment, but I am asking that they should look carefully at this because we do not wish to offer free defences to persons who may be doing things which are damaging to water courses but who could then say, "You said that we could do so and so, and this is a result of our doing so and so ", whereas they might have done something quite different. It is not a necessary consequence of the original consent. It may appear slightly niggling, but I can foresee circumstances in which we would be offering a defence which ought not to be allowed to persons who might be carrying out some activity damaging to our water courses. I beg to move.
LORD SANDFORD: I do not think that this is a niggling point; it is well worth discussing. The dictionary defines a "consequence" as
"a thing or circumstance which follows as an effect of or result from something preceding".
Presumably the noble Baroness is seeking by the Amendment to underline that

1415
this relief is not to be enjoyed if, although a consequence, the entry was not an inevitable result of the authorised act but might, with some additional precautions, have been avoided, and was in that sense an "unnecessary" consequence. I am not unsympathetic to that intention; but I do not think that the additional word is needed to lead the courts to that conclusion. No doubt the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, could help us on that point.
I suggest that the word is not needed because if the polluting entry was the result of some negligent or malicious way of exercising a power given by Statute, then the courts could be relied upon to recognise that it was not a consequence of an act so authorised but of the way in which the person concerned had acted, In any event, the acts authorised by the Statutes and Instruments mentioned are either of a kind where there is little room for controlling what enters in consequence of the act (for example, if wow' is to be pumped away from an area on which some structure such as a dam is being erected, it has to be removed in the state in which it is found there); or, if there is scope for reducing the effects of the discharge, provision is likely to be made in the local Act or order, as is normally the case. This latter course is, I think, the proper procedure. If, however, acts are authorised by legislation, the person concerned ought not to be penalised because of their consequences. The legislation ought, where practical and desirable, to specify the precautions to be taken against undesirable consequences In brief, I do not think we need this word, and I think we can rely on the courts.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: The noble Lord suggested that I might express a view, and I will express an unconsidered view. I must say I am not very happy about his explanation. One particular act may have a whole series of consequences. I think everyone recognises that in the ordinary use of the English language. It is recognised in this provision because it is "a consequence"; it is not "in consequence". If it were "in consequence", I do not think the word "necessary" would be necessary. But it is recognising it as "a consequence" which in itself suggests that there may be
1416
more than one consequence. I think if the noble Lord inserted the word "in" there, it would be totally clear. I must say that I do not like it being said, when drafting is imprecise, Well, you can rely on the courts doing what we want them to do", when the courts only have the imprecise drafting to look at. It is not satisfactory. The drafting really ought to be improved above its present standards.
BARONESS WHITE: I am greatly obliged to the noble and learned Lord for that admirable suggestion. I give notice that I will put the Amendment down for Report stage, so I give the Government plenty of time to think about it. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the current Amendment, which should have added the word "necessary".
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.22 p.m.
BARONESS WHITE BARONESS WHITE moved Amendment No. 136B:
Page 29, line 41, leave out ("local Act or ").
The noble Baroness said: The purpose of this Amendment is to delete the reference to local Acts in Clause 23(2)(b)(ii). This is a matter which I think we shall have to revert when we come to a question of sewers in Clause 37. Meanwhile, I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to the problems which can be raised by these various local Acts. I understand that the words "local Act" comprises not only Acts promoted by local authorities, but also by, for example, railways, canal authorities, harbour Acts, and so on. It can sometimes be very difficult to discover and find out precisely what the provisions of these Acts are—sometimes with considerable labour. But a number of them, I am advised, do in fact provide for rights to discharge in certain circumstances. Simply to say that if an entry is authorised by
"any provision of a local Act … which expressly confers power to discharge effluent into water …",
and leave it at that, could surely leave us with a very unsatisfactory position in many places.
I should like to know what are the Government's intentions in this matter, because I think I am correct in saying that there is no other provision in the Bill—there may be, and if there is I would be happy to be told of it—whereby one can meet these local difficulties which, in a

1417
particular locality, might have quite serious detrimental consequences. After all, the condition of our water courses may be very different to-day from their condition when this local legislation was enacted, and what might have been of relative unimportance at that time may now become of considerable significance. In any case, we are far more conscious of the state of our water courses now than may have been the case quite a while ago when some of these Acts were passed. I should very much like to know the Government's attitude to this subject, and I beg to move.
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: I am puzzled by the noble Baroness's Amendment, though I have every sympathy with it. Simply striking out the words "local Act" will not do away with the local Act; it is necessary to repeal it. If there is provision for the local Act, I think one will have to go rather further than this Amendment.
BARONESS WHITE: I am sure the noble Viscount will appreciate that when one is dealing with a complex matter such as this the easiest way to have a discussion on it is to put down a general Amendment and leave it to the Government to work out how to carry it out effectively.
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: I entirely accept that.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: Before the noble Lord comes to reply, I should be grateful if, in the course of his reply, he could say how this problem, which must have existed in 1951, was dealt with under the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Act of that year. I cannot recollect any express provision in that Act dealing with discharges of polluting liquid under local Acts. It may be that it is something that has been left out from 1951 to 1974, and if it has been left out for all that time without any ill-effects, it might be left out now. I do not know. But I hope that the noble Lord, when suitably briefed, will be able to throw some light on this problem.
If I may take up time until he receives his instructions, I do not think we ought, by a side wind, to take away any vested rights under a local Act to make a particular discharge into a particular water course. I do not think that that would
1418
be the right way to do it. I must say that I think it necessary, in view of the way some provisions get through in local Acts, to provide that a local Act should not override Clause 23 in the future. Otherwise we may find that Clause 23 is getting watered down by a whole series of local Acts.
9.27 p.m.
LORD SANDFORD: I am grateful for this opportunity to explain the position. I will start off by explaining the way in which this particular Bill is related to local Acts, and then do my best to deal with the question of how it was dealt with under the 1951 Act. I think we have to start from the proposition made by my noble friend Lord Bledisloe; that is to say, if Parliament in its wisdom, even though some time ago, has acceded to the petition of a person promoting a local Bill, including provision authorising a discharge, it would be wrong, at least without a special inquiry in each case, to render that provision null and void, thereby penalising the petitioner if he acts under authority which Parliament has given him.
We do not have a complete list of all these local Acts, and, as the noble Baroness, Lady White, implied, it would be an enormous task to prepare one of all the the instances where such authority has been given. It would not however be unexpected in, for example, a local Act authorising the construction of a new reservoir for provision to be made authorising water that has been muddied in the course of construction to be pumped out into the water course below the dam. But just to take an example of the kind of safeguards which are included in local Acts, the Welland and Nene (Empingham Reservoir) Act 1969 is a fairly recent case. The Act concerned provides in Section 45(2) that as little damage as possible should be done and where any damage was done compensation should be paid.
Subsection (3) of Section 45 requires all necessary steps to be taken to secure that the water discharged shall be as free as may be reasonably practicable of mud, silt, and polluting matter. Subsection (4) requires that in all instances, except an emergency, the terms and conditions of the discharge should be agreed with the river authority before it is made, and so on. So my right honourable

1419
friend feels that after Parliament has authorised this or that to be done by local Act, it cannot be rendered null and void at a stroke without an inquiry into each particular case. But we feel that the general principle to which I have referred, in the absence of any evidence of any undesirable consequences as a result of these, is insufficient justification for the continuation of the protection afforded under the earlier Act.
That is not the end of the matter, however. The noble Baroness is perfectly right when she says that some of these Acts were introduced a long time ago. They permitted things about which we are now more sensitive—for example, the protection of the environment—and which we should not want to see continued to-day. Provision for the tightening up of loopholes (if that is the right word to use) in such cases is contained in Clause 96(3) which reads:
"The Secretary of State may by order repeal or amend any provision of any local Act passed before this Act (including an Act confirming a provisional order) or of any order or other instrument made under an Act so passed if it appears to him that the provision is inconsistent with, or has become unnecessary or requires alteration in consequence of, any provision of this Act or corresponds to any provision repealed by this Act."
I hope that that explanation is sufficient to satisfy the noble Baroness and the Committee, that the words "local act" ought to stay in, but that the defects in old local acts, which is what I think the noble Baroness was chiefly concerned about, can be made good by the exercise of the powers under Clause 96(3). I do not know whether the noble Baroness wishes to respond to that before I deal with the second point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Dilhorne.
BARONESS WHITE: I am indeed grateful to have my attention drawn to Clause 96(3) which I had not fully appreciated. That, so far as it goes, is a very useful provision. What worries me, however, is what possible guarantee have we that anybody will look at these Acts unless there is some scandalous situation somewhere which spurs the Secretary of State on to take advantage of Clause 96(3). I am thinking aloud here, but would it not be possible somewhere, later on in the Bill, to say that these
1420
people who make their discharges by virtue of private Acts passed a long time ago (the Empingham reservoir is a recent example, as the noble Lord himself freely admitted) should have to ask for consents like anybody else? I do not think that the long-stop provision in Clause 96(3) is likely to be activated sufficiently to take into account situations which may well be unsatisfactory. I am delighted to know that it is there, because it may deal, for example, with what I was going to raise under Clause 37, which is the local Act in Huddersfield. As a result of that local legislation, Huddersfield can discharge trade effluent of almost any description, so far as I can understand it, into sewers; and at the present time the local river authorities have no control whatsoever over what trade effluent emerges from the sewers of Huddersfield because they are covered by local legislation.
Although I am very grateful to the noble Lord for drawing our attention to Clause 96(3), and I shall not be pressing this particular Amendment, I think that we should exercise our minds to see if we cannot think of some method by which we can ensure that Clause 96(3) will be of real value.
LORD SANDFORD: The short answer to the noble Baroness is of course that the regional water authorities, where they find pollution going on through the exercise of some loophole in an old local Act, will be the people who in the first instance will ask for the Secretary of State to exercise his powers under that clause. If, on reflection, I can add any more detail to that by way of assurance to the noble Baroness I will certainly do so by correspondence before the next stage, and we can return to it if she is not satisfield. If I may take this opportunity to answer the question raised by the noble and learned Viscount about the 1951 Act, that dealt in Section 11(7) with local Acts in a similar way to the clause we have just been considering.
BARONESS WHITE: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.36 p.m.
THE EARL OF COURTOWN THE EARL OF COURTOWN moved Amendment No. 136C:
Page 30, line 4, at end insert ("or good quarrying practice.").
The noble Earl said: The object of this Amendment is to prevent a person from being guilty of an offence if—
"the entry in question is … in accordance with good agricultural practice or good quarrying practice."
It is suggested that the operation of running quarries is similar to that of agriculture. The exemption from licensing is designed to cater for the need for mineral operators to deal with water and the excavating of minerals. Water is either pumped out of a quarry and disposed of straight away, or it may be used for washing the mineral on the site. In either case, once it has been pumped out it is discharged to a stream, to another quarry, or in some cases on to land. Up till now there has been no need to obtain consent for the disposal of such water. Under the terms of the Water Resources Act 1963 mineral operators were not required to obtain a licence in order to abstract water which interfered with mining, quarrying or other operations. This exemption from licensing still applies notwithstanding that the water is used for quarry washing.
The terms of Clause 23 are so widely drawn, however, that it would be possible to complain that an offence under subsection (1) had been committed if there were any element of polluting matter, however small, in the water pumped out of the quarry. This can cause considerable problems for an operator, because he needs to get licences or consent for all his de-watering operations owing to the varying conditions and the irregularity of the programme for de-watering. It appears to be recognised by river authorities that de-watering of this type does not produce harmful effects. In view of the exemption given to acts in accordance with good agricultural practice it is strongly recommended that a similar exemption be conferred on good quarrying practice, where the situation is largely comparable. It will still be subject to Clause 43 if the water authority finds that any relevant waters are likely to be polluted. I beg to move.
BARONESS WHITE: I am worried about this because although the noble Earl, Lord Courtown, used the word "quarry" I took him to mean mining operations as well. Supposing, for example, Rio Tinto Zinc had decided to
1422
proceed with mining operations in Snowdonia National Park, one of the apprehensions we had about the possible course of action was the effect that those mining operations could have on the streams in the National Park and on the Mawddach estuary. If I understand the noble Lord aright, he is saying that other than for the safeguards given in Clause 43 such operations should be allowed to proceed without any consent. I find it difficult to go along with that. There are other rivers in Wales where we have considerable lead content. We used to have considerable lead mining in parts of North and mid-Wales, and in the state of the world at the moment and the scarcity of one material after another it is not inconceivable that even lead mining might be resumed at some point in time and we might have serious pollution.
Therefore, I find it difficult to be happy about this Amendment. Besides which the noble Earl did not indicate who was to decide what was good quarrying practice. Under the reference to good agricultural practice, which is also an extremely wide provision, there is at least an arrangement whereby this must be consonant with the code laid down by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and later in the Bill we are proposing to move an Amendment that it shall be in co-operation with the National Water Council. But I am not quite sure who is to determine what is "good quarrying practice". I should be happier if the noble Earl or his noble friend whose name also appears in connection with the Amendment could tell us about it.
LORD HENLEY: I am far from happy at this equation of good mining practice with good agricultural practice. I do not believe that in this context they are the same thing at all. In the old days very often a mining lease—
THE EARL OF COURTOWN: I said "good quarrying practice"; that is quite different from mining practice.
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: That raises a very difficult question: where does quarrying begin and end, and where does mining begin and end? I think that the noble Lord, Lord Henley, inadvertently put his linger on the spot when he spoke about "mining practice". Mining and quarrying are very much

1423
alike and it is difficult to say where one ends and the other begins. If we take the example mentioned by the noble Baroness—lead—or possibly copper in North Wales, and there is a lot of poison in copper; possibly tin in Cornwall and we speak about "mining tin"—or you may be quarrying it—I do not know. I think that this is a very big field. I am sorry to intervene like this.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: Surely the difference between quarrying and mining is that quarrying is opencast whereas mining is underground, unless it is called "opencast mining".
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: Yes, but we have opencast mining in the Forest of Dean and there it is called "mining".
BARONESS WHITE: You can also have underground quarrying.
LORD HENLEY: It depends very much on what is the difference between quarrying and mining. To put it in a different way, very often old mining leases used the expression that something should be done "in a good miner-like way". Similarly very often the soldier's instructions were that he should behave "in a soldier-like manner". The two expressions, "a soldier-like manner" and "a miner-like manner", both have meanings and of course they are meanings which must be followed closely if you are to be a good miner or a good soldier, but they have no relation whatever to good agricultural practice in the context of this Bill. I do not want in any way to be offensive to the noble Earl but I feel that there is an element of trying to get on to the agricultural bandwagon, which I think would be a mistake.
LORD ENERGLYN: I should like to enter thtis debate. I think that what the noble Earl, Lord Courtown, means when he speaks about "good quarrying practice" in relation to water is that a quarry is run so that the quarry floor does not get flooded. If you are quarrying you are bleeding an aquafer into producing water; if that water is draining away naturally it is likely to lead to an artificial spring and it is questionable whether that artificial spring would be polluting the rivers. I think that this is what the noble
1424
Earl means by "good quarrying practice".
9.45 p.m.
LORD SANDFORD: I am sure it is necessary to try to raise the general standard of quarrying, but however successfully that is done I would agree with the noble Lords who have said it is not possible to regard quarrying and farming as though they were two very similar activities, both more or less equivalently related to water pollution. The special provision in the Bill has been limited to farmers for three good reasons. First of all, modern farming involves applying extensively to the soil substances which, in sufficient concentrations, would pollute water unacceptably. Secondly, agriculture still uses so much of the surface of the land, even in industrialised countries like ours, that in the aggregate farming is far more at risk than any other industry of inadvertently polluting water. Thirdly, it is still an industry in which a large number of people work in small units, on their own account. So I should like to put it to the Committee, as in fact noble Lords have already done, that the quarrying industry is different and does not satisfy any of the tests we have applied, and which have led us to conclude that farming should be treated in the way it is in the Bill.
It may be that extracting stone or other material by excavation has its special dangers for water; impermeable beds may be removed or fractured so as to allow polluting matter access to underground water. But this is something which should be capable of investigation, which the industry ought to investigate before it starts work on a particular site. The precise movement of, say, nitrate fertiliser after application to the soil presents quite a different sort of problem. Again, quarrying is not primarily an industry of one man, or of one-family units, and the bigger units can be expected to have a better capability of determining what water might be put at risk, what the risks would be in developing a particular area, especially as, compared with agriculture, quarrying occupies relatively little land.
Finally, I think the effects of quarrying are more likely to be sudden and irreversible than the effects of pollution by agriculture which, although they may be serious, build up over a period. It

1425
would be wrong, I submit to the Committee, once a threat to water has been identified, to allow quarrying to go on under the protection of a defence of the kind available to farmers and subject to those procedures. So for those reasons, and those raised by other noble Lords, I would hope that the noble Earl would not press this Amendment. If he can see any other way of securing rights for the quarrying industry which are not adequately secured by this Bill, we will be only too happy to consider them.
THE EARL or COURTOWN: I am sorry to hear that the Government will not accept this Amendment. It certainly did not receive a very favourable reception in the Committee. I believe there is considerable anxiety in the quarrying industry, particularly from the aspect that when one starts, having planning permission, to take out gravel from a place, one never quite knows to what extent that place will fill with water and where that water is going, where it has to be pumped to. But it is clear that this particular Amendment would not be acceptable to the Committee, and I therefore beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.50 p.m.
LORD SANDFORD LORD SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 136A:
Page 30, line 6, after ("notice") insert ("which is in force when the entry occurs and which was").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 136A, and to speak at the same time to Amendment No. 171A. We now come to the topic of good agricultural practice, and I would suppose we shall have a wider debate when we get to Amendment No. 140 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord De Ramsey. But just to speak to this particular Amendment at this moment, the general effect of Clause 23(2)(c) is to provide a defence against prosecution for polluting water if the act leading to pollution is in accordance with good agricultural practice and no notice has been served on the farmer under Clause 43. However, there may be circumstances in which the notice under Clause 43 ought to be cancelled, and Amendment No. 171A to Clause 43 would make this possible.
The purpose of the present Amendment is to make it plain that the defence of
1426
good agricultural practice is only removed while a notice is in force; the defence becomes effective again once the notice is cancelled and remains so unless a fresh notice is served and becomes operative. I think that is all I need say at this stage in view of the fact that the noble Lord, Lord De Ramsey, has down Amendment No. 140, when it will be possible to enlarge on that point if necessary. I hope I have said enough to make this Amendment clear. I beg to move.
BARONESS WHITE: May I make a little plea that we might be given some notice if the Government spokesman is going to take a very distant Amendment with the one he is moving. I have not been given notice so far of any grouping in Part II and I was quite unaware that it was going to be done.
LORD SANDFORD: I will certainly undertake to do that, and I offer my apologies for not doing it on this occasion. I hope the noble Baroness will agree that, although the whole idea is one that we should debate, this particular provision is quite a simple one.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD SANDFORD: This is a drafting Amendment. To be consistent with the rest of the subsection the verb should be in the present tense. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 30, line 9, leave out ("occurred") and insert ("occurs")—(Lord Sandford.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
9.45 p.m.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE VISCOUNT DILHORNE moved Amendment No. 137A:
Page 30, line 14, leave out paragraph (d).
The noble and learned Viscount said: This, I fear, even at this late hour, I regard as an important Amendment. I will try to deal with it as shortly as I can, because I fear that at the next stage of this Committee I will not be able to be here owing to other duties, and I very much hope to finish the debate on this Amendment now. Paragraph (d) provides a defence to a person charged with the offence created by subsection (1) if the entry in question is attributable to events none of which that person could reasonably have been expected to prevent. The noble Lord will correct me if I am wrong, but I think I am right in

1427
saying that there is no similar provision in the 1951 Act. This is the kind of thing that makes me feel that the existing law is being watered down, and I wonder why.
In this connection, I feel I should draw attention to a decision of this House in another capacity, a case in which I had to sit, Alphacell Limited v. Woodward. The whole question was whether the company had caused or knowingly permitted a very serious pollution of what I thought was one of the most polluted rivers in this country, I think in Manchester. That was the question at issue; had they permitted that. It was held that they had. There was no question of having to prove that they had done it knowingly, intentionally, or that it had been negligently caused. The fact was that they had caused it. It was a curious case. They had installed a system under which a great deal of water re-circulated and was pumped round, and they had a spare pump in case of difficulties and settling tanks next door to the river. The day came when for some reason the roses which were supposed to stop debris getting into the pumps did not do so. Both pumps got blocked and out came this very highly polluted liquid straight into the river. As the law then stood, no defence like the one put forward by paragraph (d) would, I think, have sufficed. It was not there under the 1951 Act.
It is regrettable, in the light of the decision of this House, that an attempt is now made to water down the law as then declared. I think it regrettable for more than one reason. I can see the defence, "We could not reasonably have been expected to prevent that," being put forward in almost every case. It would be a very useful defence. Failure to anticipate the possible breakdown of a pump, leaves getting in when no one knew where the leaves came from, is the sort of defence that people could put forward. This is quite new and wrong. I hope that in the short time available the noble Lord will say that he will think it over again, and not be put off by the unkind treatment that the noble Baroness, Lady Young, received from doing that so courteously and so frequently.
LORD STOW HILL: May I add one word to what the noble and learned Viscount has said. I cordially support
1428
him, not only for the general reason that he gave that this was an undesirable watering down of what should be a strict prohibition, but also because this paragraph involves what is almost a contradiction in terms. No offence can possibly be committed unless the person charged can be said either to have caused, or knowingly to have permitted, the entry in question. One does not get anywhere near establishing that an offence has been committed unless the prosecution can affirmatively show either that the individual in question caused, or knowingly permitted, the entry. Both those are conscious acts of omission. You do not cause something just because you turn the other way and it happens behind your back without your knowing it. To cause something your will and mind must go with it. Equally, you do not knowingly permit something to happen unless your mind knows what is going on and you consciously permit it.
It seems to me—and I say this with great respect to the expert gentleman responsible for this language—rather sloppy drafting to say that it should be a defence if the entry in question is attributable to something which you could not have been expected to prevent. If it is attributable to something which you could not have been expected to prevent, how in the world can you have caused or knowingly permitted it? That language comes very near to being a complete contradiction. That is the second ground on which I hope the Government will agree that this paragraph should be omitted. It really is balderdash. It ought not to be in the clause at all. It reeks of loose thinking, and I ask the Government to say, not simply that they are going to think about it, but to say they are satisfied with the noble and learned Viscount's arguments, and that they will just put a pen through it and strike it out.
May I say one word on the succeeding Amendment in relation to this particular Amendment, because they go together. This seeks to introduce the words "without having taken all due care". There is a slight misprint in the Marshalled List; "the" should be "due". At least that seeks to import some reference to the conduct and conscious behaviour of the individual who is charged. You have at least to show that

1429
he did not take all due care. That would be a little more reasonable. This is a quite unjustifiable paragraph, and I very much hope that the Government will accede to the Amendment which has been moved.
LORD ENERGLYN: I too should like to support the two noble and learned Lords on this Amendment. In addition to the Alphacell case, I could recount a number of other similar instances which never reached the courts but which could easily have done so.
THE EARL OF COURTOWN: If my memory serves me aright, paragraph (c) in subsection (3) of Clause 3 is similar, and the Committee accepted it. I should have thought that this paragraph was essential. If someone has done all in his power to avoid pollution, he ought not to be made a criminal because of an accident or some other cause which he could not have avoided. If there is an accidental discharge from a works operated by a responsible company, it is the general practice for the firm concerned to inform the controlling authority as soon as possible. If such disclosure will lead automatically to prosecution for a criminal offence, is there not a danger that such discharges will be concealed and we shall be worse off?
LORD HENLEY: Am I right in thinking that there is a slight danger of creating an absolute offence if this paragraph is deleted, thereby weakening the whole of Clause 23?
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: If I may add a further word, I do not think the noble Lord is right. This matter of whether it is a criminal offence was discussed and considered in the Alphacell case, and it was there said that it is criminal only in one sense. It is like a public nuisance, as indeed it is if you put filthy water into a river. It will be a retrograde step if this provision is included, because I do not think that the 1951 Act had in it anything comparable. Under the 1951 Act, there were very few prosecutions indeed for many years, and it is only in the last year or so that the number has reached anything lke three figures. I do not want to see the door opened wider than it now is for the defence. The existing statutory provision is working
1430
very well and I should like to see it kept like that.
It is not an absolute offence, in the sense that you do not have to do anything. As my noble friend has said, you have to cause it or knowingly permit it, and in the Alphacell case it was caused by installing a system whereby the overflow was bound to take place unless it was successfully prevented. There has to be a causation under one head before there can be a conviction, and there has to be knowing permission under the other limb of the offence. That is all that is required, and once the issue is complicated by this new kind of defence it is making a tremendous relaxation.
LORD SANDFORD: I confess, as a layman, that on these legal matters I am in the rather uncomfortable position of being advised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stow Hill, to do one thing, and by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, to do another.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: No. I shall be very content if the Amendment is carried.
LORD STOW HILL: I should like to point out, in view of the obscurity of my Amendment, that I am trying to support the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne.
10.5 p.m.
LORD SANDFORD: I will take the advice of the noble and learned Viscount and will certainly agree to consider the Amendment, though I shall avoid the temptation offered me by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stow Hill, to accept it here and now. I should like to add only two points to the discussion which we have had. I find myself torn between the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, on the one hand, who advised us one way, and the Law Commission—another august legal body—which advised us another way. It is primarily on the advice of the Law Commission, who were consulted about this Bill (because in so many respects it is a consolidating measure) that paragraph (d) has been included, not to narrow the scope of the offence provisions as they have so far been interpreted by the courts, but because the potential scope of the offence is so wide that the saving in paragraph (d) was thought to be

1431
necessary. I must say that our advice so far is that paragraph (d), if it had applied in the Alphacell case, would not have provided them with a defence. All I should like to say in conclusion is that this is recognised to be a difficult and evenly balanced point. I shall certainly take away with me all the points which have been made, and I readily agree to consider the point which the noble and learned Viscount made.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: I certainly could not agree with the advice which the noble Lord has received as to the effect on the Alphacell case, on which I sat, it this defence had been available. So far as the Law Commission are concerned, I would suggest to the noble Lord that he ought to ask the Law Commission to reconsider their view in the light of what was said in the Alphacell case, if they have not already done so. It may well be that the Law Commission have been very busy; and the judgments in that case came out later. I am content for the time being with the noble Lord's assurance. If we get no satisfaction at a later stage, I shall follow my noble and learned friend (if I may call him that) into the Division Lobby to try to get his point of view acceded to; but I hope that we may get that without any dis-
1432
agreement. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD SANDFORD: It is now five minutes past ten o'clock. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved, That the House do now resume.—(Lord Sandford.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and House resumed accordingly.