PROTECTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT BILL [H.L.]

HL Deb 22 January 1974 vol 348 cc1318-73

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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 ROYAL

I 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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—

1. (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
2. (b) to take such steps as in its opinion will give adequate publicity in its area to the statement; and
3. (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. 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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—

1. (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
2. (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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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.

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 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 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.

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. 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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, 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 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 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.

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 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 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. 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 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 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.