CONTROL OF POLLUTION BILL [H.L.]

HL Deb 14 May 1974 vol 351 cc890-1006

Committee stage resumed.

4.2 p.m.

Clause 3 [Prohibition of unlicensed disposal of waste]:

LORD MOLSON moved Amendment No. 4: Page 5, line 9, at end insert— (1A) For the purposes of this Act, a person is to be treated as depositing waste if he deposits any thing or substance (whether solid, semi-solid or liquid) in such circumstances, or for such period, that he may reasonably be assumed to have abandoned it where it is deposited or to have brought it to the place where it is deposited for the purpose of its being disposed of (whether by him or others) as waste.

The noble Lord said: Let me begin by saying that I intend to respond to the appeal of the noble Lord the Leader of the House. I hope and believe that all the Amendments to which I have put my name can be dealt with reasonably quickly. Perhaps I might add that if the Government were able to see their way to accepting them, that would greatly speed up the proceedings! I beg to move Amendment No. 4, and there follow logically upon it Amendments Nos. 5, 6, 7, 9 and 10.

LORD GARNSWORTHY

Would the noble Lord also include Amendment No. 83 in that list?

LORD MOLSON

Yes, indeed; and naturally it would not be our intention to speak to any of the others. My noble friend Lord Amory and I have put down these Amendments to raise again the question of bringing about a little modest consolidation in this Bill. We are confining ourselves to-day to repealing in toto the Deposit of Poisonous Waste Act 1972 and incorporating all its relevant parts into this Bill. It will be within the memory of your Lordships that my noble friend Lord Sandford, when he introduced the last Bill, indicated that it was an emergency measure intended to deal with a special problem—I believe it was the dumping of cyanide of potassium—and he then undertook that there would be a comprehensive measure later on. This Bill, of course, is that comprehensive measure. The practical purpose of these Amendments is to simplify the task of all concerned with this matter, many of whom are not lawyers, so that they do not have to look at two Statutes and fit them in, but can find the whole of the law in this Bill.

In the course of our debate on January 15, 1974, every speaker (including the present Leader of the House and my noble friend Lady Young) agreed that these Amendments were desirable in principle. We elicited in that debate that the Explanatory Memorandum of the Protection of the Environment Bill was not accurate. It claimed in effect that that Bill was replacing the provisions of the Public Health Act 1936. As a result of our having demonstrated that this new Bill did not replace the provisions of that Act, the only alteration that has been made has been to delete the article "the" in the Explanatory Memorandum. The noble Baroness, Lady White, in the course of that debate, referred to "mental sloth". Certainly, if it is not mental sloth it is taking the line of least resistance not to give effect in this new Bill to what was said in the Explanatory Memorandum to the earlier Bill, but merely to delete the word "the" in order to say that this Bill replaces "provisions" of that Bill and not that it replaces "the provisions" of that Bill.

We are confining ourselves to-day to moving Amendments to consolidate only the provisions of the Deposit of Poisonous Waste Act. I shall indicate to the Government later that that is not the only consolidation which is desirable, but that we had already intended to respond to what the noble Lord the Leader of the House has asked, that is, to confine our debates as much as possible in order to get through the business as quickly as we can.

In the Second Reading debate on May 7, 1974, the noble Lord the Leader of the House referred to this matter and sought to explain why nothing more had been done to give effect to the modest measure of consolidation which every speaker on that occasion, including himself, had said was desirable. The noble Lord said that as soon as he took over responsibility for this Bill he had asked that this question should be looked at immediately and had encountered what Ministers have frequently encountered before—difficulty in securing Amendments that are desirable on drafting grounds to Bills for which they are responsible. He went on to say that this bit of Amendment was only the tip of a large iceberg of public health legislation stretching back over the years, and that the Law Commission were now engaged in preparing a scheme which divides the public health enactments into groups which could each form the subject of a Bill for the purpose of consolidation. We have no knowledge at all of what priority the Law Commission are giving to the consolidation of public health legislation.

Consolidation is an extremely slow process, mainly because of the great shortage of draftsmen who are capable of dealing with this extremely complicated subject. I believe that the Law Commission have only three of the members of the Parliamentary Counsel staff seconded to help them, but that they have recruited some other draftsmen to help. The whole process of consolidation of legislation has been extremely slow, as everyone with long experience knows. It is inevitable that the process will continue to be slow. It is not, in my submission, satisfactory that we should refuse to do something brief and useful at the present time because it is in the programme of the Law Commission at some time in the future—I imagine that it is much more likely to be years hence rather than months hence—to consolidate the whole of public health legislation, a good deal of which dates back to Victorian times.

The noble Lord, the Leader of the House, in his Second Reading speech, referred to litter. Because there is a prospect that a great deal of litter will be cleaned up as a major public enterprise at some time in the next few years, there is no reason why, in passing this legislation, we should not make certain that there is no unnecessary litter dropped at the present time. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, when she was responsible for the previous edition of this Bill, and the noble Lord the Leader of the House, mentioned the fact that we do not have unlimited Parliamentary time. That is true. Consolidation of this kind could be perfectly easily introduced in the Committee stage in another place, and if the Minister in charge says that a series of Amendments are merely consolidating Amendments and drafting improvements to the Bill, it will certainly be passed without lengthy debate.

My noble friend and I have confined ourselves to a smaller number of Amendments on this occasion than he put forward on the last occasion, and we have done so in order to raise this general matter of principle in the strongest case, that is why the Deposit of Poisonous Waste Act was passed two years ago as an interim measure pending the introduction of the Bill. I ask the Government, who have undertaken to be sympathetic to reasoned Amendments put forward, to agree to consolidate in all suitable cases in order that those responsible for the administration of the Bill will be able to look at one Statute to see what their powers and responsibilities are, and not be required to turn to a number of other Statutes.

If I may refer to the kind of case that ought to be dealt with, and on which I am not moving an Amendment to-day (because my noble friend Lord Amory and I are anxious to expedite matters), I would ask your Lordships, and members of the Government, in particular, to turn to Schedule 4 of the Bill, which is on page 117, to see what is preserved on the Statute Book of the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Act 1951. This Schedule deals with the extent of repeals, and it states that the extent of the repeal is the whole Act except Sections 4, 11(6) and Sections 12(1) and (3) and the definition of "stream" in section 11(1). I hope that the Government will respond to my appeal, and that when your Lordships' House sends the Bill to another place untidy provisions of this kind, which will impose a great deal of unnecessary work upon all administrators until some time in the future all public health legislation is consolidated, will be dealt with in the Bill. I appeal to the Government to accept the Amendment. I beg to move.

4.15 p.m.

VISCOUNT AMORY

I should like to respond to the appeal made to us by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, that this afternoon, and during the rest of our debate on this Bill, we should adopt a technique of what I might call, "instant Amendment". It is extremely easy for me to do that because my noble friend has explained the objects of this series of Amendments with the greatest lucidity and thoroughness. Every piece of legislation we pass nowadays is immensely complicated and it is very difficult for the citizen, and even the citizens' advisers, to master all the details on each Bill. Nothing is more infuriating and frustrating for somebody who is trying to do that than to come upon frequent cases where there has to be reference back to other legislation which is perhaps almost as complicated. Whenever we pass a new Bill our general aim ought to be to try to repeal one already on the Statute Book. Whenever that is not possible we ought to try to make the Bill as clear as possible by eliminating references back.

I found what the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, said on Second Reading a little disappointing in this respect. He said it was complicated and difficult. That is always true. I hope that when the noble Lord replies he will accept the aim of this series of Amendments in principle. If there is anything wrong with the drafting, he will tell us so; but, having accepted the principle, I hope that he will bring about this modest instance of consolidation which these Amendments propose before the Bill becomes an Act. From my place the tie that the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, is wearing looks immensely attractive. Looked at from here it appears to be about one-third red and two-thirds blue, which seems a good augury for a sympathetic reply to the Amendments which are now being proposed.

BARONESS WHITE

I will not comment on my noble friend's tie beyond saying that it is pleasing in my eyes even in those proportions of colour. I propose at a later stage to move Amendments Nos. 31, 32, 33 and 81 together, and Nos. 33A and 80A together, which deal with the other two Bills to which reference was made in the Explanatory Memorandum of the previous Bill, and to which reference is also made in this Bill, in precisely the same terms as the Bill to which the noble Lord, Lord Molson, referred. In others words, where before we were told that we were to have the provisions replaced in entirety, now it is only certain provisions that are to be replaced in the Bill. It seems very unsatisfactory, and I have therefore put down Amendments to draw the attention of the Government to the desirability of subsuming the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Acts 1951 and 1961 in this legislation. I have not attempted to deal with Scotland; I will explain briefly when we come to the Amendments what I endeavoured to do in them. I support the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, and the noble Lord, Lord Molson, in their endeavour to prevail upon the Government, despite the difficulty with the Parliamentary draftsmen—which is always with us—in putting into this Bill the relevant provisions of only three Acts, and no more, which are so closely related to the matters before us, and in which the merest vestiges will otherwise be left on the Statute Book.

LORD GARNSWORTHY

I think I ought to get it on the Record that only one-third of the tie is blue. If the noble Lord cares to see me later, I will tell him what the other third is.

VISCOUNT AMORY

It is not a bad start, anyhow.

LORD GARNSWORTHY

I hope the red will spread. Speaking with the great interest and long experience which the noble Lord, Lord Molson, enjoys, or has enjoyed, with his usual skill he has advanced a very strong argument indeed. He has made it clear that the purpose of this group of Amendments is to incorporate Sections 1 and 2 of the Deposit of Poisonous Waste Act 1972 into this Bill with limited changes to fit them into the new framework of control created by Part I of the Bill, the objective being to consolidate the whole of the Deposit of Poisonous Waste Act into this Bill so that that Act can be entirely repealed. The Amendments are identical to those raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, to the Protection of the Environment Bill to achieve the same effect.

As stated on Second Reading, the Government would much prefer to leave this whole matter to be dealt with as part of the process of consolidation of the whole corpus of public health legislation. However, the House has made its views known; and in view of the strength of feelings expressed on Second Reading and reinforced here this afternoon, the Government are prepared to review the position. Unfortunately, they find it impossible to accept the Amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Molson, and the noble Viscount. Lord Amory, as they stand. To take what is perhaps the main point, the 1972 Act prohibited the deposit of any poisonous waste so as to create an environmental hazard, whereas the Bill as proposed to be amended would relate only to the deposit of controlled waste. So thinks like, for example, farm pesticides would escape control.

I think the case has been made and conceded. The Government propose to bring forward their own Amendments, and it is hoped that they can be provided for Report stage, or, at any rate, in time to be taken in another place. I trust that with this undertaking the noble Lord and the Committee will feel that the matter will be dealt with adequately. I much appreciate the response that has already been made to the appeal for brevity by my noble friend the Leader of the House. Clearly, we can look forward with interest to hearing more from my noble friend Lady White.

LORD MOLSON

I should like to express my sincere gratitude, and that of my noble friend, for the spirit in which the Government have responded to this matter. Without wasting any more time, I beg leave to withdraw this Amendment; and of course I shall not move any of the others.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD CRAIGTON moved Amendment No. 8: Page 5, line 39, after ("public") insert ("or serious damage to property").

The noble Lord said: Clause 3, very shortly, says that a person shall not deposit controlled waste on any land unless the land on which the waste is deposited is occupied by the holder of a licence which authorises the deposit. It goes on to say that it shall be an offence for a person charged with an offence under this clause to prove that the acts specified in the charge were done in an emergency in order to avoid danger to the public. I presume that a lorry carrying dangerous waste has broken down in the main road. It seems to me that serious damage to property would also be a good reason for depositing this waste in a hurry in other than a licensed place—perhaps not just as good a reason as danger to the public, but one which I hope the Minister will consider. I shall be glad to hear what the Minister has to say in reply. I beg to move.

LORD GARNSWORTHY

This Amendment would have the effect of extending the definition of "emergency" in Clause 3(3)(d) to provide a further defence for a person charged with an offence under Clause 3(1); that is, that he acted in an emergency to avoid damage to property. Clause 3(3)(d) already provides a defence for action in an emergency to avoid danger to the public. Our objective here is to have a reasonably broad definition of "emergency". But it is clear that if the definition is loosened too much, it is likely to be thrown open to abuse by the person who has committed the offence. This is particularly relevant for those cases where defence on the grounds of likely damage to property is pleaded.

It is accepted that there could conceivably be cases of emergency, involving no risk to any person, in which it would be sensible to deposit waste on an unlicensed site to avoid damage to property. But there could equally well be cases in which someone might seek to use the possible threat of damage to property as a pretext to justify unlicensed dumping when he could, in fact, quite well have deposited the waste at a proper place. Moreover, the term "property" includes any property, real or personal. So protection of virtually anything—for example, a copy of the morning paper—could on the face of this Amendment found a defence. It is not therefore considered appropriate to provide damage to property as an absolute defence to the Clause 3 offence.

As a matter of day-to-day practice, it seems unlikely that any prosecution would be brought in a case where the threat of genuine damage has really compelled someone to deposit waste on an unlicensed site; and if a case were brought in such circumstances the defendant could justifiably make a strong plea in mitigation because of the threat of damage. Moreover, there is no reason why industrialists, for example, who have complex processes which might be seriously disrupted or ruined if waste were not cleared quickly from them, should not enter into early discussions with the waste disposal authority and reach agreement on preventive measures to be taken in the event of an emergency. Of course we shall consider what the noble Lord has had to say. But I trust that, with the explanation I have given, he will appreciate that his Amendment is one which the Government hope he will not press.

LORD CRAIGTON

The noble Lord has made a better case than my argument and my drafting, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 3 agreed to.

Clause 4 [Licences to dispose of waste]:

4.29 p.m.

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL moved Amendment No. 10A: Page 6, line 41, after ("in force") insert ("or unless such use is one in respect of which an enforcement notice under either of those Acts could not validly be served").

The noble Duke said: I put down this Amendment to elicit one simple point. Under subsection (2) of Clause 4, it is provided that a disposal licence shall not be issued in any case where planning permission is required unless such permission is in force. I am slightly worried about existing tips which are quite legally operated but where planning permission is not in force. I very much hope that in these cases the grant of a disposal licence shall not be refused simply because they do not enjoy planning permission. I beg to move.

LORD GARNSWORTHY

The effect of this Amendment would be to give the applicant of a disposal licence in Scotland a right of appeal to the Secretary of State at the site licence application stage—

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL

I think that concerns my next Amendment.

LORD GARNSWORTHY

I do beg the noble Duke's pardon. Clause 4 sets up the procedure for the licensing of disposal sites by disposal authorities. Subsection (2) makes clear that licences shall only be issued for sites which already have planning permission for such operations or which do not require planning permission. Licensing is thus intended to act as a supplementary control to planning control. The planning permission will approve the basic proposal to use a site for disposal purposes. The licence will then regulate in more detail the operation of the site so as to ensure that it is at all times run to the proper standard, without causing nuisance, pollution or danger to the public.

The effect of the Amendment tabled by the noble Duke, the Duke of Atholl, would appear to be to supplant the new licensing system in favour of planning control in most cases. It would only permit disposal operations to be licensed in cases where enforcement notices under the Planning Acts could not validly be served. The Amendment as it stands is not acceptable to the Government. As I have indicated, planning control certainly has a part to play in the proper regulation of disposal sites, but it is generally agreed that it needs to be supplemented by the more detailed and flexible control which the licensing system will provide. The essential point is that a planning permission basically has to settle all the conditions of operation of a site right at the outset and cannot easily be varied to take account of changed circumstances or new problems. A disposal licence will be able to be varied and adjusted as necessary to avoid pollution or danger to public health, or serious detriment to the amenities. It will therefore provide a more effective form of control for disposal operations whose character may change substantially over time. I trust that with that explanation the noble Duke, the Duke of Atholl, will be content to withdraw his Amendment.

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL

I do not think the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, has entirely answered my point, but I suspect that that is because my drafting is defective and also because I put these Amendments down only yesterday. Unfortunately, I was not here at the end of last week. As I said earlier, what worries me is the case of the existing tips that have not been the subject of plan- ning permission and which might be closed. To put it no higher, in certain places this could create a major inconvenience. I should be very grateful if the noble Lord would look at this point before the next stage of the Bill. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw this Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL moved Amendment No. 10B: Page 8, line 14, leave out ("either of them") and insert (", or the applicant for such licence is aggrieved by any proposal to specify such conditions, either of such authorities or the applicant, as the case may be,").

The noble Duke said: This Amendment is on a slightly different subject. Again my drafting may be defective, but it has as its object that if an applicant for a disposal licence is aggrieved by any of the conditions proposed he should have the right of appeal to the Secretary of State. The right of appeal already exists where there is a difference of opinion between the disposal authority and the river purification authority about the conditions which may be specified in a disposal licence, and I should have thought it only fair that the applicant for the disposal licence should also have this right of appeal. I beg to move.

LORD GARNSWORTHY

As the noble Duke has indicated his Amendments were tabled rather late. Indeed, I saw them only just before the House met this afternoon. The effect of this Amendment would be to give the applicant for a disposal licence in Scotland a right of appeal to the Secretary of State at the site licence application stage if he does not agree with the conditions which the disposal authority propose to include in his licence. Although the applicant will no doubt have the opportunity of informal discussions with the disposal authority on possible conditions at this stage, there is no obligation upon the disposal authority to refer specific proposals to the applicant in advance of a decision, but it would be inappropriate for the applicant to have the right of appeal to the Secretary of State at this stage. Such a provision does not, in any case, seem necessary since the applicant, either in Scotland or the rest of the country, already has the right of appeal under Clause 9(1)(b) against the issue of a disposal licence which specifies conditions. He will, therefore, have full opportunity to appeal, and there is no question of squeezing him out of the negotiations between the local authority and the water authority. I hope that with this assurance the noble Lord will be content to withdraw his Amendment.

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL

I should like to thank the noble Lord very much for that reply, and once again apologise for putting down these Amendments so late. I think that he has entirely covered the point I wished to raise. It is already covered in Clause 9. With that assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 4 agreed to.

Clause 5 agreed to.

Clause 6 [Variation of conditions and revocation of licences]:

4.37 p.m.

LORD MERRIVALE moved Amendment No. 11: Page 10, line 5, at beginning insert ("if it appears to the authority that continuation of the activities to which the licence relates would cause pollution or danger to public health or affect amenities as described in subsection (4) of this section or, in any other circumstances, if the licence has been in existence for more than two years").

The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 11, and I shall also be speaking to Amendment No. 12. As the clause stands, for a disposal licence holder there is no certainty of any undisturbed period before conditions are modified. In his reply the Minister may say that the first part of my Amendment is unnecessary, in view of the provisions of paragraph (b) which lays an absolute duty upon disposal authorities to vary conditions if there is danger of pollution and so on. On the other hand, in every other circumstance outside pollution or danger to public health a degree of certainty that licences would not be varied within two years of their issue would seem to me to be reasonable and fair. The Minister may, of course, again say that the provisions of paragraph (a)(i), namely, that a modification could be demanded only if it is unlikely to require unreasonable expenditure by the licence holder, should meet my point regarding certainty of an undisturbed period.

For my part, I think that there is a grave lack of precision when one considers in the Bill the terms "unlikely" and "unreasonable". The latter word particularly could lead to much argument, and hardship could certainly he caused to mineral operators, for example, as licence holders. More often than not, under planning consents, they are subject to restoration conditions which require infilling with available wastes. As an alternative, they may have a separate consent for tipping if the mineral working consent is not specific on this point. I am advised that mineral working and restoration is very often progressively linked, so that modification of a licence to tip could cause failure to conform with conditions and thus give rise to enforcement action. In other words, variation of a waste disposal licence could thus, in effect, nullify planning consent without the planning authority becoming liable for compensation.

There would also appear to be a considerable safeguard provided by subsection (4), which adds to my conviction that a two-year period without modification of conditions would seem reasonable. For even the appeal procedure to the Secretary of State under the provisions of Clause 9 does not, as I see it, give the required degree of certainty of operation. In conclusion, I should like to refer again to mineral undertakers. I think they have a valid point: with their obligation to fill holes before continuing working they would surely feel uneasy, for instance, at the prospect of suddenly being told that they could not use a particular type of fill. I beg to move.

LORD GARNSWORTHY

I hope the Committee will appreciate that the Government have tried to meet at least some of the points sought by the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale. Clause 6 defines the circumstances in which a disposal authority may or must vary the conditions of a disposal licence. They must vary the conditions, first, where this is necessary to avoid water pollution or danger to public health or serious detriment to the amenities. That is provided for in Clause 6(1)(b)(i). Secondly, they must vary the conditions where national regulations prescribe mandatory conditions to be applied to all sites—Clause 6(1)(b)(ii). In addition they have discretion to vary the conditions, first, where variation of conditions is desirable for any reason and can be required without unreasonable expenditure by the licence holder—Clause 6(1)(a)(i)—or secondly, where the licence holder requests such variation—Clause 6(1)(a)(ii).

The effect of this Amendment would be to restrict the authority's freedom to vary conditions in the first of the discretionary cases to circumstances in which it appears that there would be danger to public health or pollution to water, or, otherwise where the licence has been in existence for two years already. The first arm of this Amendment is unnecessary since as I have indicated Clause 6(1)(b)(i) already makes it the duty of the disposal authority to vary the licence conditions to such extent as is necessary to avoid water pollution or danger to public health or serious detriment to the amenities; so a discretionary power to do the same provided that no unreasonable expenditure is caused would overlap in a confusing manner.

In our view it clearly must be the duty of the authority to vary conditions in these circumstances, or even to revoke the licence if necessary, as subsection (4) already provides. There can certainly be no question of inhibiting the authority from tightening up the conditions as may be necessary simply on the grounds that it would cause the licence holder some expense. It is an essential feature of the licensing system that conditions should be able to be tightened up in just this way in order to maintain standards. Otherwise we should be back relying on planning controls and planning conditions which have proved an ineffective means for dealing with waste disposal operations precisely because it is impossible to vary planning conditions on a site in order to improve standards without paying compensation.

The second arm of the Amendment is perhaps more debatable. The C.B.I. and waste disposal interests have pressed throughout this Bill that once they have a licence they should be free from arbitrary or unreasonable variation of conditions or revocation of the licence by the disposal authority. Clearly there is a point here. Waste disposal operators have to put a good deal of effort and capital into the establishment of a disposal site, particularly where modern treatment plant, incinerators and so on are involved. They should therefore have reasonable security of operation once they have a licence.

The noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, in fact moved several Amendments to achieve this effect when the Bill was last in Committee. The two main ideas then were that the disposal operator should have two years' security in his licence before there could be any variation; or that the licence holder should be compensated for any variation. The then Government resisted both these Amendments on the same lines as I have mentioned. If steps need to be taken to prevent pollution or danger to public health for a disposal site, it would be quite wrong for the authority to have to wait for up to two years to get the necessary action taken, or to have to pay compensation to remedy the situation. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, on the occasion to which I have referred, when we were dealing with the previous Bill, undertook to consider whether there was any other way of giving the licence holder reasonable security, and ensuring that a licence once granted should not be unreasonably varied or revoked.

Clause 6(1) as now drafted—and I am pleased to think that we are undertaking to do what the noble Baroness, Lady Young, indicated would be considered—has, in fact, been modified to achieve precisely this objective. Paragraph (b) makes it clear that the authority must vary the conditions where this is necessary to avoid pollution or danger to public health or serious detriment to the amenities; this is their basic public health and environmental duty. Beyond this however Clause 6(1)(a)(i) now only allows them to vary conditions on their own initiative where this is unlikely to require unreasonable expenditure by the licence holder. The kind of variation we have in mind here is where the authority wishes to require a new method of keeping site records, or a different method of storing the waste pending treatment which would improve the operation, and would be easily carried out without significant inconvenience or expense to the operator.

In our view the authority ought to be allowed to make such variations at any time when this seems desirable, and should not have to wait two years as the Amendment would require. They will be sufficiently restrained from unreasonable variation by the requirement that such variations should not cause unreasonable expenditure by the licence holder. I have endeavoured to explain the position at length and I trust the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, if not wholly satisfied, will appreciate that the Government have endeavoured, in keeping faith with the undertaking given by the noble Baroness, at least to meet him in part.

LORD MERRIVALE

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, for all the trouble he has taken and for the detailed information he has given the Committee in replying to this Amendment. Also I am grateful to the present Administration for having acted on some of the points accepted by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, when we were in Government. I was aware that, in effect, the Department for which the noble Lord is responsible had been in touch with the C.B.I., and that is why I made some of the provisos. I was forewarned rather to the effect that Her Majesty's Government would not give in on this question of two years. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, that the Government have gone as far as they can at this moment to meet the view point of industry. The only point I would make at the moment is that I think this matter needs studying, and perhaps at a later date we can come back to it. But at this stage, I withdraw my Amendment, and thank the noble Lord for the trouble he has taken in replying to it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 6 agreed to.

Clause 7 [Transfer and relinquishment of licences]:

4.52 p.m.

LORD GARNSWORTHY moved Amendment No. 12A: Page 11, line 14, leave out ("two months") and insert ("ten weeks")

The noble Lord said: In moving this Amendment, I should like at the same time to speak to Amendments Nos. 13 and 13A. The purpose of this group of Amendments is to facilitate the transfer of a licence by the interested licence holder to a new holder by expanding the period of time during which the authority may object to the proposed transfer and by extending the period for which the existing licence will run before automatically lapsing.

At present, Clause 7(1) provides that a licence may be transferred by the licence holder to a new occupier of the site after giving notice to the disposal authority, but if within six weeks the authority give notice to the transferee that it is not prepared to accept him as the new holder of the licence, then the licence lapses two months after the first notification to the authority. The Amendment as tabled by the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, proposes that the six-week period should be extended to eight weeks in order to give the disposal authority a slightly longer period to make up its mind about the acceptability of the new licence holder. We feel that this is a reasonable point which the Government are happy to accept. However, there is a need to make consequential Amendments slightly to extend the two-month period, so that if the transferee is refused a continuation of a licence, he has slightly more than three days, the difference between eight weeks and two months, to wind up his operations. Amendments Nos. 12A and 13A, standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, therefore extend the two-month period in Clause 7(1) and in Clause 7(2) to ten weeks. I beg to move.

VISCOUNT AMORY

If I may speak on Amendment No. 13, which the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, has introduced, I am grateful to him for what he said. I think he suggested eight weeks was the period originally in the Bill. I was a little perplexed as to why that period had been reduced to six weeks. I am grateful to the noble Lord for having agreed that a period of eight weeks would, in all the circumstances, be the most reasonable period.

BARONESS YOUNG

I am glad to have heard the explanation of the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, because together with my noble friend Lord Amory I wondered why the Bill had been altered in this way, particularly in view of the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, that we wish to get through our business as quickly as possible. I am glad that this matter has been put right.

May I clarify one point on the other Amendment made to extend the period from two months to ten weeks in which, as I understand it, a disposal authority can consider the licence application. I do not quite understand the necessity for this. It seems to me that any authority working to a reasonable timetable could reach a decision within two months, which is approximately eight weeks. I cannot really see the point of altering this. Perhaps the noble Lord would like to explain it.

LORD GARNSWORTHY

I am not sure that at this stage today I can easily add anything to what I have already said. But I will write to the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and if she is not satisfied then, perhaps we can return to the matter at a later stage. I trust that she may be satisfied, and that the Committee will accept the Amendment.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

VISCOUNT AMORY

I beg to move Amendment No. 13:

Amendment moved— Page 11, line 16, leave out ("six") and insert ("eight").—(Viscount Amory.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD GARNSWORTHY

I beg to move Amendment No. 13A.

Amendment moved— Page 11, line 22, leave out ("two months") and insert ("ten weeks").—(Lord Garnsworthy.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 8 agreed to.

Clause 9 [Appeals to Secretary of State from decisions with respect to licences]:

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL moved Amendment No. 13B: Page 12, line 35, after ("Secretary of State") insert ("and shall give notice to the owner of the relevant land of his intention so to appeal or otherwise").

The noble Duke said: This follows on the last Amendment I moved, and is a very small point. The owner of the land, when he agreed to allow a tip on his land, may have made some conditions. The applicant applies for his licence, and the conditions under which his licence is issued may be on occasions inappropriate with the conditions under which the owner has agreed to allow the land to be used as a tip. In these circumstances, it would seem to me that it would be only fair to the owner to keep him informed about whether he is going to appeal or not, for two reasons: first, because the owner may be perfectly prepared to agree to the changed conditions which have arisen as a result of the conditions laid down by the authority when the applicant applied for the licence; and secondly, because the owner might not then wish to allow the land to be used as a tip. I feel that this Amendment might cover these points. I beg to move.

LORD GARNSWORTHY

The occupier of the land who holds the disposal licence is not necessarily the owner of the land. This Amendment seeks to ensure that if the applicant or holder of a disposal licence is not the owner of the land in question, he should give notice to the owner whether or not he intends to appeal against a decision in respect of a licence under Clause 9. It is not at all clear why the Amendment seeks only to keep the owner informed at this late stage of the proceedings, and not at the initial licence application, or even the planning permission stage. In any case, it would seem more appropriate for the owner to cover his interests by dealing with this kind of matter by specific provision in the lease. It is no doubt useful for owners of land to be kept informed of changes of use of their land, but it is clear that the licence machinery should be used for this purpose where waste disposal operations are in question. We have to remember that a great majority of waste disposal operations are tipping operations, leading eventually to restoration of the land which has been tipped, or else they are treatment plants similar in many ways to other industrial plant. On the face of it, there seems no reason why the owner of the land should be put in a special position in relation to site licensing for that purpose. May I say to the noble Duke, the Duke of Atholl, that we can look at what he has said. If there is anything we have missed, then we shall be pleased to deal with it, but at this stage I would not want him to think that I am holding out much hope.

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL

I was worried about the case where the tipping operations take place. Under the present law I believe that if an occupier of land wishes to use it for tipping purposes, then he has to get the owner's permission. The owner could lay down conditions. He could then apply for a licence, and the conditions which the owner laid down might be incompatible with the conditions that the licensing authority laid down. In those cases, I should have thought it only fair that the applicant should tell the owner whether or not he was going to appeal. This, I agree, is a comparatively small point. It will happen in fairly few cases, and in most cases the applicant or the occupier would tell the owner as a matter of courtesy. But there could obviously be the odd case where this would not happen. I am grateful to the noble Lord for saying that he will look at this point to see whether he has missed anything. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 9 agreed to.

Clause 10 agreed to.

Clause 11 [Collection of waste.]

5.1 p.m.

LORD GARNSWORTHY moved Amendment No. 14: Page 18, line 18, at end insert ("; and an English disposal authority and any collection authority may contribute towards the cost incurred by another person in providing or maintaining plant or equipment intended to deal with commercial or industrial waste before it is collected under arrangements made by the authority in pursuance of subsection (1)(b) or subsection (2) of this section.")

The noble Lord said: Clause 11(6) at present provides that a collection authority may contribute towards the cost of providing or maintaining equipment intended to deal with household waste prior to collection. In many cases, it will be to the advantage of the authority and will facilitate collections if equipment, such as compactors, is provided at premises from which they collect waste; for example, at a block of flats or premises of a like kind. There are certain circumstances in which it may, therefore, be convenient for the authority to be able to contribute towards the cost of providing or maintaining such equipment as an inducement to the occupier to provide it. At present, however, Clause 11(6) allows the authority only to contribute towards the provision of such equipment for household waste. The purpose of this Amendment is to enable collection or disposal authorities to contribute towards the provision of similar equipment to deal with commercial or industrial waste prior to collection by the authorities. Such equipment may be useful rather more frequently in the case of commercial or industrial premises, because of the larger quantities of waste involved.

There is, of course, no question of compelling a local authority to contribute towards the cost of such equipment at commercial or industrial premises. Often the occupiers may be quite able and willing to provide the equipment themselves, especially if they are then able to negotiate a lower charge for collection by the authority. But there may be cases where it is useful for the authority to provide some incentive to an owner to deal partially with his waste prior to collection, and the Amendment so provides. An example might be the provision of a compactor at commercial premises where there has been a request to the collection authority to collect their waste. In such cases, it is still expected that an authority will wish to take account of any contribution it has made towards the cost of any equipment in fixing the charges for the collection service that it subsequently provides. I beg to move.

BARONESS YOUNG

I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, has given us that very full explanation of the Amendment, which seems to me to be an improvement to the Bill. One of the great problems of local authorities in regard to waste collection is the physical one of collecting bulky and inconvenient waste. Clearly, to allow them to make an agreement with a commercial or industrial undertaking about a simpler way of collecting is an improvement. Therefore, I support the Amendment.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 12 [Dustbins, etc.]:

LORD GARNSWORTHY moved Amendment No. 15: Page 18, line 42, leave out subsection (1) and insert— ("(1) Where a collection authority has a duty by virtue of subsection (1)(a) of the preceding section to arrange for the collection of household waste from any premises, then, subject to any regulations made by virtue of subsection (5) of this section, the authority may, by a notice served on the occupier of the premises, require him to place the waste for collection in receptacles which are of a kind and number specified in the notice and are provided by the authority or, if the notice so requires, by the recipient of the notice; and where in pursuance of such a notice any receptacle is provided for any premises by a collection authority, the authority shall be entitled to recover from the recipient of the notice a reasonable charge for the receptacle, by way of a single payment or periodical payments, unless the notice states that the receptacle is to be provided by the authority free of charge. (1A) a person who fails to comply with a notice served on him in pursuance of the preceding subsection shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine of an amount not exceeding £100.")

The noble Lord said: Clause 12 concerns the provision of dustbins or receptacles for waste. As at present drafted, subsection (1) provides that a collection authority may provide household premises with a receptacle for waste with the agreement of the occupier, and may either make such provision free or for a reasonable charge. As it now stands, the subsection is not quite so flexible as we would wish in order that we may provide for the various circumstances that can arise.

There are three basic cases for which the law needs to provide. First, the authority may decide to provide a receptacle to all households in the area free of charge. Where, for example, an authority is adopting a standardised system of collection, such as the sack and holder system, they are likely to want to provide the sacks regularly to the householders free of charge. This is probably the most satisfactory method from the point of view of public health and avoidance of nuisance, and it is gradually becoming more widespread. It does not, however, yet command the field to such an extent that the law should permit no other method.

Secondly, the authority may wish to provide a receptacle to householders for a reasonable charge. This might be more appropriate where they are providing a traditional dustbin. The provision in this case need not be to every household. It could simply be a question of selling a dustbin to individual householders who need or want one. Thirdly, the authority may decide to leave it to the individual householder to provide his own receptacle. But in this case they will need a regulatory power to require the householder to equip himself with an adequate receptacle and to keep it in reasonable condition.

This Amendment is intended to recast subsection (1) to allow for these three different approaches. Subsection (1A) of the Amendment introduces penalties, subject to a maximum of £100, for failure to comply with the requirements of a collection authority. May I draw the Committee's attention to one further point on the Amendment? I want to be quite open on this matter. The new Clause 12(1) will empower a local authority to serve on householders a notice about their dustbins, and I want to point out that no right of appeal is provided. Noble Lords may consider that this is wrong, and could properly point out that the corresponding provisions of the Public Health Act 1936 provide a right of appeal to the magistrates.

Having drawn attention to that point, I ought to attempt to explain why this position has been arrived at. The Amendment has been introduced in this form without provision for an appeal, because the provision of dustbins seems a rather small matter on which to have rights of appeal. The Government are keen to avoid the multiplication of issues for the courts, if that is possible. It may also be suggested that if an authority unreasonably exercises this power in relation to dustbins, it is the kind of matter that would make a very good issue for the consideration of the Local Commissioner for Administration; that is to say, the local government Ombudsman. I should say, however, that the Government have an open mind on this issue, and if your Lordships show any feeling in regard to the right of appeal being maintained, having regard to what I have said about the possibility of referring the matter to the local government Ombudsman, we should be willing to introduce a further Amendment to that effect. I beg to move.

5.10 p.m.

BARONESS YOUNG

I am again glad to have heard the explanation of the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, about this new Amendment. I understood his detailed explanation of the three types of case with which a local authority might have to deal. I would, however, ask him to consider particularly the case of an authority which will require every householder to have a particular type of dustbin and which will make a charge for it. As I have understood the noble Lord, this is a possibility. I think that in this particular circumstance, some difficulty might arise. Perhaps he will say whether I am right in thinking that there is such a possibility, because if I am not I shall be glad to hear it.

It seems to me that £100 is an extraordinarily heavy penalty to pay for having the wrong sort of dustbin. I made a note to ask the noble Lord on the question of an appeal procedure. I am not a lawyer, and while it may well be that to have an appeal procedure for an offence regarding a dustbin is taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut, it could be regarded by individual householders as something that they were perfectly justified in objecting to. I certainly would wish to consider the question of the Ombudsman intervening here, or whether indeed there is some other way of dealing with this matter.

When I was in local government I always believed, and I so thought when I was considering this Bill earlier on, that, as a general rule, if a local authority is going to require the use of a particular type of receptacle it ought to provide it free. That being so, the kind of situation I envisage here would not arise. If this is not necessarily to be the accepted rule, then one wants to weigh very carefully the effects that this situation could have in causing great difficulty for some people.

LORD HALE

This is a relatively small matter, but it is a relatively large principle. My noble friend made a statement which sounded, in his reasonable words, reasonable enough, but which embodies a real political danger. He says in defence of the clause—and to be fair to him he did not defend it with any enthusiasm, and one congratulates him on that—that it has happened before. I do not want in a small matter to make comparisons which seem extravagant, but this was always the argument about Italian law after the war, "Legislation under Mussolini had provided for this". In point of fact, partly on this argument, and partly because of perpetual disunion there, Italy went on under Mussolini's Fascist laws for a very long time.

With great respect, this is a clause which possesses no single semblance of principle. I am open to be corrected, and I hope that I am wrong, but it provides that the local authority can impose upon the ratepayer a receptacle of its choosing at a reasonable charge. Unless there is a special provision in the Bill that I have missed—and there may be one because it is a complicated Bill—there is nothing as to the definition of a reasonable charge or who decides what is a reasonable charge. If my noble friend interrupts me and says that I am wrong, I will withdraw that statement.

While I appreciate nearly all that the noble Baroness said, I am not sure that she is right about the nature of the offence that is created. I thought that the nature of the offence was failure to comply with the authority's directions in connection with a receptacle, the use of which it had imposed. There is an impotrant aspect of this issue. If we are going to pursue all the proposals for recycling, and so on, anybody can visualise the necessity of having two or three forms of receptacle so that you put your paper in one for recycling, your bottles in another for reclaiming, and your general waste in a third bin. For the moment I have a house full of bottles. Unless noble Lords jump to the one right conclusion, they are unfortunately empty bottles; and unless noble Lords jump to the nearly right conclusion too speedily, may I say that the great majority are medicine bottles, though quite a number are the ones you first thought about. I have been trying for a long time to get rid of them by any means possible. We have approached people who sell us medicine and they say, "No.". In the meantime I get appeals to dispose of them, and some day someone will think of providing a means of disposal because one cannot break up bottles into a dustbin and hand them to a collector.

Here we have a provision which says, so far as I know without any safeguard, that the local authority can decide; "Mother knows best". I lived for 23 years under the doctrine that the Whips Office knows best, and I do not remember a single occasion when they did. You can have imposed upon you a receptacle, the local authority can charge what it likes for that receptacle, provide for the instalments that are to be paid, and prosecute you if you do not take the same view as it does. That is a little tough. Certainly it is the sort of thing that a little private committee might consider for quite a long time. Tenancies change, houses pass from one to another, wrong people may be prosecuted, people on long holidays may commit an offence while they are on holiday, and so on. Although it is a relatively small matter, I have an uneasy feeling that it is the kind of matter which, when another Act is passed, could be expanded just a little more to the detriment of people at large.

5.17 p.m.

LORD MOLSON

I have known the noble Lord, Lord Hale, for a long time, and I know that in all sincerity he attaches great importance to the preservation of the liberty of the subject. I am inclined to think that he is making rather heavy weather of this small clause. It is a principle of this Bill that great reliance shall be put upon the local authorities and their discretion. If the local authorities are going to impose unreasonable charges on the householders in their area, those who are responsible for it will hear a great deal about it from the ratepayers and will pay a penalty for anything unreasonable at the next Election.

I feel that it is essential, if this is to have any effect at all, to place considerable reliance upon the administrative capacity and common sense of the local authorities. I should be very sorry if any elaborate procedure were introduced to have an appeal against provisions of this kind. It is extremely easy, in the interests of the liberty of the subject, rather to overdo the complication of procedures, and I should have thought that the Amendment that the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, has moved is quite reasonable. As regards the fine of £100, I would point out to my noble friend Lady Young that that is the maximum, and no reasonable bench of magistrates would impose a fine of that amount in the case of some quite trivial offence. Therefore, I think that on balance this is a reasonable provision, and I hope that it will prove acceptable to the Committee.

LORD SLATER

I am rather disturbed at this particular Amendment, and I shall give my reasons. I live in a semidetached house on a private estate, and after these houses were completed they were given a receptacle to take the refuse. It so happens that my central heating comes from a hard substance, from coke, and it serves six heaters. We have within my area what is known as a direct labour collection scheme from the local authority. It is responsible for emptying these refuse bins. The refuse is taken away by the big machine that comes to each tenant's door. It is collected, taken out and put on the pathway until the machine comes along. Then it is put on the lift, lifted up and thrown into the centre of this big vehicle if at all possible. The very fact of bins going through this type of process means that since I went into that house I have had at least three bins damaged through the effect of this operation carried out by the refuse collectors, with the result that, as private tenants living within our own homes, we have had to buy a new refuse bin. It is not the local authority which provides the local tenant with a new refuse bin because the old one has been damaged by the process it has had to go through when it was emptied because of the substance in it.

Take the local authority itself. The local authority is one of the biggest housing owners in this country and it goes through the same form of process. It also carries out the same process in regard to the collecting of refuse and waste from establishments, shops, big stores, et cetera and spreads throughout the whole area. To come along now with a particular section within a Bill, like this one imposing a penalty clause, my experience within local government tells me that it would be the wrong type of attitude to take in imposing such penalties upon the people that one represents and collects rates from. After all, the attitude of mind of people who are in local government may not move or work in the same way as it does with politicians, but nevertheless that has been our grounding and if I were still sitting in a local government capacity I should be one of the first to protest against such a thing as this provision being introduced even by Her Majesty's Government.

I sincerely hope that my noble friend the Minister responsible for bringing the Bill into this Chamber will give further consideration to it. It is all very well for the noble Lord, Lord Molson, to talk about the maximum of £100, as mentioned by the noble Baroness leading for the Opposition, but there is nothing to stop it reaching that figure, as I understand the position, if the council feel disposed to impose it. And what redress have they got? Surely we cannot call upon the people from various tenancies to make their appeals to local authorities in person or to be represented by solicitors, and so on because of the action taken by local authorities. I think that this matter is worthy of further consideration before the Minister presses his Amendment. I am very sorry to say that this will be the first time in my political life—since I became a Member in the other place or stepped along here—that I shall have to vote against my own side on a particular issue of this nature.

LORD LLOYD OF KILGERRAN

May I thank the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, for his clear, lucid explanation of this Amendment and may I say a few words about his last few sentences in regard to the right of appeal in connection with somebody who did not have a particular dustbin of the right size? I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Young, that if the local authorities wish to impose upon the public a particular type of dustbin, it should be issued free. But unlike the noble Lord, Lord Slater, I understand that there may be difficulties about issuing dustbins free to householders. But if there is to be a summary conviction of a person for not having the right kind of dustbin, then it seems to me essential that the person should have some right of appeal, and therefore I disagree fundamentally, with the greatest respect, from the noble Baroness, Lady Young, that there should be no right of appeal. In my view there should be a right of appeal and I should like to ask the Minister, having regard to the last part of his address to us in explaining this matter, that there should be a right of appeal in a case where there is the possibility of a fine of up to £100. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Molson, that possibly a local bench of magistrates would not impose that kind of fine, but where a local authority imposes a particular design and some person thinks that he has an adequate kind of dustbin, he ought to have a right of appeal. I should like the Minister to reconsider this question about the right of appeal.

LORD MERRIVALE

I have not had time to consider the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, but I am concerned about the penalties provision. In his Amendment, and this refers to household waste, it says: … the authority may, by a notice served on the occupier of the premises, require him to place the waste for collection in receptacles which are of a kind and number specified in the notice and so on. It then goes on to say; A person who fails to comply with a notice served on him in pursuance of the preceding subsection shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine of an amount not exceeding £100. I take the point made by my noble friend Lord Molson that that is the maximum, but on the other hand I rather tend to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Slater, that the figure of £100 is specified there and can be reached.

I should like to draw the attention of the Committee to the provisions of subsection (3) of Clause 12 because here one is referring to commercial waste and industrial waste. It says: … if the waste is not stored in receptacles of a particular kind, is likely to cause a nuisance or to be detrimental to the amenities of the locality in which the premises are situated, the authority may, by a notice served on the occupier of the premises, require him to provide at the premises receptacles for the storage and so on. But it says at the end: … a person who fails to comply with such a requirement shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine of an amount not exceeding £100. It seems a little, shall we say—not to put it any higher—unreasonable, possibly unfair, that the maximum fine for an individual householder should be as high as that for a potential offender in the realm of commercial or industrial waste. I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, would not consider, even at this late stage, possibly reducing the maximum fine, because I feel that there is a discrepancy here, a discrepancy which lies in having a similar fine for a complely different type of waste.

LORD CRAIGTON

I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, one question: what do these words in fact mean for the recipient of the notice: …any receptacle is provided for any premises by a collection authority, the authority shall he entitled to recover from the recipient of the notice a reasonable charge for the receptacle …". Does the noble Lord mean that that charge is for the use of the receptacle, the loan of the receptacle or, as the noble Lord, Lord Hale, implied the ownership of the receptacle? It is not at all clear to me who is to be the owner of the receptacle in the end when I have paid for it.

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL

Having lived under a council where we had our dustbins altered, we were supplied with three new ones of the approved pattern free of charge. After that, any dustbins we lose or which get damaged we are expected to replace at our own expense as a householder. That is only fair and is the only way of checking abuses such as taking dustbins away to other places, to one's garden shed or something like that, and using them for purposes for which they were not intended. I support the first part of Lord Garnsworthy's Amendment at any rate, because I am sure that no reasonable local authority will charge for dustbins when they go over to a completely new system. My local authority, St. Marylebone, certainly did not charge. I believe it is now part of the City of Westminster.

5.29 p.m.

LORD GARNSWORTHY

We have had a very interesting debate and it is not surprising that so many of your Lordships' have joined in it because this is the stuff of local politics. If anyone was in any doubt about that, then listening to my noble friend Lord Slater it became abundantly clear that this could become one of, I shall not say the more important issues of the local government election, but it might be one of the issues that could decide the outcome of such an election. I take his point, as I am sure the House did. I live in a house which is located in a district where we have to buy our own dustbins—and have always had to do so—and I envy those who might be able to turn to their local authority and say, "If you bash my dustbin about too much you will have to do something about it." Where I live, I am in no doubt where the liability rests.

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Molson, because when he spoke I thought he had answered the debate up to that point. I think he will appreciate that there were other things that interested your Lordships, and that you clearly wanted to demonstrate beyond any question the strength of your feeling, particularly on the issue of appeal procedure, which the noble Baroness, Lady Young, raised. At this stage, since my noble friends Lord Hale and Lord Slater and others of your Lordships took up the point, I ought to say that I will do as I indicated would be done if the feeling of the House was that a right of appeal should be maintained, and say that we will examine the point further to see whether we can produce further Amendments to that effect. The case which the noble Baroness mentioned was of great interest. It made the point that certain circumstances may arise where there ought to be a right of appeal. But I am inclined to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Molson, that a great deal has been made of the point.

First, with regard to penalty, about which the noble Lords, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, Lord Merrivale and Lord Craigton, asked questions, the point has been made that £100 is too much. It has been pointed out that £100 is the maximum. Many of your Lordships are magistrates. Those who are magistrates know that in connection with a dustbin it is almost inconceivable that any bench anywhere would impose the maximum penalty of £100, unless there were something quite extraordinary about the situation. It is difficult to get benches of magistrates to impose sufficiently high fines over the dumping of cars. I think the general feeling is that benches of magistrates might have been a little more helpful, in dealing with people who have distributed litter where it ought not to have been placed, by imposing higher fines. But I cannot conceive, and I doubt whether any of your Lordships can conceive, of a bench of magistrates imposing a fine of that nature on a householder. The noble Lord, Lord Merrivale pointed out—

LORD HALE

Will the noble Lord forgive me for interrupting? In that case, why put it in, unless the noble Lord can visualise some fantastic and unnatural form of offence offending public morals and decency in connection with dustbins that none of us has been able to visualise?

LORD GARNSWORTHY

I do not want at this stage to cross swords with my noble friend Lord Hale, or to provoke him to continue the debate unduly, but we will certainly look at what he said. However, there is a point at which I think we have to have some trust, some confidence, in elected public bodies. There is a point at which we have to have some confidence in those who sit on our benches as magistrates. Personally, having served on a local authority and on a bench of magistrates, I must say—perhaps I am not justified, because I am possibly too limited in my experience—that I do not share the concern that has been expressed. Nevertheless, we will certainly look at this matter. If we feel that we have made a mistake we shall not be afraid to come back on the matter.

With regard to what is a reasonable charge, may I say that this is not a sphere of commerce where the local authority can be unreasonable, because any householder can check up in almost any hardware store what is a reasonable charge for the provision of a dustbin.

A good deal has been said about different types. I hope, however, that we are all serious in wanting to deal with the control of pollution. I hope we are all serious in wanting local authorities throughout the length and breadth of the land to develop the highest possible standards in dealing wih refuse. We ought to be envisaging that changes will inevitably occur, because the system of refuse collection is not everywhere as good or as efficient as it might be. But I would remind the House that we shall have the local government Ombudsman, which will be a safeguard that the householder has not hitherto enjoyed, and we ought to take the view that in recourse to the local government Ombudsman his position is likely to be much better protected than it has been previously.

With regard to the point raised by, I think, the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, the householder will be the owner of the receptacle. I repeat that we will keep an open mind about the penalty and will look at it again, and if we feel the need to introduce a change we will do so. With that explanation, I hope that your Lordships will accept the Amendment.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

5.37 p.m.

LORD CRAIGTON moved Amendment No. 16: Page 19, line 26, leave out ("served on") and insert ("received by").

The noble Lord said: This is a much easier one. Subsection (4) says that: A person on whom a notice is served … may, within the period of twenty-one days beginning with the day on which the notice is served on him, appeal to a magistrates' court.… Thus it is 21 days after the day the notice has been served on him—how the notice has been despatched or on which day of the week it has been posted the subsection does not say. On the other hand, if we look at page 11, which we have just discussed, it is clear that the period concerned starts on the day that the authority receives the notice. We find the same on page 42, where it is stated: … if within the period of three months beginning with the date when an application for consent is received by a water authority". Why is there one law for the authority, and another for the unfortunate person who has to appeal within 21 days of the notice being served on him? I want the Bill to be uniform throughout, and to say that the notice is "received by him", rather than "served on him". I beg to move.

LORD GARNSWORTHY

As the noble Lord has made clear, we are talking about statutory notices and fixing a period of time after service within which something can be done, such as lodging an objection. We must therefore do our best to identify the period as precisely as we can. I submit to your Lordships that there is a difference here between a public authority and an individual. An authority has offices and a system of registering incoming mail. So if we say that that time has to run from the receipt by them of an incoming notice, we know where we are.

When a notice arises in the case of an individual, the situation is rather different. He may be away from home or he may claim that he was away. In those circumstances, how can the server prove the date of receipt? It is a difficulty—and we recognise that it is a very real one—which can be overcome by reliance on Section 233 of the Local Government Act 1972, and Section 26 of the Interpretation Act 1889. I am most firmly advised about that. The first of these provides for methods of service of notices by local authorities, including service by post; and the other creates the presumption that letters arrive in the ordinary course of the post. I hasten to add that it is only a presumption; of course, a person can seek to prove that a letter did not in fact arrive.

So that by referring to the date on which a notice is served, we get the advantage of these provisions. If we refer to the date of receipt, we lose the certainty that they are intended to create. I hope that we have been consistent throughout the Bill and I hope your Lordships will accept that the Amendment is a step in the wrong direction, bearing in mind the intention and, indeed, the ambition of the Government.

LORD CRAIGTON

I entirely appreciate the argument of the noble Lord, but if it is accepted by the Committee it will be gravely open to question whether anything as important as an appeal to the magistrates should be allowed only 21 days in which to be delievered by the Post Office and in which the recipient will have to find it. Surely the period should be longer than 21 days? In withdrawing the Amendment, I would ask the Minister to reconsider that point. It seems most unfair on the recipient.

LORD GARNSWORTHY

I gladly give an undertaking that we will have another look at this point.

LORD CRAIGTON

I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

5.44 p.m.

LORD MERRIVALE moved Amendment No. 17: Page 19 line 27, leave out ("ground") and insert ("grounds").

The noble Lord said: I propose to speak to Amendment No. 18 at the same time. Subsection (3) provides that if it appears to a collection authority that within its area waste is likely to be situated which could cause a nuisance or be detrimental to the amenities of the locality, the authority can by notice require the occupier to provide at the premises receptacles for the storage of such waste, of a kind and number specified in the notice. Subsection (4) provides for appeal to a magistrates' court against the kind and number of the receptacles.

The purpose of my Amendment is to provide for appeal on the additional grounds that the waste is not likely to cause a nuisance or to be detrimental to the locality's amenity. I sincerely hope that the Minister will give the Amendment favourable consideration, because at present there is no appeal against the issue of the notice on the grounds that the waste might cause a nuisance or be detrimental to amenity. Surely such an appeal would offer a safeguard against possibly unreasonable or indiscriminate action by a collection authority.

LORD GARNSWORTHY

The noble Lord said that he would speak to Amendments Nos. 17 and 18. Most of what he said applied to Amendment No. 18, so, if I may, I will speak to that as well, because although it comes first Amendment No. 17 is really consequential. The noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, has made his case so well that I do not think I need repeat, or attempt to improve upon, what he said. The case is accepted and I am pleased to say that the Amendment commends itself, since it makes the position clearer in the sense that the noble Lord indicated. We are very glad to accept it.

LORD MERRIVALE

I should like to thank the Minister very much indeed.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD MERRIVALE

I beg to move Amendment No. 18.

Amendment moved— Page 19, line 29, after ("unreasonable") insert ("or that the waste is not likely to cause a nuisance or be detrimental to the amenities of the locality in which the premises are situated").—(Lord Merrivale.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

5.47 p.m.

LORD GARNSWORTHY moved Amendment No. 19: Page 19, line 40, leave out ("and construction") and insert (", construction and maintenance").

The noble Lord said: This Amendment enables Regulations to cover the proper maintenance of receptacles, as well as to regulate their size and construction. At the same time, it seems desirable that collection authorities should be able to ensure that receptacles are kept in a proper state of repair. Regulations under the clause may also confer powers on the collection authorities themselves to give directions to the owners of receptacles about their proper maintenance, and this will no doubt be the way in which proper maintenance is enforced in practice.

LORD SLATER

Before we leave this point, can my noble friend inform the House upon what authority a local authority will act in regard to the size of these receptacles? After all, an ash-bin is of a standard height at the moment, and is sold in various parts of the country at that height. Is this decision to be left to the local authorities, or will they be manufacturers in their own right? Is there a monopoly clause in the Bill, which states that a local authority shall be able, if it so wishes, to manufacture these receptacles and that we shall be duty-bound by the size, shape and everything else concerned?

LORD GARNSWORTHY

I should not think that the local authorities were going to become manufacturers of receptacles. It is not possible to look ahead for all time, but certainly at the present time, I cannot foresee circumstances in which they would anticipate doing this. May I say about this Amendment that it seeks to ensure that there shall be proper maintenance of receptacles. Some of the most unpleasant work that I have seen undertaken has been done by men in the Public Health Service of a local authority, collecting refuse from houses where the receptacles have been in a shocking condition. For the sake of the people engaged in refuse collection, we must give a local authority power to see that receptacles are so maintained. I have no doubt that if my noble friend Lord Slater and I were candidates for a local authority, we should be on the same side of the fence with regard to this matter.

LORD SLATER

I must say to my noble friend that, as I see it, the local auhorities will be both judge and jury in this matter. They are the ones who will determine what is to be done and what type of receptacle is to be used. Is it to be left to a local authority to impose its powers, because of the type of Bill that has been introduced? I do not know who is responsible for bringing this measure forward, but, knowing something about the drafting of those Bills that I was privileged to introduce in another place, I am rather surprised at the Minister responsible, or even the draftsman responsible for the drafting of this Bill, and at the way in which it has placed the local authority in the position, as I see it, of being judge and jury in its own case.

LORD GARNSWORTHY

I think that perhaps my noble friend is rendering a service in drawing attention to the fact that in future we will enjoy a local government Ombudsman, who will be operating in an area in which the householder has never before enjoyed the kind of protection that we are all hoping he will give when any local authority or anybody in local government acts unreasonably. I would say that this is not a case where the local authority will be the judge and jury. In the last resort the jury is the general body of electors, and, in my experience, if a local authority makes a practice of behaving unreasonably, the jury—that is to say, the electorate—then have shown that they know how to deal with such people. If I may repeat what I have said before, I think we must have confidence in local government and I think we must appreciate the role that the local government Ombudsman may play in the future, knowing that in the last resort the electorate will have the opportunity to get rid of those who behave unreasonably. I repeat: my noble friend Lord Slater may well have rendered a service in giving me the opportunity to re-emphasise these points.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

5.53 p.m.

LORD GARNSWORTHY moved Amendment No. 20: Page 19, line 42 leave out ("and highways").

The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 20, I should like to speak to Amendment No. 21 at the same time. Clause 12 concerns the provision and control of dustbins or other receptacles for the storage of waste prior to collection. Subsection (5) provides that regulations may be made governing the construction and use of such receptacles; and paragraph (e) of that subsection provides for the giving of directions on these matters by the collection authority to the owners of receptacles.

One of the matters which may need to be covered by the regulations or by the collection authority's own direction is the putting out of dustbins for collection. This mainly concerns household waste from private households. It is no doubt desirable, where possible, that the refuse collector should come to collect the waste from where it is normally kept on or outside the premises. In more modern houses and premises special places are normally supplied for the dustbins or receptacles to be kept, with reasonable access for the collector; and in the revision of the building regulations currently being undertaken this will be made a mandatory requirement in constructing new houses. However, in a considerable number of older houses and fiats there is nowhere that the dustbins or receptacles can conveniently be kept to which the collectors can get access. Here, I have in mind such places as terrace houses opening directly on the street with no basement and no rear access; or there are the blocks of flats where the refuse still has to be carried down a flight of stairs. In this kind of place the only way in which the collection service can effectively be operated is for the householder himself to put out his dustbin or sack on the right day for the collector to empty and remove the refuse.

The purpose of these two Amendments is to ensure that, where necessary, the collection authority can determine that this is the way in which the refuse will have to be collected from certain houses, and can give directions accordingly to householders. The second Amendment also introduces the refinement that where a collection authority proposes to require dustbins or receptacles to be put in the street or highway they can be required by the regulations to consult the highway authority first. Normally, there will be no serious road traffic objection; but if in the occasional case it is necessary to put the bins in the carriageway itself, it is thought that the highway authority should have the right to object. The regulations also provide for any liability which could arise out of any damage caused as a result of the placing of receptacles on highways.

I ought to emphasise that we are moving these two Amendments for the sake of completeness, and not because we want to encourage the placing of dustbins on highways. On the contrary, we hope, as I have indicated, that the trend will be in quite the opposite direction; but I think we have to recognise that some of the older houses will be with us for a good many years yet, and the law needs to fit them properly. I beg to move.

BARONESS YOUNG

I listened with great care to the explanation which the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, gave of this new Amendment. I am inclined to agree with him over this matter. I think it is yet another possible alternative, and I think it helps local authorities, particularly those which have considerable difficulties in recruiting people to undertake refuse collection, if this is another proviso that they can have. Having said that, I think it is a situation which needs to be looked at with the greatest of care. There is a number of people who will be quite incapable of putting a full dustbin out on the highway, and there can be considerable difficulties. I see the noble Lord's point about the building regulations for new houses taking care of this, but there will, of course, be difficulties for elderly residents in old property.

LORD GARNSWORTHY

I fully recognise the importance of what the noble Baroness, Lady Young, has said, and particularly of her closing remarks. It has been in my mind all the while we have been considering these matters, as I have no doubt it has been in the mind of my noble friend Lord Slater. It is something to which we will give thought. I cannot say at what stage, if we feel that amendment can be made, it will be possible to do it; it will take a little time. But I have no doubt that if we are unable to attend to it somebody in the other place will take note of what has been said in this debate and will ensure that it is looked at again. But certainly consideration will be given to what the noble Baroness has had to say.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD GARNSWORTHY

I beg to move Amendment No. 21.

Amendment moved— Page 19, line 44, at end insert— ("(bb) the placing of the receptacles for that purpose on highways with the consent of the relevant highway authorities and the liability for any damage arising out of the placing of the receptacles on highway in pursuance of regulations made by virtue of this subsection;")—[Lord Garnsworthy.]

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 12, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 13 [Disposal of waste in England and Wales]:

5.59 p.m.

LORD ENERGLYN moved Amendment No. 21A: Page 20, line 28, leave out from ("authority") to end of line 34 and insert ("shall by mutual agreement arrange for the processing of all reclaimable substances from the waste.")

The noble Lord said: My reason for moving this Amendment is that the wording of subsection (2) did not convince me that the intention of the subsection would be fulfilled, which is to make the fullest possible use of any waste material. Subsection (1) clearly defines the position of both parties. I am well aware of the difficulty of drafting regulations which cover generalisations because it is not always possible to generalise in difficult matters such as recycling, and particularly in the utilisation of waste which is a slightly different aspect of the problem. Because I am conscious of this I thought that the abbreviation of the subsection might achieve this purpose and my suggestion of the phrase, "shall by mutual arrangement" was deliberately designed to take account of experiences which this country has not heard too much about over the last five years.

During the last five years the various research associations in this country—and which I may say are the finest in the world—have been carrying out, on behalf of the constituent members of the association, work to try to cut down overheads. In the process of so doing they have devised all kinds of ingenious methods and processes for the utilisation of what hitherto has been regarded as waste. Perhaps my noble friend may be convinced of this Amendment if I remind him of one or two examples.

There is the famous case of the extraction of lanolin from wool. This was designed by the wool industry's research association, also, I might add, world famous because it was there that this great science of chromotography started. There is also the remarkable piece of work done by the Leather Manufacturers' Association who conquered the problem of chromium pollution in effluents and at the same time opened up an entirely new concept of the extraction of this valuable metal, chromium. Then we have another group who serve the launderers of this country, the British Launderers Research Association. They have in the most elegant way created a reduction in the amount of effluent in the various washing, cleaning and drying operations which has had two advantages. One advantage is the recycling of water—and this is particularly important in the Thames Conservancy Area—and the reclamation of cleaning fluid and what you will in the process of laundry. Those are three examples of the direct use of technology on behalf of groups of industry, and they are pretty obvious.

But there is one point which this clause does not quite cover, and it is an important one. It is the factor of communication, the exchange of ideas, the compromise that always has to be made in controlling effluents. I do not see that this is possible in the wording of the clause as it stands at the moment. If I may digress for a moment, I am picking on industries with research associations which do not appear to have very direct contact with pollution. The Hosiery and Allied Trades Research Association carried out a kind of operation which will face local authorities; that is, the intrusion into areas of confidentiality in industry. In their particular field of study are the dyers. Each dyeing operation is a very secret and personal process, but because the Research Associations have such a high standing among their industrial groups they were allowed to see the secret processes of 57 dyeing operations. They also interviewed 1,037 employees ranging from the operatives to the managers, and by communication through this highly complex picture they were able to write recipes for each of the 57 firms which reduced their use of water by significant percentages, and in so doing were able to recycle back into the operation dyestuffs which are very expensive. It is this kind of communication which I regret will not be effective if we accept the wording of this subsection.

The difficulty with this subsection as it stands is that it fails to make clear the fact that there is frequently no sharp division between the collection and the disposal of waste. Indeed, the collection of the waste might easily, as we have heard this afternoon, make it impossible for the disposal area to deal with it in a selective fashion. It would seem to me, therefore, that the phrase "mutual agreement" that I suggest is the kind of wording which would possibly make this subsection very effective and important because it is in this subsection that we are hopeful of regaining some profits to pay for all the other things we are trying to do. I beg to move.

6.6 p.m.

LORD GARNSWORTHY

I have listened so often to my noble friend Lord Energlyn and have always been very impressed with the knowledge he has brought to bear on any subject whenever he has taken part in a debate in this House. He has made his case and I will endeavour to put the other side of the argument—because I think there is another side. Clause 13(1) provides that all waste collected by a collection authority shall be delivered to the disposal authority for disposal, with the exception only of waste paper which the collection authority may retain for separate disposal by itself. This is, in fact, a restatement of the basic division of functions between the collection and disposal authorities which was settled, not without some notable Parliamentary battles, in the Local Government Act 1972. I think I took part in that myself. I am sure that whatever views we took on this matter at the time, no one in the Committee will want to reopen that basic allocation of functions at this time, now that the new local authorities are just getting into their stride with their new functions.

The exception we provided for waste paper is also derived from the Local Gov- ernment Act. The point here is that waste paper is one material which is already recovered from domestic waste for recycling to a significant extent. A good many collection authorities either collect waste paper separately or separate it for recovery and then bale it and sell it to the paper pulping industry. It was thought right that such arrangements should be allowed to continue without intervention by the disposal authority.

When the present Government came to look again at the question of recycling and reclamation we took the view that there may be somewhat greater scope for such schemes of separate collection or separation of waste by the collection authorities than the previous Bill had allowed and Clause 13(2) has therefore been added to provide for this. I do not want to exaggerate the possibilities here because there are many technical problems to overcome, and at the end of the day the economics of such schemes may make them impracticable in many cases. There ought not to be any legal obstacles in the way, and Clause 13(2) is intended to provide an enabling power.

The subsection is, however, qualified by the requirement that collection authorities should only undertake such schemes with the agreement of the disposal authority. This is vital. The disposal authorities will have the duty under Clause 2 to work out the best ways of disposing of all the waste arising in their areas, and of working out reclamation possibilities. They must therefore be in a position to co-ordinate and control what is done by way of reclamation in their area. As we see it, it would not be right to leave it entirely to the collection authorities to pursue their own initiatives without reference to the disposal authority's wider scheme. Waste paper is a permissible exception because collection authorities are already separately involved here; but even here it will be desirable for them to keep in touch with the disposal authorities and the county plan for reclamation.

I have spelt this out at some length so as to make clear to the Committee the Government's objection to this Amendment, which would make it the duty of the authorities in each area to arrange together for the processing of all reclaimable substances. For the reasons I have given, we think the disposal authorities must be in the co-ordinating position here, so we cannot accept the phrase "mutual agreement" in the Amendment, though I entirely accept and agree with the spirit of the suggestion that there must be the closest consultation and co-operation between the authorities concerned.

The more serious objection, however, is that the Amendment would make it a positive duty for local authorities to arrange for the processing of all reclaimable substances from the waste. For the reasons I have given, this would go much too far. It could require authorities to undertake expensive schemes for reclamation of particular materials, with no assurance of finding suitable markets for the recovered material. There may also be all kinds of technical problems, and labour difficulties which may stand in the way of recovery operations.

I should like to say that the discussion we are having to-day is not the end of the interest that will be taken in reclamation and recycling; and after this Bill has become an Act there will be a tremendous job of work to be done in securing the kind of co-operation of which I have been speaking. It seems to me that the expertise of my noble friend Lord Energlyn would be most useful if he were available to assist, and I personally should be delighted if he could come along and talk about this subject as time goes on. We shall be interested in what he has to say, not only in trying to persuade local government to cooperate to the fullest extent but also by way of offering them suggestions as to how best to achieve the objectives we all have at heart. I would ask my noble friend to believe that we have looked carefully at his Amendment. I regret that he feels the clause, as worded at present, does not go as far as he would wish. We feel it goes as far as is practicable at the moment, but I can assure him that we shall look to him to help us with the tasks that lie ahead once the Bill is on the Statute Book.

BARONESS WHITE

Before the noble Lord, Lord Energlyn, responds, may I ask my noble friend Lord Garnsworthy whether I am right in supposing that in Wales a county council, if desired to do so by the districts who are both collection and disposal authorities, could act as agent for a group of districts? I think I am right in supposing that under the Local Government Act it could do so, but I should like to be reassured on that. What worries me slightly about this clause is that, understandably, it refers only to the English authorities. I should hope very much that at any rate the more industrialised areas of Wales would take very seriously this question of reclamation and recycling, and that if there were circumstances in which it would be more appropriate for the county authority to act as agent for a number of districts, there would be nothing to impede such an arrangement.

LORD GARNSWORTHY

I am grateful to my noble friend for having spoken at sufficient length to enable me to get an authoritative answer. May I say, in the first place, that I have looked upon her for a long time as an expert on local government in Wales, and indeed would have turned to her had I needed advice in that respect. I had the great privilege of working with her on the previous Bill and was filled with admiration at the way in which she dealt with the preparation of Amendments. I came to look upon her as an authority on that one as well as on Wales. My noble friend is quite right: county councils in Wales may be used as agents for district councils, if desired.

LORD SLATER

If I may, I should like to follow up the observations made by my noble friend in reply to the Amendment put forward by my noble friend Lord Energlyn. He has given very clearly the reasons why the Amendment cannot be accepted; but, looking at refuse in the general sense, I am reminded of a man with a greenhouse which was situated near to a particular refuse dump. That man was able to heat his greenhouse and bring on his plants by utilising the gases which accumulated over a period of time and were disposed of by the local authority. If that could be done by means of gases which are taken away from what is supposed to be waste, surely there must be something in the observations made by my noble friend Lord Energlyn. After all, it is to people of his standing that we should look for guidance in these matters.

I hope that the Government will look again at this matter, because I, like the noble Baroness, Lady White, would look to separate authorities for the integration of such work as disposal and collection. Presumably there will need to be an integration of powers in this matter of collection, and I thought it only right and proper to bring forward this point as to what can be extracted from what most ordinary people in society might look upon as waste—but it is not waste, because there will still be something of value to be taken away from it, if the matter is fully investigated and if some system is introduced by means of ideas such as those which have been expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Energlyn.

LORD GARNSWORTHY

I think that we all appreciate these days that "where there's muck there's the possibility of brass." I appreciate what the noble Lord, Lord Slater, has said: I took the point also when it was being made by my noble friend Lord Energlyn. I should like to say clearly for the Record, so that there may be no doubt about it, that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State and all my other right honourable friends at the Department of the Environment who have any responsibility at all for this area of Governmental activity, are determined to get as much as possible out of this new Act. If we can extract from waste articles which are of value to the community, and if we can rid this country of pollution, we shall do it. I am enthused by virtue of the contact that I have had with my colleagues at the Department and should like it clearly on the Record that their determination is beyond question.

LORD ENERGLYN

When I considered this Amendment I was conscious of the difficulty of drafting an Amendment in this particular area of expertise; with a profit and loss account it is very difficult to decide who is the customer, and so on. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment without hesitation; but before I do so I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Garnsworthy for his kind remarks, and give my public assurance that if there is anything I can do to direct any profit out of "muck" I shall be only too happy to do it, although it could be a rather unpleasant exercise. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

6.21 p.m.

BARONESS YOUNG moved Amendment No. 22: Page 21, line 11, leave out paragraph (c) and insert— (c) to arrange for the use, sale or other disposal of the waste or anything produced from it.

The noble Baroness said: We have already had two considerable discussions on recycling. My Amendment is put down to elucidate the meaning of the extensively redrafted clause. Subsections (2) and (3) in particular introduce new features into the Bill which we were not in the original. As I indicated, we on this side of the Committee support the fact that the provisions with regard to recycling have been strengthened. What I should like to be clear about is that the provisions in this clause, in subsection (3) at any rate, do not confer powers on local authorities but give them the right, if they so wish, to sort and bale waste paper. As I understand it, they could sort other items if they so wished. Does this clause in any sense preclude the private industries from this function, or is it a way of giving a monopoly to local authorities to enter this field? I am not clear what the intention is. I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, could explain it and answer the point I have raised.

LORD GARNSWORTHY

The purpose of the Amendment was not clear to us when we first read it. The noble Baroness has clearly indicated that it was intended to be a probing Amendment. It seemed to us that it sought to ensure that the disposal authority may either provide facilities itself to use, sell or otherwise dispose of the waste or anything produced from it, or get other persons to do so. We wondered whether this was with a view to ensuring that private enterprise would be brought more into the picture. What we are aiming at is to get the maximum co-operation between all those with any interest in this field. We appreciate the part that private enterprise are playing, and we strive to bring them into the closest possible co-operation. We hope that there will be the maximum good will here.

It is our view that the purpose of the Amendment is met by the present wording in Clause 13(4)(c). The primary duty of the disposal authority to dispose of waste is in the first line of Clause 13(4) where authorities are given a duty to arrange for the disposal of waste. For the purpose of performing that duty, the disposal authorities are given powers in Clause 13(4)(a) to (c) to provide certain facilities and do certain things with the waste. Since the main duty permits the authority to arrange for disposal in whatever ways it sees fit, whether by itself or anybody else, it follows that the powers flowing from the main duty may be similarly interpreted. We thought the Amendment in those circumstances was unnecessary. I hope that the explanation that I have sought to give will meet the elucidation for which the noble Baroness asked.

BARONESS YOUNG

I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, for that explanation which I shall certainly read and consider with care. I apologise for any ambiguity. As the noble Lord will appreciate, we have been working to a tight timetable, and I thought we had already indicated to the Department that I wished to raise specific points for clarification. I apologise if there has been any difficulty about this. I am glad to have his assurance that it is the intention of the Government that in all matters with regard to recycling the importance of the contribution that private industry can make will not be overlooked. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 13 agreed to.

Clause 14 agreed to.

Clause 15 [Removal of waste deposited in breach of licensing provisions]:

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL moved Amendment No. 224: Page 25, line 22, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").

The noble Duke said: Clause 15 deals with the removal of waste deposited in breach of licensing provisions, and subsection (5), to which this Amendment applies, sets out three cases in which this is not done in the normal way, but the authority have the right to remove the waste from the land or take such other steps. Three cases in which the authority may do this—and in Scotland it is a district council but in England I am not sure which authority deals with it—are as follows: (a) in order to remove or prevent pollution of water or danger to public health … or (b) there is no occupier of the land in question; or (c) the occupier of the land neither made nor knowingly permitted the deposit of the waste…". I should have thought certainly in the first case, and probably in the second case, that it ought to be mandatory on the disposal authority to remove this rubbish. In the third case, I agree that perhaps "may" is the right word rather than "shall"; I am open to persuasion on that. In the first two cases I should have thought it was essential that it was mandatory on the authority to remove the rubbish particularly if it was going to pollute the water or be a danger to public health. I beg to move.

LORD GARNSWORTHY

Clause 15 provides discretionary powers for authorities to take enforcement and remedial action to deal with waste deposited on unlicensed sites in breach of Clause 3(1). An authority may take action in two ways: either by serving a notice on the occupier of the land on which waste has been deposited requiring him to take action to deal with the waste, or by taking remedial action itself in the circumstances listed in subsection 15(5). Generally, the clause provides the necessary reserve powers for authorities to deal with indiscriminate disposal of waste. The prevailing circumstances—that is, type, amount, location of the deposit of the waste—will dictate the appropriate methods of securing the removal or disposal of the effects of the waste.

While we are sympathetic to the purpose to this Amendment, we do not think that it can be accepted when put into context against the wider provisions of the clause. Local authorities can be expected to behave responsibly in cases where unlicensed disposal has occurred, and the clause provides the necessary discretionary powers for the appropriate authority to do whatever seems best in the circumstances. A duty in respect of the provisions of Clause 15(5) might prove to be unnecessarily restrictive, especially in respect of sub-paragraphs (b) and (c), where, for example, it would be unreasonable to require an authority to remove an unsightly pile of waste simply because there was no apparent occupier of the land in question. Moreover, the provision for the powers in this clause to be exercised by either a collection or disposal authority would make the operation of a duty difficult to administer. In the circumstances, we see no reason why the provisions in this clause should not be adequately exercised on a discretionary basis, with authorities acting responsibly to decide when, how and by whom waste should be cleared from unlicensed sites. I hope that with that explanation the noble Duke will feel that he does not need to press this Amendment.

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL

I thank the noble Lord for his explanation. I agree. I think that in the case of paragraph (c) of subsection (5) he is right; it ought not to be a mandatory duty on the local authority. I disagree about paragraph (b). I can think of nothing worse than an unsightly heap of rubbish on the middle of common land, and it certainly ought to be the duty of the local authority to remove such rubbish. The only occasions I can think of where there is no occupier of the land is where it is common land or a village green, or something like that. Only too often one sees nasty patches of waste, particularly old motor cars, on such places. I should hope that the noble Lord would, at any rate, encourage local authorities to remove it. In the case of preventing pollution of water, or danger to public health, I am sure that, as the noble Lord says, the local authorities will in fact act quickly and responsibly. But I should have thought it would not hurt to have the word, "shall" rather than, "may" there. However, I agree that to achieve this effect the clause would have to be re-cast in a much more basic way than I have attempted to do by this Amendment. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

6.33 p.m.

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL moved Amendment No. 22B: Page 25, line 30, leave out from ("land") to ("permitted") in line 31 and insert ("if it can be shown that he made or"').

The noble Duke said: This Amendment is still on Clause 15, which relates to the removal of waste deposited in breach of licensing provisions. This time I refer to subsection (6), which provides that where a disposal authority removes unlawfully deposited waste it may recover the cost of doing so from the occupier of the land unless the occupier proves that he has neither made nor approved the deposit in question. This seems to raise a fundamental principle of British justice, in that the occupier is guilty until he proves himself innocent. I should have thought it was not very likely that the occupier would deposit waste on his own land. In my experience, nearly all the waste on one's land is deposited by people other than the occupier, who is only too conscious of its being close to where he lives or farms. Therefore I should have thought that it would be much fairer if the duty of the occupier to prove that he neither made nor deposited the waste was reversed, so that it was the duty of the authority to prove that the occupier had deposited the waste on his land. I beg to move.

LORD GARNSWORTHY

The noble Duke has made clear the purpose of his Amendment, but, while we are sympathetic to the idea here we do not think we can accept it. Despite what he said, we take the view that an occupier of land must accept some measure of responsibility for activities which take place upon it. We do not think it is asking too much of him to give clear reasons why he should not be held primarily responsible for illegal deposits, unless he can show that they were made by other persons or without his knowledge. I should not have thought that this was too difficult or asking too much. Where such proof is forthcoming, there should be no question of the occupier's having to pay costs.

The subsection as now drafted is deliberately cast in broad terms, so that the occupier has the opportunity to show that he neither made nor caused nor knowingly permitted the deposit. Authorities will of course try to recover costs from the person who was actually responsible for the deposit, but the provision in Clause 15(6)(a) will help to ensure that occupiers of land are on their guard against entering into shady deals with tippers seeking a cheap means of disposal. I hope that that explanation will satisfy the noble Duke that we have examined his Amendment carefully, and that there are good reasons for recommending non-acceptance.

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL

I appreciate the noble Lord's point, but there are difficulties over this matter, as I am sure he will be the first to admit. So often cars are abandoned with their number plates removed. In these cases it is almost impossible to prove that the occupier did not knowingly allow the car to be abandoned on his ground. However much one claims one did not, it is very difficult to prove that one did not. Therefore, I should have thought that the onus of proof in these cases ought to be on the authority to prove that the occupier knowingly allowed the car to be abandoned on his land. A certain point of principle is involved and it is not a purely academic Amendment. So I should be grateful if the noble Lord would look at it again to find out whether he can arrive at some compromise which deals with cars, which are one of the main difficulties.

Another difficulty is where people arrive with a trailer-load of stuff and dump it on your ground without so much as asking, "By your leave." In that case, it is probably easier to prove that the occupier has not knowingly allowed the tipping on his land. I would also point out to the noble Lord that, on the whole, it is much easier to prove a positive than a negative, and therefore it is easier to prove that people did something rather than that they did not do something. So I hope that the noble Lord will look at the point again to see whether he can cover what I regard as rather a fundamental principle of justice; that a man should be innocent until he is proved guilty. With those words, at any rate at this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

BARONESS YOUNG

Before the Amendment is withdrawn, may I say that I have listened with great interest to what the noble Duke said. I hesitated to intervene, because this is not an alteration from the original Bill. But I felt that the noble Duke, the Duke of Atholl, was making a very real point, and I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, to consider it.

LORD GARNSWORTHY

I am glad to say for myself that certainly I will ensure that this matter is looked at. That is said without any kind of commitment. What the noble Duke has said will be examined and, certainly, note will be taken of the interest of the noble Baroness, Lady Young.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 15 agreed to.

Clause 16 [Special provisions with respect to certain dangerous or intractable waste]:

6.38 p.m.

LORD GARNSWORTHY moved Amendment No. 23: Page 25, leave out from beginning of line 41 to end of line 3 on page 26 and insert— (1) If the Secretary of State considers that controlled waste of any kind is or may be so dangerous or difficult to dispose of that special provision in pursuance of this subsection is required for the disposal of waste of that kind by disposal authorities or other persons, it shall be his duty to make provision by regulations for the disposal of waste of that kind (hereafter in this section referred to as "special waste") and, without prejudice to the generality of the Secretary of State's power to make regulations in pursuance of the preceding provisions of this subsection, any such regulations may include provision—

The noble Lord said: As the noble Lord, Lord Ashby, is not present—my noble friend Lord Shepherd has his name against this Amendment—may I move Amendment No. 23 on his behalf. Its purpose is to oblige the Secretary of State to make regulations prescribing special provisions for the disposal of those controlled wastes which he considers are dangerous or difficult to dispose of—defined as "special wastes". The clause as drafted at present provides that the Secretary of State may make regulations for dealing with dangerous or intractable wastes. It is certainly the intention to introduce a special authorisation procedure for dealing with such wastes, to replace the present Deposit of Poisonous Waste Act notification procedure, and the Department's Working Group on the Special Authorisation Procedure for Toxic Wastes is at present examining the detailed proposals and identifying those wastes which will need to be controlled. However, the clause as drafted may give the impression that the Secretary of State has only a discretionary power; that is to say, he will only introduce the new procedure if he thinks fit, and that toxic waste control will in some way fail to be sufficiently comprehensive. The Amendment proposed will ensure that the Secretary of State will be under a duty to introduce control over special wastes, where appropriate. This is essentially a matter of reassurance, since the Secretary of State does intend to keep dangerous waste under firm control. However, I think that it will be an advantage to have the position clearly established. I beg to move.

VISCOUNT AMORY

in spite of what the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, has said, I slightly prefer the wording of the clause as it stands which gives the Minister a discretionary power, not a duty. This is on the grounds that in all of the legislation affecting local authorities that we have had over the past few years, Ministers on both sides of the House have been at pains to say that they wish to leave the maximum discretion to local authorities. I should have thought that the change which is proposed here slightly reduces the discretionary power of the local authorities, and that the discretionary power which the clause, as it stands, gives to the Minister would be just about sufficient.

LORD ZUCKERMAN

I do not wish to speak to the point just made by the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, but may I say that the purpose both of the original drafting and of this Amendment seems to me to be absolutely first-rate. However, it stimulates me to make this general point—one, indeed, which I made on Second Reading and one which I could have also made on other Amendments which have been discussed this afternoon; namely, whether powers are discretionary or whether they are obligatory. All that is said here is that the Secretary of State, in the case of these very toxic substances, will be required or will have the discretion to make regulations. However, these are regulations to do certain things, and the things concerned are highly costly. I believe that I have some idea of the kind of plant which would be necessary to look after some of the toxic substances that may be considered by the Departmental Committee which I understand is sitting. The plant is immensely expensive. This clause says that the disposal authorities—and I imagine that the disposal authorities here are the local authorities—will have to find that money.

I might have made the same point on the Amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, moved on Clause 11—that is, Amendment No. 14—where the collection authority could contribute towards the cost incurred by another person, et cetera. All that is going to cost money, and I find myself asking: where is it going, to come from? This is the point which I made during the course of the Second Reading debate. It is possible, of course, that on Amendment No. 76 to Clause 8 the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, may be raising the point of finance; I do not know. However, at the present moment all we are told is that the effect of the whole of this Bill on Government expenditure will be very small, or that it will mean employing some 25 new members of staff in the central department; and in order to carry out their new functions that the new local authorities may need, over a period, to employ and pay additional staff. There is much more involved than that. I have the feeling that we are trying to bite off far more than can possibly be chewed. I recall that during the course of the Second World War there was a slogan, "Give us the tools and we will finish the job". That was turned round, as a joke, to "Give us the job and we will finish the tools". I have a feeling that what we are saying here is, "Here is a major job. Sorry, no tools".

LORD GARNSWORTHY

First of all, with regard to the comments of the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, may I say that I hope the Committee will accept this Amendment. We will certainly look at the situation again. If we find that the original drafting is better than the Amendment, then I think there is no doubt that we shall want to put the Bill right. At the moment, however, I must say that I have been persuaded that the Amendment is an improvement upon the original drafting.

The points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Zuckerman, are as important as they are interesting. Some of the procedures are, of course, going to be very costly, and indeed he is right in saying that local authorities will be asking where the money is coming from. I have no doubt that before we have finished the Committee stage we shall be returning to this point again.

I had a very good reason for appreciating this when I was discussing it with members of a local authority. They were very enthusiastic about the whole subject and said: "We hope that you are now going to tell us where the money is coming from, because we are not only willing but very anxious to do as much as we can". At this stage nobody in the present economic climate could go too far on this one, and I hope that the Government's position is quite clear. They accept that many of the things which they would like to do will have to wait and that we shall need to have a proper order of priorities when it comes to disbursing the monetary resources available. I hope that the Committee will accept the Amendment.

VISCOUNT SIMON

Before the Committee expresses its view, may I put to the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, a point which I do not think is quite the same point as has already been made. If we accept an Amendment which makes something mandatory upon the Secretary of State, will he not have to produce immediately, or as soon as he possibly can, regulations in regard to all the possible toxic substances which might be found in waste? Your Lordships will have to go through the whole list and produce regulations for them. I should have thought that the provision in the Bill as it stands is preferable. When it is known that certain toxic materials are appearing in waste the Secretary of State can then make the necessary regulations. It seems to me that if he has an obligation to make regulations in regard to any substance that may be dangerous or difficult to dispose of, in his mind he has got to go through every possible substance which he can think of and make regulations to deal with them. Surely that would be a tremendous burden upon the Secretary of State.

LORD GARNSWORTHY

I appreciate that the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, is making the same point as was made by the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, and reinforcing it. This is clearly a matter that must be looked at. If your Lordships wish, we can return to it at Report stage, but we will look at it in the meantime. Certainly our minds are not closed at the present time. If your Lordships are prepared to accept this Amend- ment now, we can come back to the point at Report stage.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 16, as amended agreed to.

Clause 17 [Application of preceding provisions to other waste]:

On Question, Whether Clause 17 shall stand part of the Bill?

6.50 p.m.

LORD MERRIVALE

Earlier this afternoon I certainly took the point of the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, when he expressed the wish that one ought not, in the interest of brevity, to make general observations on the Question, Whether the clause shall stand part; but with your Lordships' permission I have a specific point I should like to raise now. As this clause stands, it is explicit that the power to bring waste under the provisions of Clauses 1 to 10 and 13 to 16 is directed at mine and quarry waste and waste from agriculture.

If I may confine my remarks to mine and quarry waste, by virtue of the General Development Order 1973, Clause 19, Schedule 1 and development permitted under Article 3, a mineral undertaker is at present able, without obtaining planning permission, to deposit or licence other people to deposit refuse or waste material in excavations made by such undertaker and already lawfully used for that purpose, and that is up to the level of the adjoining land. It seems to me that the bringing of mine and quarry waste under the control of waste disposal authorities would therefore in effect take away an existing right from mineral undertakers. If, in effect, there is to be a limitation of this right, can the Minister give an assurance that the power to extend the control would be used only in an emergency and operated selectively? I think one should take into consideration the fact that by far the greater part of controlled mine and quarry waste consists of harmless substances.

To conclude, as Clause 24(3)(c)(ii) refers to waste from any mine or quarry, may I therefore emphasise my hope that the regulation would be selective, applying to a particular type of working or even to a particular working. I apologise for not having given notice of this strict point, but if the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, cannot give me an answer now possibly he can do so at a later stage, or alternatively write to me.

6.53 p.m.

LORD SANDFORD

I wonder whether the noble Lord would allow me a moment to intervene here because my noble friend Lord Merrivale has introduced a subject of which I gave the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, notice and which I was to raise on my Amendment No. 27 to Clause 24. As the subject is now before the Committee it might save time if I spoke on it now. The purpose of Amendment No. 27 is to invite the noble Lord to justify more fully than has been done so far during the passage of this Bill, the exclusion of this kind of waste from the provisions of the Bill. For my own part, I suggest that the right moment to do this would not be immediately, unless the noble Lord particularly wishes to, but at the Report stage.

The point I wish to make is rather different from that made by my noble friend. It is that we now have immensely strengthened powers for controlling damage to the environment by wastes of various kinds, but the fact is that the waste arising from mines and quarries and collieries in particular is some of the most damaging and most harmful of any kind of waste. We have a very costly reclamation programme under way to deal with the dereliction caused by abandoned mines. New and recent mines are subject to full reclamation conditions, but the mines that are operating under the General Development Order have neither working conditions nor reclamation conditions attached to them, and more and more derelict land is being created as the mines work on. I am aware that from about two or three years ago a special effort was made to reach agreement with bodies such as the National Coal Board so that the tipping that they were doing, albeit without any control on it, was in fact to be conducted in the future so as to contribute to—rather than to do the opposite to—the work of eventual reclamation. That is the point to which I should like the noble Lord to respond, not necessarily now but at the Report stage, so that we can see that the exclusion of waste from mines and quarries is justified because the problem is being tackled in some other way.

BARONESS WHITE

Before my noble friend replies, may I say briefly how strongly I support the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, in this matter. It is quite true that under Clause 17 provision is made for future action, but the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, is quite right in saying that more and more derelict land is created in mining areas. In some areas there is a reasonably conscientious approach to this matter; in others it is not so satisfactory. I do not wish to delay the Committee by going in to further detail but simply to support strongly what the noble Lord has said.

LORD GARNSWORTHY

In response to the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, and partly in response to questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, and the interest of my noble friend Lady White, may I make these remarks in regard to mining and quarry waste. There are very large quantities of waste involved here, most of which for practical and economic reasons have to remain near where they are produced. The accumulation of such wastes is already subject to special control under mines and quarries legislation by the mines and quarries inspectorate. It is also subject to planning control, though the effectiveness of this is not considered to be wholly satisfactory, and is currently being reviewed by the Stevens Committee on planning, control over mineral operations. In view of these existing controls, and because of the reservations of the National Coal Board, it has been decided not to apply Part 1 to this category of waste at the outset. It has been agreed, however, that further studies of the problem, particularly in relation to potential pollution from mining and quarry waste, should be made when the Stevens Committee has reported. If it then appears that some type of mine waste or mineral operation should be regulated under Part 1, Clause 17 regulations could achieve this.

The noble Lord, Lord Sandford, raised the issues covered by Amendment No. 27 and, although he indicated that it is something with which we might deal at Report stage, it might be helpful if I were to deal with it now. The effect of this Amendment is to include in the industrial waste category waste from mines or quarries which is at present excluded from both the industrial and commercial waste categories.

We accept that there is a number of aspects arising out of the creation of tips or spoil heaps which may give rise to public concern, and various controls already exist. The Planning Authorities look after amenity and other planning considerations under the Planning Acts and Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Mines and Quarries keep the physical condition and safety of tips under surveillance under mines and quarries legislation. The most serious pollution problem that is likely to arise on these tips is water pollution from the run-off or percolate. This may give rise to an offence of water pollution in Part II of the Bill under Clause 25, and in some cases the water authority may be able to regulate or control in advance the potentially polluting effects of a mine waste tip by the consent procedure of Clause 26.

Given all these controls, it is not clear that there is any immediate need to subject mine and quarry waste to additional control under Part I of the Bill. But further investigation of the possibility of the nuisance of pollution from mine and quarry waste may be desirable at some stage, and Clause 17 will provide the means for bringing this kind of waste under tighter control if it is then thought necessary. Before reaching any decisions on this matter it is considered desirable, as I have already indicated, to await the results of the Stevens Committee which is currently considering the question of planning control over mineral operations.

Of course, it is recognised that it is important to achieve fully integrated planning of the disposal of all kinds of waste, including mining waste. This is because the optimum waste disposal strategy for an area might sometimes involve transporting some relatively inert mining or quarry wastes to provide a useful mix-material with either industrial or domestic wastes at a disposal site; conversely mines or quarries may provide useful sites for disposing of other wastes in the course of restoration of the site.

It is desirable that these possibilities should be reviewed comprehensively by the waste disposal authorities in the course of preparing their waste disposal plans; and they should therefore be able to seek information and assistance from mineral operators and extractors in the same way as from other waste producers in the course of preparing plans. This they can do under Clause 18, pending any under-treatment of mining wastes under Clause 17. I hope it will be helpful for that explanation to be on record. If we return to this at a later stage, the position of the Government will be known in advance.

Clause 17 agreed to.

Clause 18 agreed to.

7.2 p.m.

BARONESS YOUNG moved Amendment No. 24: After Clause 18 insert the following new clause:

Control of sanitary appliances on trains

. The Secretary of State shall, by order, require that all classes of passenger trains operated by British Rail shall be provided with approved sanitary appliances, to a standard and by a date to be determined by the order.

The noble Baroness said: In moving this Amendment I am very conscious that I am raising something quite new. This did not appear in the Protection of the Environment Bill, and it may well be that the first answer I shall get from the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, is, "Why did you not put it in?" The principal reason why I raise this matter is that it has come to my attention that British Rail would have to fit some such appliance to trains that will use the Channel Tunnel, if it comes to be built, and therefore it is a question to which they must be addressing themselves at this moment in time.

However, what this Amendment seeks to do is to put right something which I think we should all regard as an undesirable practice; that at present the lavatories on British Rail trains discharge what is essentially untreated raw waste directly on the tracks when the train is in motion. This seems such an obviously unsatisfactory practice in relation to everything else being considered in this Bill that I feel it is right to raise it. British Rail have assured me that their present methods of disposal entail virtually no health hazard since toxicity ceases within 24 hours. They are currently experimenting with improved methods, such as chemical and recycling schemes. Be that as it may, considered in relation to the provisions of this Bill under Clause 27(1), where wide-ranging powers are conferred on water authorities to regulate by by-law the use of vessels without sanitary appliances on inland waterways and actually prohibiting their use after 1978, I think we all agree that this is a very right provision. I understand that aircraft have to make some kind of similar provision.

What is being asked for in this clause is that British Rail should be brought within it as well. I understand that they will have to introduce something for their trains if the Channel Tunnel is built and they propose to use it. I understand that if they did introduce some such system, they would want to harmonise their arrangements with what happens in Europe. Be that as it may, I ask the Government whether they would consider this clause. I have no doubt that it is incorrectly drafted. I do not expect necessarily that anything can happen at this stage of the Bill in this House, but it seems to me that it raises an important matter of principle. Therefore, I would hope that at least before the Bill concludes its passage in another place, the Government will be able to bring forward a suitably drafted clause that would meet this point to bring British Rail up to the standard which is being asked of private individuals using boats, and possibly about the same time, in 1978. I beg to move.

LORD HALE

If the noble Lord will allow me to make a brief intervention I would say that I am happy to welcome this clause. Having heard the explanation of the noble Baroness, I agree with almost every word of it, including the observation that the clause is not very well drafted. I had hoped that she was referring quite definitely to every passenger train. I had hoped very briefly to call attention to this because I do not think it falls clearly within the ambit of the Bill, because we must consider the conditions in which people travel on trains, not just in the Channel Tunnel, but in trains taking them to work and carrying them home from work. People travel in appalling conditions from little stations into London, little stations which do not have what she so tactfully described as sanitary conveniences for either of the two sexes, and which are a serious menace to the health of old people.

We should take this opportunity or calling attention to the fact that although we hear a great deal about the Channel Tunnel, we hear a lot about the Inter-City train which Her Majesty the Queen successfully drove into Scotland a day or two ago (and then heard that the regular driver had it break down under his hands the following day), but we do not hear a word about the people who pay for this, and who travel from little stations in Kent and other such places into Victoria Station. This station is an appalling scandal. There has been a temporary urinal there for nearly twelve months which would have given a medical officer typhoid if he had closely inspected it.

While not pursuing this further, because I have been out of order too long already (or would have been under the rules of another place), I must say that we are getting to the position where one might risk the joke at which I used to laugh till the tears ran down my pinafore. This was the one about the French lady arriving at Victoria and saying to a policeman, "Où et le cabinet?" And the policeman replied, "Numero dix de Rue de Downing". There is also the matter of the Tube, and the position on the suburban railways, where never a cent is spent on the passengers. This is a matter to which we should draw attention. I think the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, will rebuke me for following up too closely the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Young. On this occasion I cannot offer her any further vote or support.

LORD GARNSWORTHY

I had no intention of chiding the noble Baroness, Lady Young, for not being concerned with this particular matter when she was responsible for the previous Bill in your Lordships' House. I must say that privately I wondered whether she had changed her route and found something rather objectionable on the railway line that she is now using. But quite seriously, we shall take note of what she has had to say. I am disposed to make no use of the brief I have before me. In response to what has been said, and to the undoubted depth of feeling shown by my noble friend Lord Hale, if this Amendment is not pressed this evening I will give an undertaking that the matter will be looked at between now and Report stage, if possible, but certainly before the Bill is passed. It will be looked at as urgently as it can be. I think the noble Baroness appreciates the pressure under which everyone is working. She referred to it earlier this afternoon. May I say I have appreciated the co-operation she and others have shown in what is a very difficult situation, having regard to the time schedule.

BARONESS YOUNG

May I thank the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, very much for that assurance. Just in case any of my remarks might have been misunderstood, I hope that when he does consider it the noble Lord will mean this to be an obligation on all the passenger trains of British Rail. I simply used the Channel Tunnel because being rather practically minded, I have found in public life that if an authority actually has to start looking at something, it encourages it to get on with it more quickly. This seemed to be a good opportunity to raise the matter, and that is why, as it were, I hung my argument on this particular matter. However, I think the argument stands whether or not the Channel Tunnel is built. I also think that the clause should be there; it is just as important. I am most grateful to the noble Lord and beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 19 agreed to.

Clause 20 [Litter]:

LORD GARNSWORTHY moved Amendment No. 25: Page 29, line 11, leave out ("In this") and insert— (1A) The preceding subsection shall apply to Greater London and the Greater London Council as it applies to a county and the council of a county, and in that".

The noble Lord said: Clause 20 requires county councils in England to consult with the other local authorities in their area and with other interested parties to formulate proposals for dealing with the litter problem in their area. It had always been intended that the Greater London Council should be given a similar duty to consult about litter in London, but it was left out by an oversight. The Amendment corrects this. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

On Question, Whether Clause 20, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?

7.12 p.m.

BARONESS YOUNG

This is in effect a debate on whether the clause shall stand part. I am very conscious of the words of the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, and I do not wish to take the Committee into an immensely detailed discussion of the problem of litter. It is one, of course, that is of great importance. It was mentioned by many noble Lords at the Second Reading debate, and of course on many occasions during the eight days we had in Committee on the former Bill. It seems to me that if one does not take an opportunity of looking at some of the problems and some of the solutions to them on an occasion like this, one is not using these opportunities for educating the public in a wider way on what this essentially enabling Bill is trying to do with control of pollution of all sorts.

I should like to mention some of the things which, on looking at this problem, I have now discovered are being done. I hope very much that the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, will, in the first instance, be able to give an assurance that the Government grant which is being given to the Keep Britain Tidy group will be maintained at its present level, and indeed I hope increased. It is a matching pound for pound grant. I do believe this is an organisation which has gone a very long way in trying to solve this very difficult problem. In particular it seems to me that it is supporting two very useful pieces of research. I think we all have our own pet ideas as to how we might solve the litter problem, whether by more swingeing fines, greater enforcement of the law, more education, more litter baskets, or fewer litter baskets to encourage everybody to carry their rubbish home, or indeed insisting that the whole habit of having non-returnable bottles should cease immediately. What I think we do not really know is why people drop litter, and it seems to me it would be useful for local authorities to know what research is being done into this problem and also into the most effective ways of using education to try and get people to understand what a menace this is.

It is on these two particular points that it seems to me the Keep Britain Tidy group is doing very useful work. This research, as I understand it, into the reasons why people drop litter is being done at the University of Sussex. The other piece of research, which I think will be of particular benefit to teachers, on the best way of encouraging children not to drop litter, is being done at the Brighton Polytechnic. I also hope that the local authorities will be able to make use of work being done for the Council for Environmental Education. In my former local government days I was a member of this Council when it started, and it seemed to me it was doing very useful work in educating teachers on how to show children how to behave, particularly in the country. Among other things it does is to say something on this problem of litter.

Another organisation which is interested in this is the Field Studies Council, which again is a private organisation, interested in matters of the environment. It seems to me that it is very necessary that the Government money which is being put into particularly the Keep Britain Tidy group should be maintained, and that the counties and the other local authorities who will be responsible for preparing these plans for the disposal of litter shall have the benefit of all the advice that is going, so that they may be able to deal with what I think we all regret is not simply a nuisance but a growing nuisance, and at times a danger to the whole of the countryside.

LORD GARNSWORTHY

It is a little difficult to understand this, because in point of fact this clause was included in the noble Baroness's own Protection of the Environment Bill on substantially the same lines as it now appears. So far as the Government are concerned, they recognise that there is a universal and growing desire among the public to see effective action taken to deal with the litter problem. I think that Clause 20 is a useful step in this direction. I do not say that it is a complete or final answer, if indeed it it is possible to find a final answer; I doubt that very much. But I am sure it is right and desirable that the local authorities should be brought face to face with their responsibilities in this matter and should be required, as the clause proposes, to consult together as to how best to deal with it and to make positive plans to this end. As my noble friend Lord Shepherd made clear in opening the Second Reading debate, the litter problem concerns us all and needs the efforts of everyone in the community to tackle it. But there is certainly a role for local authorities in orchestrating these efforts, and the clause proposes just this.

If I may answer in a general way the points raised by the noble Baroness, let me say that we will study what she has said. The answer is that there is no question of reducing the responsibility of the district authorities or indeed the parish councils in this matter. But when it comes to planning over a larger area, arranging large-scale publicity, liaising with education authorities and with national bodies such as the noble Baroness mentioned, the Keep Britain Tidy group or the Field Studies Council, then the counties with their larger resources and wider areas of concern are the natural bodies to co-ordinate these activities. They will, of course, have to act in close co-operation with the district and other authorities; as I have indicated, there is no question of them taking over responsibility from these other bodies.

The noble Baroness inquired whether the grants being paid at the moment would be maintained. I should indeed be sorry if I thought there was going to be any reduction. Importance has been given and is being given to the organisations that are fulfilling the very useful role mentioned by the noble Baroness. I hope that this clause will not be pressed to a Division.

BARONESS YOUNG

As I indicated at the beginning, I only spoke on this to raise the whole question of the litter problem. Of course I do not intend to press this to a Division. I am glad of the assurance the noble Lord has given.

Clause 20, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 21 agreed to.

Clause 22 [Interference with refuse tips and dustbins, etc.]:

7.20 p.m.

BARONESS WHITE moved Amendment No. 26: Page 31, line 7, leave out paragraph (b).

The noble Baroness said: I am breaking my self-denying ordinance on this Bill to move this Amendment, primarily to inquire of my noble friend whether subsection (1)(b) could be taken to refer to skips; in other words, large containers on the highway which frequently contain a quite different sort of refuse from the normal dustbin. If I am correct in supposing that this could cover skips which can be used not only for builders' rubble but for household waste—for instance, when people are moving from houses, or having their houses improved and they throw out a great many things some of which could be useful to other folk—it should not be regarded as a crime punishable by a fine of £100 if one helped oneself to something which had not been taken away by the builders.

We had a long discussion on a similar clause in earlier legislation, and it did not seem satisfactory to us that even dustbins should be subject to these penalties.

I am influenced in moving this Amendment by some young friends of mine who assure me that they have very largely equipped their flats from the contents of skips. They cannot see why it should be a crime to help yourself to a few tiles that have been thrown out, or a piece of carpet, or anything of that sort which does not seem to be of much interest to anybody else. I was particularly moved by what one of my friends told me of his experience, because he gave up a well-paid job in the public service—and he has considerable professional qualifications—in order to take a job at a pittance working for an amenity society concerned with conservation. It seems to me that if a person of his kind were brought up before magistrates for having helped himself to a few Victorian tiles from a skip, then there is something wrong with our legislation. It is for this reason that I beg to move this Amendment.

LORD DAVIES OF LEEK

I should like to support my noble friend. It is absurd to make it an offence to search through skips. I think of the destruction of old hospitals when new ones are being built, when something vital, such as a radioactive needle, may accidentally get into a skip. It would be absurd to have a law that made it impossible for somebody to search in a skip for poisons, or things like radioactive isotopes that may have been put there owing to the destruction of an old hospital or theatre. I remember the debate on January 22, when the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, and my noble friend brought some of these points forward. I think I have said enough to make the point, and I hope that the Government will look at this Amendment sympathetically.

LORD RAGLAN

May too, support my noble friend Lady White on this Amendment? I shall be out of order, I suppose, if I refer to paragraph (a). I happen to know several people who have furnished their houses very adequately and well with some nice things from town tips and out of skips—things which are now out of fashion and have been discarded, or which have one chair leg broken or the seat gone through, or which need recovering. They have gone to a tip and sorted the stuff over and found the most beautiful things which they have taken home and, being people of some capability, have mended. I do not see any reason why somebody may not go to a town tip or a skip to help himself to what people have discarded.

7.25 p.m.

LORD GARNSWORTHY

May I say to my noble friend Lord Davies of Leek that if he will read the clause he will see that it would not be difficult, if a radioactive needle were dropped into a skip, to get authorisation to sort over the skip and get it out. I do not think that we need be too worried about searching for items of that nature. I listened with interest to what my noble friends Lady White and Lord Raglan said about people furnishing flats from skips. I think that we ought to be a little careful before we give any kind of indication that people can quite freely take anything they want from skips. I should think that that is a rather dangerous area. There is an offence of stealing by finding, which calls for less initiative than searching skips.

I have known cases where people have got into quite serious trouble, because, as I said this afternoon, "There's brass in muck", and have helped themselves to waste material, only to find themselves in severe difficulty. We are not so harsh these days in the punishment we mete out, but I can recall one place where three men working in a factory finished up in gaol for periods of three or four months. We have to be careful before we give any kind of support to the idea that if there is a tip in the road you can go and pick out what you want. We have to be very careful indeed from the angle of public tidiness, because not everybody who sorts over a tip will leave the street clean. In any case, waste in skips could be subject to Clause 22.

Of course, under this Bill there would be no question of prosecuting any conservationist who was conducting a worthwhile recovery scheme, if that involved removing waste from skips. I should think that there would be no question about quite easily getting authorisation in order to do it. If there were prosecutions, we should hope that local authorities and the courts would be very reasonable, and would possibly find some means of distinguishing between those who were behaving responsibly and those who were behaving irresponsibly.

The clause has been amended since it was last before Parliament, and now the offence in paragraph (b) will not apply to a person entitled to the custody of the receptacle—about which my noble friend Lady White was concerned when we last discussed the matter in Committee—or to a person authorised by such a person to interfere with the contents of the receptacle, or to a person having the function of emptying the receptacle. When the Bill was last before Parliament, only a person having the function of emptying the receptacle was exempted from the offence. This was criticised by my noble friends Lady White and Lord Davies of Leek, and by my noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne. The clause has been amended quite deliberately to try to meet the point of ivew that they then expressed. I hope that my noble friend will not press this Amendment, in the light of what I have said.

BARONESS WHITE

I am grateful to my noble friend, and I entirely agree that the clause has been much improved compared with that which appeared in the earlier version of the Bill. It has removed the major absurdities of the clause as it was first presented to us. I shall not embarrass my noble friend by pressing this Amendment. Nevertheless, I feel that amateur "totting" has a great deal to be said for it, in certain circumstances. If, as my noble friend Lord Raglan said, some things are thrown out which seem to some people to be rubbish but are extremely valuable material to others, then common sense dictates that it should be possible to use them. We shall have to rely on the good sense of the courts in this matter, as in others. One can only hope that they will be sensible and recognise that this is not a great crime. In many circumstances it is the only sensible thing to do and prevents unnecessary waste. Nevertheless, in all the circumstances I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 22 agreed to.

Clause 23 agreed to.

Clause 24 [Interpretation etc. of Part I]:

LORD SANFORD moved Amendment No. 27: Page 33, line 19, leave out (", excluding waste from any mine or quarry").

The noble Lord said: We had a good discussion on this point on Clause 17 stand part and I only move the Amendment now in order to say that I am grateful for what the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy has said and will read his remarks. My present feeling, however, is that there is rather more to be said than he said about what can be done and is being done at the present time about the G.D.O. tips. I do not think it entirely meets my case to say that it can be left until the Stevens Committee Report. Perhaps he will consider that point and I will consider his remarks between now and the next stage. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 24 agreed to.

LORD SHEPHERD

May I congratulate the Committee on completing Part I of the Bill at 7.31 p.m., one minute behind schedule, but I suggest that this is an opportune moment for us to adjourn during pleasure until 8.30 p.m. I beg to move.

Moved accordingly, and on Question, Motion agreed to.

[The Sitting was suspended at twenty-nine minutes before eight o'clock and resumed at half past eight o'clock.]

Clause 25 [Control of pollution of rivers and coastal waters etc.]:

VISCOUNT COBHAM moved Amendment No. 27A: Page 34, line 13, after ("stream") insert (", reservoir").

The noble Viscount said: This is a small Amendment but for me the occasion is rather a big one since it is the first time I have had the privilege of making a speech to your Lordships. I ask therefore that your Lordships will show me the usual kindness which I believe is traditionally accorded to all maiden speakers. It may surprise some noble Lords that I have not spoken before, even though I have been a Member of this House for 25 years. I hope no one will feel that I have been discourteous; such, I assure you, has never been my intention, but because of my terms of office, first in New Zealand and then as a Member of the Royal Household, I have been precluded from making a speech in this House. Now, for the first time, I am breaking many years of silence. I said that this was a small Amendment and it would be helpful, I am sure, if I were to begin by saying that it is meant to be a purely probing Amendment. I do not want to divide the Committee but I want to be clear about the effect of Clause 25.

I had the privilege of being Chairman of a Select Committee of this House on Sport and Leisure, and in our Report we made certain recommendations on pollution. These may be welcome in relation to the Government's intentions to control pollution further, and I hope that the Bill will do much to clean up all those rivers and estuaries which are now so dirty and so often, except for the very unfastidious, wholly inappropriate for recreation. In our Report we drew attention to the great shortage of water which could be used for recreation, and said that this being so it was necessary to use all water that is available and to make the best use of it. Since pollution prevents the use of so much existing water, for bathing or fishing, for instance, a campaign to cut back pollution must and will extend the total amount of water available. We therefore welcome the clause. From its wording, however, I do not think it is made clear whether it covers reservoirs.

Clause 49, which affects to interpret the word "stream", I see includes all rivers, water courses and inland water, except any lake, loch or pond which does not discharge into a stream. There are also various other exceptions. Inasmuch as some reservoirs are known, I believe, as compensating or regulating reservoirs and do, in fact, discharge their water into a river or stream, I shall be very surprised if the Minister does not intend these to be covered by the Bill, although I believe the purist might cavil over the use of the word "stream" to describe "reservoir". But what about direct supply reservoirs? In my view all water that can possibly be used for recreation should be kept free from pollution and should be made available for that use.

So my first point is that the Government should, if this is their intention, make clear that all reservoirs are covered by this particular clause. Assuming then that all reservoirs are indeed meant to be covered by the clause, I have just one further point. I should like to know how the Secretary of State intends to use his powers under subsection (5) of the clause to prohibit the use of water for any purpose which might lead to pollution. In our Report attention was drawn to the fact that in the past certain authorities tended to deny to the public access to their water, be it reservoir or big lakes, on the grounds of possible pollution, disturbance or noise. I stress the word "possible", because the real truth was that they just did not want the public there at all. It may not surprise your Lordships to learn that the water which my family has been apparently safely drinking at Hagley for 230 years was recently condemned by the local authority as being wholly unfit for human consumption and even unfit to top up the swimming pool. I suppose it is true to say that the threat of bacilli, if improperly used, could well stop people enjoying themselves.

Our report urged that the trend towards making reservoirs publicly available for the more harmless forms of recreation should continue. I should not like to feel that the Secretary of State would now reverse this trend by using his powers under subsection (5). Reservoirs should be as readily available as is consistent with the need to maintain the quality of the water which they supply.

LORD SHEPHERD

Although I had the honour of introducing this Bill in your Lordships' House, I felt then, as I do still, slightly an interloper among the veterans—and I hasten to say to the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and to my noble friend Baronesss White veteran only in terms of pollution and the environment. However, the noble Viscount, Lord Cobham comes as an even greater interloper, as he has freely acknowledged that he now speaks to your Lordships' House for the first time in 25 years. I am not quite certain whether it was ingenuity or interest in this particular subject which caused the noble Viscount to make his maiden speech to-night at this late hour. I suspect that it was to clear the way for a perhaps more important speech immediately after the Whitsun Recess. The noble Viscount made a speech to which I am sure that my right honourable friend will pay very careful attention and I shall deal with it in a moment.

Under Clause 25(1)(a), it is an offence to cause or knowingly permit, "any poisonous, noxious or polluting matter to enter any stream or controlled waters …". The Amendment would change the provision to refer to, "any stream, reservoir, or controlled waters". "Stream" is defined in Clause 49(1) as including "any river, watercourse or inland waterway whether the river, watercourse or inland waterway is natural or artificial or above or below ground", except for certain exclusions, as the noble Viscount said. The noble Viscount will therefore not be surprised if I say that the definition which I have now read, in my opinion and that of my advisers, includes reservoirs. However, there is some doubt whether it would include reservoirs which have a roof over them, but this is a matter which I think will need some further consideration.

We are giving special attention to this clause and this subsection and we shall certainly take into account what the noble Viscount has said. In regard to his comments about the powers of the Secretary of State, I would say that it would certainly not be the intention of the Government to seek any increased restriction on the use of any of our waterways for leisure. I think one has only to go to Holland, in particular, to see how the Dutch have been able to exploit their water resources for the benefit of the community. Certainly, Clause 25(5) is not intended to be used to keep people away from reservoirs or other waters; the trend is strongly in the direction of making the reservoirs available for recreation. The provision is intended to keep other polluting activities away, or under strict control; for example, to restrict the establishment of pharmaceutical works, perhaps, on a small stream used as a source of the water supply.

I am sure that the Committee will feel that the noble Viscount has rendered a useful service by drawing our attention to the use of these waters, and I hope that he will accept the assurance of Her Majesty's Government in this respect. I also hope that the noble Viscount will not spoil one of the traditions of your Lordships' House, which is that when you make a maiden speech it is uncontroversial. I should therefore have thought that, to be really uncontroversial, he should now withdraw his Amendment.

LORD SANDFORD

Before my noble friend does that, may I, as the colleague of the Lord Privy Seal who set up the Select Committee of which my noble friend was Chairman, and as a Minister in the Department which is perhaps the chief beneficiary of the Select Committee's Report, say how much we on this side of the Committee should like to congratulate the noble Viscount on his maiden speech, and how much we all look forward to other speeches which he will no doubt now be making in your Lordships' House, particularly the next one.

VISCOUNT COBHAM

I am very glad indeed to have the assurance of the noble Lord the Leader of the House that Her Majesty's Government will study the two questions that I have raised. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

8.42 p.m.

VISCOUNT DILHORNE moved Amendment No. 27B: Page 34, line 22, at end insert: For the purposes of paragraph (a) of this subsection a Water Authority shall be deemed to cause or knowingly permit to enter relevant waters any poisonous, noxious, or polluting matter which passes into the relevant waters from any sewer or works vested in the Authority in any case where either the Water Authority were bound to receive the matter into the sewer or works or they consent to do so unconditionally or they consented to do so subject to conditions and those conditions were observed.

The noble and learned Viscount said: I beg to move the Manuscript Amendment which stands in my name. I must apologise to the Committee for it being a Manuscript Amendment. Unfortunately, a slip occurred after I handed it in yesterday, and it did not appear in the Marshalled List. I cannot claim that this Amendment is as uncontroversial as the last.

LORD MOLSON

What is the Amendment?

VISCOUNT DILHORNE

If the noble Lord will wait a moment, I will tell him. I believe that manuscript copies are available for everyone, but I shall tell the noble Lord in one moment if he will restrain his impatience. I was going to say that, now that the noble Viscount, Lord Cobham, is free to enter into controversy, having heard his speech on this clause a few minutes ago I hope he will take the opportunity to make a less uncontroversial speech in support of this Amendment. In case the noble Lord, Lord Molson, is in some doubt as to what this Amendment is, I will hand to him the manuscript copy which he could have obtained for himself, and I will deal with it in detail.

LORD MOLSON

If I had known it was available—

VISCOUNT DILHORNE

The noble Lord had only to keep his eyes open or ask a question, and he would have had a copy of it. Clause 25 of this Bill replaces the clause in the previous Bill, which in part reproduces Section 2(1) of the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Act 1951. This clause and its predecessor, as well as the clause in the 1951 Act, made it an offence for a person to cause or knowingly permit the discharge of any poisonous, noxious or polluting matter. into what are called in this Bill "relevant waters". I am not quite clear, after the debate we have just heard, whether or not they include a reservoir, but they are called "relevant waters"; that is to say, streams, controlled waters or any specified underground water. The essence of that offence, which was created in 1951, at least, and it may be before that, was the discharge of polluting matter. That offence is quite different, as the Committee will see, from the offence which will be created by Clause 26 of this Bill if it is enacted. That makes it an offence, amongst other things, if a person causes or knowingly permits any trade effluent or sewage effluent to be discharged into the relevant waters without the necessary consent.

Commission of that offence does not depend on proof that the effluent causes pollution. It depends on proof that there is such an effluent and it is discharged without consent. It is therefore a quite distinct and separate offence from that created by Clause 25. There is nothing to stop two summonses being issued and a person being prosecuted both under Section 25 and under Section 26. Clause 25, as I sought to indicate, is merely replacing in part the offence created by the 1951 Act, and in relation to the 1951 Act this particular problem was tackled. A local authority may be bound to receive into its sewers and into its sewage disposal works polluting matter. It may also have consented to do so unconditionally or have done so subject to conditions which have been observed. Then the pollution may be caused by that matter entering a stream from the sewage disposal works.

There was the possibility that if a prosecution against that local authority was started, the local authority could say, "We did not cause this pollution; it was the people who tipped it into our sewer who caused it and it flowed through our sewage disposal works into the river; therefore we are not guilty. You must find the person who tipped it into our sewers and if you cannot find him you will not be able to stop the pollution." To stop that possible line of defence the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Act 1951, Section 2(1) provided— … a local authority shall be deemed to cause or knowingly permit to enter a stream any poisonous, noxious or polluting matter, which passes into the stream from any sewer or sewage disposal works vested in them, in any case where either the local authority were bound to receive the matter into the sewer or sewage disposal works, or they consented to do so unconditionally, or they consented to do so subject to conditions and those conditions were observed". So that effectively prevented a local authority, once you proved that a polluting discharge came from their sewage works or their sewers, from saying, "We did not cause it, we did not knowingly permit it and therefore we cannot be convicted". I think myself that that is an important provision.

I raised this point, as the noble Baroness, Lady Young, may perhaps remember, when she was in charge of this Bill in its original form. Clause 25 as it now stands permits a local authority to put forward a defence which they were prohibited by that part of the Act of 1951 which I have just read from putting forward before now when prosecuted for pollution. I think I am right in saying (I will no doubt be corrected if I am wrong) that a water authority is now responsible for sewage and sewage disposal. But this responsibility may also rest on district councils and London borough councils, and so I take the view that what was in the 1951 Act is just as necessary now as it was in 1951 and should be included in this clause of this Bill and that is what this Amendment is seeking to do.

On April 29, the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, wrote to me, as I expect he did to a great many other people, asking for support in securing the speedy progress of this Bill—a support which I can assure him I shall give, and give most readily, if he will go some way to meet me. I certainly do not wish to obstruct the passage of this Bill. In the course of his letter the noble Lord said this: A further point where we have made changes occurs in subsection (4) of Clause 26, which I hope you will recognise and welcome as the response, if a somewhat belated one, to your insistence that something equivalent to the latter half of subsection (1) of Section 2 of the 1951 Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Act was required in this Bill. I received that letter while I was in the country and had not a copy of the Bill available. I took it—as the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, himself probably did—that the point I raised on the previous Bill had been fully met. It was only yesterday that my attention was drawn to the fact—and I am sorry to say it is the fact—that in relation to the polluting offence created by Section 25 it has not, as your Lordships will see, been met at all; hence the tabling of this Amendment.

When one looks at Clause 26—and perhaps I might deal with that now and so save time—one finds that that, again, refers to the offence of causing or knowingly permitting a discharge without consent. It would be possible for a local authority or a water authority to put forward the same kind of defence as I have indicated; that of saying, "We did not cause it; we did not permit it, because someone else has tipped it into our sewers." So I believe it is the case that an Amendment similar to that which I am proposing is required to Section 26. However, I have not tabled such an Amendment, and I will say immediately that it is for this reason. I thought it might be unfair to spring this on the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd—who, I am sure, thought (as I did) that my point had been met—at such short notice. But the point has not been met, as your Lordships will see by looking at Clause 26(4). There is nothing in it to say that a local authority or water authority shall be deemed, in the circumstances I have mentioned, to have caused or to have knowingly permitted the discharge. Section 26(4) says nothing of the sort.

What it says is something entirely different, and perhaps I might read it: (4) A water authority shall not be guilty of an offence by virtue of subsection (1) of this section by reason only of the fact that a discharge from a sewer or works vested in the authority contravenes conditions of a consent relating to the discharge if—

1. (a) the contravention is attributable to a discharge which another person caused or permitted to be made into the sewer or works; and
2. (b) the authority either was not bound to receive the discharge into the sewer or works or was bound to receive it there subject to conditions but the conditions were not observed; and
3. (c) the authority could not reasonably have been expected to prevent the discharge into the sewer or works;".

That is a very different thing from saying that, in certain circumstances, a water authority shall be deemed to be responsible for the discharge. It is saying exactly the opposite; that in certain circumstances it shall not be responsible. It is; in fact, providing a new defence to a water authority.

It may be said—and I think perhaps the difficulty here lies very largely in the drafting—that it is implicit in the section as drafted that if those conditions are not fulfilled, then the water authority is to be taken as having caused or having knowingly permitted the discharge. If that argument is put forward, I say to the noble Lord that if one is asked to imply that into the Statute it ought to be expressly stated and not done in this veiled fashion. I am by no means certain the courts would hold that that was to be implied, and if the courts did not so hold this subsection (4) would not prevent a water authority from saying, "We did not cause this. We did not knowingly permit it. Someone else put it into our sewers or works." That is what I want to see nailed, as it was under the 1951 Act.

I have dealt with this matter as shortly as I can, and I hope that I have made my points clear. It may be that in Clause 26(4) it is a matter of tortuous, bad drafting. It is not the first instance of that in this Bill, I am sorry to say. But the omission from Clause 25 I regard as a serious matter. I can tell the noble Lord, if it will give him any comfort, that I do not propose to divide the Committee on this important Amendment to-night, if I get satisfactory assurances from him that he will consider it carefully. But I feel strongly about it. I may have misled him to some extent, because what I said in reply to his letter—and I have quoted the passage from his letter—was that there were only two points that I would raise in Committee. Unfortunately, this is the third one and I am sorry not to have given him more notice of it. I beg to move.

LORD MOLSON

I rise to speak briefly and with a good deal of hesitation. I support the noble and learned Viscount in what he has said, because of the way in which he has expressed it. He has not expressed any hostility to the Bill as such, but he has raised very serious doubts as to whether it will be effective for what we understand to be its purpose, and the purpose which am sure the Lord Privy Seal has at heart.

Not having seen the Amendment of the learned and noble Viscount until he passed it to me, and finding the whole of this subject extremely difficult, I want to deal only with certain broad points of principle. For a quarter of a century, Parliament has been trying to ensure that there was less and less pollution of our rivers. Statute after Statute has been passed and they have not been as effective for that purpose as Parliament had supposed. I was advised by somebody with expert knowledge in these matters that much of the trouble arose out of this new situation. With the great advance of technology of all kinds, especially of chemical technology, effluent which cannot be dealt with by the normal, old-fashioned, classical sewage disposal plants, is discharged into sewers.

There has in the past been insufficient power for the local authorities which were responsible to find out from the industrialists and other people exactly what the nature of the effluent was that was being passed into these sewage works. On many occasions new and highly complex chemical substances were passed out of these works straight into the sewage works and into the streams, without having been broken down by the ordinary, old and established sewage works. I was given to understand that one of the most important things in any new legislation upon this subject was to fix the responsibility upon the people who originally discharged the effluent to make known exactly what that effluent was, in order to enable the sewage authorities to deal with it in a proper way; or if it could not be dealt with, not to discharge it at all and to take care of it themselves.

If I have understood the noble and learned Viscount's speech aright, he is of the opinion that in the drafting of these Amendments the responsibility is not carried clearly and plainly back to those people who create the effluent, and with ail his knowledge of the law—and knowledge of the law carries with it knowledge of the shortcomings of the law—he is not convinced that as the Bill is drafted at the present time there will be sufficient power to carry back the responsibility for pollution to those who originally caused it. If I have misunderstood his speech, I am sorry; but it is not easy to understand these things when they all arise at the last moment on a Manuscript Amendment. But I feel quite confident that the Lord Privy Seal, who I know intends this Bill to be perfectly effective for the purpose of dealing with pollution of all kinds, will look into the drafting of this provision to make quite certain that as the Bill emerges from this House it shall be effective for the purpose that I am sure he has at heart. We are indebted to the noble and learned Viscount for at any rate casting doubt upon the present drafting of the Bill, regarding whether it is going to be effective for this purpose.

9.3 p.m.

LORD SHEPHERD

I must confess that I find the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Molson, a little more acceptable than the speech and the tone of the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne. One would have thought that the noble and learned Viscount and I during the passage of this Bill and its consideration have been poles apart; but, as the Committee will see, there is a holy, or unholy, alliance between him and myself on a number of Amendments—holy or unholy depending on which side of the Committee my noble friends and noble Lords may be sitting.

The Amendment, as I see it, seeks to make it clear that where a water authority is bound to receive polluting matter into its sewers, or having consented to do so, and the matter is then permitted to enter relevant waters, the authority is to be deemed to have caused the matter to enter the relevant waters, and thus to have committed an offence under Clause 25(1). The first advice I must give to the noble and learned Viscount—and I do so remembering that he is a former Attorney General and a former Lord Chancellor—is that perhaps this Amendment would be more apt if it had been connected with Clause 26 and not Clause 25: because my understanding of Clause 25 is that it is for the control of pollution of rivers and coastal waters, whereas Clause 26 specifically deals with the control of discharges of trade and sewage effluent into rivers and coastal waters. We can deal with this later.

What we have attempted to do in the different context of Clause 26 is to meet the corresponding point. In our view, since the water authority is clearly in control of its sewage disposal works, it is prima facie the authority which causes or knowingly permits the discharge of sewage effluent from those works, unless the Bill specifically provides otherwise. I would draw the Committee's attention to the first few lines of subsection (1) of Clause 26: Subject to subsections (2) to (4) of this section, a person"— and this is an individual, or body corporate, or local authority— shall be guilty of an offence if he causes or knowingly permits … In other words, the responsibility clearly lies with the authority. Accordingly, in the first 13 lines of subsection (4) of Clause 26 we provide a defence for the water authority, when contravention of the conditions for discharge of the effluent is attributable to an illegal discharge into the sewer or works, while the final five lines are included to guard against any possibility that a water authority may argue that they did not cause or knowingly permit the discharge of matter which had been legally discharged into their sewers or works by some other person.

LORD HALE

The noble Lord is pursuing an argument which is impressing us all, but I do not think that he has referred to paragraph (c) of subsection (4) of Clause 26 which seems to me to provide a very special exemption, and one that is very much contrary to the spirit of the Bill.

LORD SHEPHERD

That, if I may say so, is another point but I will look into what my noble friend has said. I was not in any way trying to play with the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, but this is a matter about which there is undoubted conflict between the noble and learned Viscount, with his long experience in law and the interpretation of law, and those who have advised me who have many years of responsibility for drafting legislation. We all know that from time to time these two types of lawyer do not necessarily or always agree. I have listened very carefully to what the noble and learned Viscount has said. I have sought to explain to the Committee what has been the view of my advisers, which at this moment I have accepted.

What I should like to do, if the noble and learned Viscount would agree, is to refer this matter to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, so that we might have a meeting to discuss it, because I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Molson, that while we are passing this Bill we should, if we can, certainly get the law right. There is here a conflict, not of principle or of intention. It is merely a question whether the drafting meets the particular case. If the noble and learned Viscount will not threaten and bully me by threatening to divide if I cannot provide him with a reasonable answer, I hope that he will accept a reasonable answer as being a willingness not only to discuss with him but also to seek third party legal advice to see whether we can reconcile our minds on this particular difficulty.

9.10 p.m.

VISCOUNT DILHORNE

I do not think I need plead guilty to bullying or threatening the noble Lord. I thought I had made it perfectly clear that I was not proposing to divide the Committee at this stage on this particular Amendment. I am grateful to the noble Lord for what he has said, but it really does not meet the case that I put forward. Perhaps the difficulty is that he really has not had much time to consider it, and I must admit that I cannot have made myself very clear because my noble friend Lord Molson "muddied the waters" (if I may mix the metaphor) by getting hold of the wrong end of the stick. But I do not blame him for that, either. I ask the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, to bear in mind that the offence created by Clause 25 is a distinct and separate offence from that created by Clause 26 and what is provided in subsection (4) of Clause 26 has no application at all to a prosecution of a water authority for causing pollution under Clause 25.

I will not repeat all that I said before, but if what the noble Lord has said in his reply is right, that a water authority which is in control of the sewage works must be presumed to be the persons who cause or knowingly permit the discharge from that sewage works, then what he is saying is that the provision in the 1951 Act is wholly unnecessary. That really cannot be right.

The first point I put to the noble Lord is that there should be some provision in Clause 25. It is not enough to deal with it in Clause 26(4) because, as I repeat, Clause 26 refers to quite a different offence. It does not depend on proving pollution at all. It depends on proving that there is a discharge of a particular kind of effluent. It may not even be a polluting effluent; it is a sewage effluent; it may have been purified, but it is a discharge without the necessary consent. That is the essence of the offence under Clause 26 and there we have, not any deeming provision such as there is in the 1951 Act, but the converse, saying that there shall be a particular defence. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hale, for his intervention because I think it is quite new in this field to put forward as one of the conditions to be satisfied that the authority could not reasonably have been expected to prevent the discharge into the sewer or works.

I am not blaming the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd; I am sure he did his best as an amateur lawyer. I will not say any more than that; he might think, if I said any more, that it was derogatory. He did his best to deal with this on a Departmental brief but that brief is not satisfactory. I am perfectly willing to discuss this with the noble Lord and his advisors, or anyone else he may choose, in the hope that we can reach an amicable solution, as we have with other Amendments. Of course I shall not be so friendlily disposed towards him if he makes his wholly unwarranted observations about threatening him or bullying him, both of those things being completely impossible. I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

9.14 p.m.

LORD CRAIGTON moved Amendment No. 28: Page 35, line 41, at beginning insert ("having regard to all relevant factors including the protection of the environment,").

The noble Lord said: This is an Amendment to a clause which I think will be little used, but which has an important point in it. Subsection (3) of Clause 25 states: A person shall not … be guilty of an offence by … depositing the solid refuse of a mine", so that it falls or gets into a stream, if he deposits with the consent of the water authority and no other site for the deposit is reasonably practicable. My Amendment would have the clause read in this way: is reasonably practicable having regard to all relevant factors including the protection of the environment".

I envisage an unlikely case—although it could happen—where refuse has to be deposited in a stream and a decision has to be made by the person depositing as to what is "reasonably practicable". The yardstick used without such words as I want to add would undoubtedly be the expense. But when one is dealing with the control of pollution and with conservation, how does one measure the expense? How does one measure the expense of ruining a piece of land 10 miles away from a road in order to provide bottoming for it as compared with taking soil from a bing 100 miles away from the road, which costs more in travel but far less in despoiling the countryside.

As this is a piece of anti-pollution legislation, I want to make clear that the expression, "reasonably practicable", in terms of conservation of the landscape, includes having regard to all relevant factors including the protection of the environment. Even though I know it may never be used, if the noble Lord opposite could accept this Amendment he would for the first time be striking a blow for conservation and for what is coming to be known as "landscape evaluation", which will come sooner or later if we are to protect the landscape of this country. I beg to move.

LORD SHEPHERD

Subsection (3) of Clause 25, which this Amendment proposes to alter, provides a defence in connection with the disposal of mine or quarry waste. Mine waste is difficult to get rid of, because it is produced in large quantities and cannot easily be transported. Sometimes considerations of practicality and cost point to a site near a stream, and one of the issues which the subsection raises is whether there was a better site. If it were agreed that the wider environmental consideration had a bearing, it should surely rest with the planning authority and, as the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, explained in dealing with an identical Amendment in Committee on the Protection of the Environment Bill in the last Parliament on January 24, 1974, the Stevens Committee is already inquiring into planning control over mineral working.

In any event, I am not sure that the Amendment which the noble Lord has moved would have the result for which he hopes. There is some doubt about the working of the subsection as it stands, but broadly it comes into operation when an offence appears to have been committed under subsection (1)(b) of Clause 25. The mineral undertaker then has a defence if he can show three things—briefly; that he has the consent of the water authority to deposit the mineral waste on the land; that no other site is reasonably practicable; and that he has done what he could to prevent the waste entering the stream.

But modifying the second of these, to require regard to be had to—among other things—the protection of the environment, would, as it seems to me, merely give the mineral operator another possible defence. He would be able to say that even if the other site were reasonably practicable financially it was not suitable from the point of view of local amenity.

That does not seem to me to be a desirable result. If environmental considerations are to enter into the choice, it seems to me that they should do so at the outset, not after the damage has been done. While I should be glad to draw my right honourable friend's attention to what has been said in the debate, so that he may review the provision in the light of it, I think that we should not be well-advised to approve this Amendment to-day. As I said earlier in my speech to this Amendment, this paragraph is being looked at because we think a number of anomalies exist. We will certainly bear in mind what the noble Lord has said to-day and see whether we can meet him, but I must say that I do not think we can meet him entirely here because the principle would be wrong.

LORD CRAIGTON

I am very grateful to the noble Lord the Leader of the House. As his noble friend beside him said earlier, we may have a chance to fight another day in another place. I will read with care what he said. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD SHEPHERD

Before the noble Lord, Lord De Ramsey, moves Amendment No. 29, since the principle of compensation arises here, and it does on a number of other Amendments—Nos. 30, 59 and 79—I wonder whether the Committee would think it convenient to consider those other Amendments while we are discussing Amendment No. 29? I am entirely in the hands of the Committee.

LORD SANDFORD

Subject entirely to what the noble Lord, Lord De Ramsey, says, I would be happy to do that, and suggest that I might also speak to Nos. 57 and 58, in which Amendments I make the counter-proposal that instead of compensation the Government consider the question of making grants available.

LORD MOLSON

So far as Amendment No. 59 is concerned, which I put down, it would be most agreeable to me to speak to my point at the same time on the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord De Ramsey.

9.21 p.m.

LORD DE RAMSEY moved Amendment No. 29: Page 36, line 21, at end insert— (5A) If, after regulations are made under subsection (5) of this section, or a request is made under section 44 of this Act, a claim is made by any person in the manner prescribed by regulations under this Act and it is shown that the person has suffered damage, in consequence of the regulations or in compliance with the request, by the depreciation of the value of an interest in agricultural land to which he is entitled, the Water Authority in whose area the land is situated shall pay to that person compensation in respect of that damage.

The noble Lord said: In moving the Amendment in my name, may I say that it would be wholly agreeable to me to accept the suggestion of the noble Lord the Leader of the House to include the other Amendments which do hang together with this one. However, in moving the Amendment, may I say that I am sure it is right that the Government's wording of the Bill should be accepted, and if the noble Lord can accept the principle of compensation, then I am wholly willing to withdraw the Amendment.

I suppose, strictly speaking, I should declare an interest since, as a landowner and farmer, I could be put out of business, the same as anyone else, by this clause. Certainly the C.L.A. and the N.F.U., with whom I have long been connected, are very concerned. They cannot take the attitude that it may never happen or it may never happen to them. After all, the clause would not be in the Bill unless the Government thought they might need to exercise the powers. Perhaps it is beside the point, but I cannot see how it really affects anyone outside of agriculture, and this is borne out by the original wording of the clause specifically permitting good agricultural practice. It is true that a later clause describes even that point, if the Secretary of State considers it necessary.

It would be ungracious of me not to acknowledge an improvement in the present Bill, in that clauses have been inserted giving rights of appeal and generally ensuring that restrictive orders shall not be made without full and proper consideration, in which the Minister of Agriculture will have a part to play. However, I do not quarrel with the powers under this clause if they are necessary, but are they necessary, or rather are they justified in the light of present scientific knowledge? I wonder. I was in the Botanic Gardens at Cambridge last week and happened to ask about their irrigation, and it was explained to me that they had a 160 feet deep bore and thought the water came underground from the Biggleswade area, which is 20 miles away. Can the origin of water in an aquifer really be identified? I am dubious.

I must accept that the Government feel justified in seeking these powers and that the effects on agricultural production must be accepted. But the effects on the individual farmer could be so unfair that it is hard to believe that they have been fully understood. It is true that the Amendments the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, referred to in his name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Young, could, if acceptable to the Government, go far to resolve the difficulties of the stock farmer in a designated area by giving him adequate grants to comply with the new standards, but this will not help the arable farmer. His living depends on the use of organic and inorganic fertilisers on his crops, particularly the latter. Restrict the level of application and he will slowly go broke. Prescribe their use, and he will have to give up farming. It has always been meritorious to improve fertility of the land, but now it suddenly becomes a sin, and is called pollution.

I shall not go into the technical details that I felt obliged to explain last time when the original Bill was before your Lordships. I realise that I took up far too much of your Lordships' time, though I felt obliged to do so. I shall simply say that the powers to put a farmer out of business may be necessary and justified in the national interest, but to put him out of business without compensation cannot be justified. The industry to which I belong feels extremely strongly on this point, and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, will be able to help me. I beg to move.

9.27 p.m.

THE EARL OF COURTOWN

I rise to speak to the next Amendment, Amendment No. 30 on the Marshalled List, and also to an Amendment which is similar but related to a different Part, Amendment No. 79. This is the first time that I have spoken on the Committee stage of this Bill. I appreciate what the Government have done to improve the previous Bill, and many of the points that I have made in that Committee stage have been well met. The particular section that am referring to has not been changed since the previous Bill.

This Amendment provides the opportunity for compensation to be paid to a person whose activities, which have previously been perfectly legal, are prohibited or restricted, but at the same time allows payment to be at the discretion of the Secretary of State. It differs from Lord De Ramsey's Amendment particularly in its effect, in that it applies to business, to industry, as well as to agriculture, and the payment of compensation is at the discretion of the Secretary of State and not compulsory. I believe that the same principle applies to many small businesses which can equally be completely put out of operation by this section.

If such a person has been given planning permission to carry out certain activities which are then restricted or banned by regulations under this clause, then it is only fair that the Secretary of State should be able, if he thought fit, to pay compensation. Without some such Amendment he would not be able to do so even if he thought that, in equity, he should.

On the previous Committee stage this Amendment received considerable support from the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, and the noble Baroness, Lady White, among others, and the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, promised to examine it and return to the matter at the next stage, as a result of which I withdrew, the Amendment. On the Second Reading of this Bill, the noble Lord, the Leader of the House, said that the Government had not been able to accept arguments that agricultural and other interests should be compensated in these circumstances. He did not give reasons, but pointed out that in Clauses 33 and 44 they have now included mea- sures to allow an appeal to the Secretary of State to be made. However, in neither case may the Secretary of State give compensation, however much it may seem equitable or sensible to do so. Yet compensation is allowed under Clause 32 if a consent is revoked in certain circumstances. So there is already in another part of the Bill the ability to provide compensation if the Secretary of State thinks fit.

On Second Reading the noble Baroness, Lady White, referred to the continental practice of making capital grants to farmers in such circumstances to help them put in the required plant to purity their effluent to the required standard, and such a procedure might also be applied to industry in cases where activities previously perfectly legal are made illegal. As I understand it, Amendments Nos. 57 and 58, to which I think the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, is going to speak, deal only with agriculture and so they presumably would not apply in the case I am talking about. I therefore urge the Government to effect these Amendments or some suitable alternatives to allow compensation at the discretion of the Secretary of State.

LORD MIDDLETON

I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord De Ramsey, in his Amendment which deals with compensation for the depreciation of the value of an interest in agricultural land. May I very briefly refer to the concern which, if I may say so, has been rightly expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady White, as to how pollution from intensive agriculture will be dealt with. I do not think that there is any division of opinion among your Lordships on this matter. The pollution arises where livestock numbers and the land that goes with an intensive unit are grossly out of balance. Pollution by the effluent from an intensive unit always has been illegal and the problem becomes one of finance. The noble Baroness made some very interesting suggestions on Second Reading as to possible sources of finance.

Where the noble Lord, Lord De Ramsey, and I take issue with the Government is in the matter of the specially designated areas. I remember that when we debated this matter in Committee on the Protection of the Environment Bill, somebody asked the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, whether the Government then had any of these areas in mind, and the answer was: "No, the Government have not any of these areas in mind." The noble Lord, Lord Sandford, went on to say that he thought that there would be very few of them designated. The arguments for excluding any provision for compensation where a water authority restricts an activity in a special area, presumably are the same as was used by the last Government in January of this year.

When we debated this matter then it was said that there could be no departure from the principle that the polluter pays. With the fact that this principle is sound and fair I do not think any farmer would disagree. It is, as I have said, illegal to let his effluent get into water courses, and any farm activity that has this effect will certainly not form part of any code of practice approved by the Minister of Agriculture. He knows he must pay for such works as are necessary to prevent this kind of pollution. But under Clause 25 of the Bill he could find himself in an area designated by the Secretary of State where a practice that is perfectly legal, and approved by the Minister of Agriculture as proper and in the interests of food production, becomes by regulation and after consultative procedure—which I am glad to see has been improved in the Bill—an offence. When the noble Lord, Lord De Ramsey, then put the case for compensation in these circumstances, the Government's argument was that all polluting practices were legal before they were prohibited by legislation, though the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, disagreed; and it was therefore, so the argument ran, no reason to compensate someone merely because something that was blatantly lawful became an offence.

But here, surely, we are dealing with special and unusual circumstances. As the noble Lord, Lord Molson, clearly pointed out in the Second Reading debate earlier this month, the activity to be restricted or prohibited under Clause 25(5), or requested to be curtailed under Clause 44, is good agricultural practice anywhere else, but in a special designated area it is thought liable to cause pollution. The water authority say, in effect, that this is a reservoir of water that might be endangered and must be kept clean by prohibiting this, that and the other activity. The agricultural community will acknowledge that an Order made under Clause 25(5) is being made for the greater public good, just as the community recognises that for the benefit of the public a farmer may lose his whole farm when a reservoir is created above the land surface. But when this happens the owner and occupier are compensated. Under the Bill as it stands a farmer may not be dispossessed, but he may suffer severe restriction on his output and the value of the land must be diminished. I cannot see why there should be no compensation merely because the water reservoir in a designated area lies under the surface.

LORD SANDFORD

As I dealt with this topic on behalf of the previous Government, perhaps I should intervene now to make three points. First, I sympathise very much with the case of the farmers, presented so cogently by the noble Lord, Lord De Ramsey, particularly the livestock farmers whom we all want to see intensifying their production. But I think all noble Lords will agree that the effluent from intensive units of that kind are undoubtedly dangerous pollutants and steps must be taken to control those. It is in that context that I would ask the Government to consider the ideas first put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady White, and expressed by my Amendments Nos. 57 and 58. I am glad that the Government have found it possible to go some way to meet the case presented by the noble Lord, Lord De Ramsey, by making provision for appeals and making sure that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is kept more fully in the picture.

I still think that the fears which have been expressed on behalf of the arable farmer are exaggerated. The effect on his operations are nothing like so drastic as having his farm inundated by a reservoir. My understanding of the effect on him is that in some cases there would be sonic limit set of the concentration for various kinds of fertilisers that he will be able to use, and that does not go anything like so far as depriving him of his livelihood. But side by side with all that sympathy for the farmer, and particularly the livestock farmer, I am still quite convinced that we cannot depart from the broad principle that the polluter should pay, rather than that he should be compensated if he stops polluting. That is the reason why I should like to urge upon the Government further consideration than they seem to have given so far to the proposal first put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady White; that we should deal with this matter by providing grants, under the scheme of farming grants, for equipment that eliminates or reduces the pollutant effects where they would otherwise arise. This seems to me to be a way of helping the farmers, who certainly deserve to be helped, without breaching the principle that the polluter must pay. I hope that the noble Lord the Leader of the House will be able to say that this aspect can be considered. If he does, I shall certainly not want to press my Amendments.

LORD MOLSON

I can speak briefly on this occasion because nearly every speaker who has already spoken has covered one of the main points to which I invited the attention of your Lordships on Second Reading. I said then that I thought that something in the nature of compensation should be provided on grounds of equity. In any particular case, whether or not compensation should be paid really depends not only upon the legal position but also upon what I might call general principles of equity. Where, in this case, farmers have been carrying out what is held to be by the Government a good agriculture practice and that is suddenly terminated and made illegal because of the importance of avoiding pollution, there is, it seems to me, a clear case for compensation to be paid. I note what has been said by my noble friend Lord Sandford and it may well be that the same result would be obtained if a grant were made in order to provide the cost of avoiding the pollution. That is just the kind of difficult technical problem which I hope the Government will look at and I would not for one moment dog-matise about it.

The only point to which I should like now to refer is the second point which I made on Second Reading. I said that not only did I think that compensation should be paid on grounds of broad equity in dealing with the farmers and landowners, but that I thought it was expedient to do so. The Amendment, which has been made by this Government and which I regard as quite beneficial and reasonable in providing that, before these prohibitions are to be applied, the Minister of Agriculture should be consulted, strengthens the argument in favour of compensation being paid on grounds of expediency.

The purpose of the Bill and, I know, the general intention of this Committee is to reduce the amount of pollution. If, in order to reduce pollution, an order is required which appears to inflict hardship and injustice upon individuals, it will be difficult in a country like this, where people are fair-minded, to get such an order made. The argument has been greatly strengthened because the present Government have decided that the Minister of Agriculture is to be consulted by the Secretary of State for the Environment. Clearly, if the Secretary of State for the Environment, in order to prevent pollution of the water supply, wishes to prohibit an agricultural practice which has been advocated by successive Ministers of Agriculture for a considerable period of time, any Minister of Agriculture will say to his colleague, "It is a bit hard upon the people that I try to represent if, after I and my predecessors have been saying to them that they ought to be using more fertilisers and ought to go in for more intensive agriculture, you are now suddenly going to tell them that these practices have got to stop". If some kind of fair compensation is going to be paid in those circumstances, there is a very much greater likelihood that the Minister of Agriculture and the Secretary of State will be in agreement that an order of that kind should be issued. I believe that some provision for paying fair compensation to agriculturists and, having regard to the speech by the noble Earl, Lord Courtown, also to industrialists, who suddenly find themselves prohibited from doing what they have always been led to suppose was the right thing to do in the interests of the nation as a whole, would be only fair, and that it would be expedient to find means of paying that fair compensation.

9.46 p.m.

LORD SHEPHERD

We have here, have we not, a Bill to deal with pollution? The Bill gives power to the Secretary of State and to the water authorities to impose some restrictions upon the farming community, and also upon industrialists. I would suggest that if there is justifiable hardship or a need in the national interest to see that the effects of this Bill are met by compensation, they are not to be found in a Bill of this nature. This is a Bill, as I see it, to deal with the control of pollution. The reasons for the various Amendments are, if I may say so, identical with those that the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, himself had to withstand on a previous occasion; and the Government then said (and I have to be frank with the Committee: this Government also say) that nobody should be compensated for refraining from causing pollution. This conflicts with the principle that the polluter should pay for measures necessary to reduce his pollution to an acceptable level. Secondly, the Bill contains a good deal of machinery designed to ensure that restrictions are not imposed unless there is adequate proof that they are necessary to prevent pollution.

Before the present Government introduced the Bill we gave very careful consideration to all the arguments on the previous stage, which have been reiterated to-day, but we concluded that we could not accept the case for compensation. We agree with the arguments put forward by the previous Administration. But, as your Lordships have acknowledged this evening, we have made one or two important amendments designed to make additionally sure that no restrictions are placed on agriculture without the most careful consideration by both my right honourable friend the Secretary of State and my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture. I shall return to these measures in a moment; and I shall also want to add a few words about the question of grants, which the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, raised this evening, as my noble friend Lady White has done on a previous occasion.

I should like to concentrate for a few moments on the basic issue of compensation. The Government have their reservations about the so-called "polluter pays" principle, but we subscribe to the basic conception that the cost of confining pollution to an acceptable level should be borne by the person who would otherwise have caused the pollution. This is not new. I cannot accept the argument that anyone should be compensated if he loses from having to curtail activities he has so far carried out quite legally. Still less can I accept that this the first occasion when this question has arisen. Surely almost any advance in pollution control involves preventing or restricting activities previously carried on without restriction under less stringent conditions.

Part II of this Bill brings discharges into the sea under control for the first time. Part I makes new restrictions on how waste may be disposed of. All this will cost someone money where it cost him less or nothing previously. We are not contemplating compensation in these instances nor do we agree that someone should be paid compensation because he earns less money because he is prevented from doing something if doing it would lead to pollution of water.

Having said this, however, the Government recognise the legitimate worries of farmers particularly about the effect of some of the provisions of Part II. Clause 25(5) is designed particularly to protect underground water reserves which are particularly important to protect because pollution of underground areas, unlike pollution of running streams, takes a very long time to clear itself. At the same time, it is true that it is sometimes difficult to trace the causes and the pathways that lead to polluting matters getting into underground waters and to pin down the source of pollution. Because these provisions designed to prevent pollution occurring are new ones and because restrictions may be involved on activities which have been carried on for some time without obvious harm, rather than prosecute the polluter after the event, a number of important safeguards have been attached to the exercise of the powers given by Clause 25(5). The noble Lord, Lord Sandford, explained these to the House when the Bill was previously considered. If a water authority is able to make a case for designating an area as one where special precautions are appropriate, the Secretary of State draft regulations have to be advertised and a public inquiry held to hear unwithdrawn objections. This is in Clause 94(3). If he decides to go ahead with the regulations they are to be subject to the Negative Resolution procedure of either House. If they come into force there will be a right of appeal to the Secretary of State if in an individual case consent is unreasonably refused by the water authority to a prescribed activity, on the ground that the conditions imposed were unreasonable, and pending the appeal decision the activity may continue unconditionally.

To these safeguards we have added a further provision in Clause 33, that if an appeal concerns restrictions placed on the activity certified to be a good agricultural practice by the Minister of Agriculture, then it is to be decided jointly by the Secretary of State and the Minister. I should say that we do not at all expect that if regulations are made under Clause 25(5) they will be directed primarily or even mainly to agricultural activities. None the less, we have put in this additional protection for farmers' interests and we have also made clear in Clause 44, dealing with the warning system procedure, that the Minister of Agriculture has an obvious interest in any proposals for notices to be issued taking away the degree of immunity for protection offered by Clause 25(2)(c). My right honourable friend the Secretary of State most readily gives an assurance that he will consult his right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture fully before proposing regulations which might affect agriculture under Clause 25(5) or the issue of a notice under Clause 44. We may rest assured, I believe, that no steps will be taken unless, after careful consideration, they are seen to be necessary to prevent pollution.

Finally, let me say a word about the question of grants for farmers which the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, raised—grants which would help them to install processing plant for effluent and waste. Agricultural capital expenditure, of course, attracts tax rebate in the same way as industrial expenditure. I was interested by what my noble friend Lady White said on a previous occasion and also by what the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, said to-night, and I shall, of course, draw the attention of my right honourable friend to their remarks. Noble Lords will understand when I say that my response to these suggestions has to be slightly circumscribed. Apart from the fact that I do not believe the question is entirely appropriate to this Bill, it involves financial considerations which are rather more the province of another place.

Without wishing to anticipate my right honourable friend's consideration of the matter, I should point out that to give grants to a polluter to enable him to avoid polluting could arguably be open to some of the objections raised against the payment of compensation. Nevertheless, I am sure that my right honourable friend will wish to look at this matter further. As I hope I have made clear, I cannot advise your Lordships to accept this Amendment or the other Amendments connected with it. We are aware of the problem. We believe we should stand by the principle that if steps are required to be taken they will be considered sympathetically by my right honourable friends, and action may have to be taken through some other form of legislation.

LORD DE RAMSEY

I am grateful to the noble Lord for the trouble and the extent to which he has obviously gone into this problem. He has indeed dealt with it most fully. From his answer, I gather that the present Government (like the last one) resist compensation. I also have an inkling that a grant—and I have to thank the noble Baroness, Lady White, for having raised this matter initially—might be considered by the Secretary of State. Perhaps the noble Lord would confirm whether I have understood that correctly.

LORD SHEPHERD

Naturally the question of grants is one of policy. I suspect that it would not be my right honourable friend the Secretary of State who would be involved here, but that this is a matter which would come within the province of my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture.

LORD DE RAMSEY

I am sorry if I appear obtuse, but it appears that this matter would come within the sphere of the Ministry of Agriculture. However, the noble Lord has given me no indication as to whether he has a sympathetic reaction towards it.

LORD SHEPHERD

I do not think the noble Lord should seek to draw me any further on this matter. I may have gone a little further than the brief in front of me would indicate, but I was seeking to respond to what the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, had said. This is a matter which is very much in the province of another place and I would advise the noble Lord to look carefully at what I have said to-night. I do not think, in the light of this, that he will be too disappointed.

LORD DE RAMSEY

I am grateful to the noble Lord for what he has just added, and in the circumstances I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

10 p.m.

BARONESS WHITE moved Amendment No. 31: Page 36, line 28, after ("into") insert "or allowing to remain in")

The noble Baroness said: I suggest that we consider Amendments Nos. 31, 32, 33 and 81 together. This is another modest exercise in consolidation—this time of the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Act 1951. I do not wish to spend a long time on it, but if your Lordships will look at Amendment No. 81 and turn to page 117, line 10 of the Bill, you will see a reference to the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Act 1951. You will see that provision is made in Schedule 4 to repeal the whole Act, except certain sections which are enumerated there. The only one that is of any real consequence is Section 4, and Amendments Nos. 31, 32 and 33 are my admittedly amateur effort to incorporate all that matter in Section 4 into the Bill. The remaining sections seem to be entirely irrelevant, particularly the reference to the fact that we should retain the definition of "stream" in the Act of 1951 when we have a definition of "stream" in Clause 49 of the Bill before us.

I therefore rely upon my noble friend to see that at least between now and the time when this Bill reaches another place, a more satisfactory, more professional effort is made subsuming the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Act 1951 into the Bill which is before us. I cannot believe that it will take more than a couple of hours of a draftsman's labours, at the very outside. I beg to move.

LORD SHEPHERD

The Committee will remember that I sought to hold a hard line on Second Reading in the field of consolidation. While recognising the strong feelings in the House, I felt that in the long-term interests of consolidation there was a great deal to be said for holding the line and letting the Law Commission do its work and produce one consolidated measure. However, one needs to be a realist and to recognise the pressure, particularly when it comes from all around, and I have therefore been able to prevail upon my right honourable friend the Lord President of the Council to provide the necessary Parlaimentary draftsman to deal with some of the consolidation. The noble Baroness is quite right. Her Amendment is imperfect, and I cannot advise the Committee to accept it. But as my noble friend explained, we intend to do a certain amount of consolidation in this Bill. Section 4 of the 1951 Act, to which this Amendment mainly refers, will be a strong candidate. I suggest that my noble friend takes the hint, withdraws the Amendments, and we will endeavour to produce the necessary Amendments later.

BARONESS WHITE

In view of those assurances, I have unusual pleasure in asking leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

On Question, Whether Clause 25 shall stand part of the Bill?

BARONESS WHITE

One point in which my noble friend knows that I am interested still worries me. I refer to page 35, line 30, of the Bill, concerning water from an abandoned mine. I have not put down an Amendment, because I was not clear about what would be effective. I am worried that we should exempt water from abandoned mines. I mentioned this point several times in the debates that we had on the preceding Bill. I wish to draw attention once more to our concern about this provision, and I should be grateful if my noble friend could arrange for somebody in his Department to have further talks with me to see whether anything can be done here or in another place.

LORD SHEPHERD

My noble friend will always be welcome at the Department of the Environment so long as I am there, and I will certainly arrange for her to have an opportunity to consult my officials on this matter. I have a satisfactory answer for my noble friend, but it goes to three long pages and, in the circumstances, she may feel that this is an answer that I may give her by hand, as opposed to voice, We could continue discussions on this matter because it is a matter to which I know the noble Baroness attaches the greatest importance.

Clause 25 agreed to.

10.5 p.m.

BARONESS WHITE moved Amendment No. 33A: After Clause 25 insert the following new clause:

Samples of effluent

1. ".—(1) In any legal proceedings it shall be presumed, until the contrary is shown, that any sample of effluent taken at an inspection chamber or manhole or other place provided in compliance with a condition imposed under this Act in relation to any waters is a sample of what was passing from the land or premises to those waters.
2. (2) A water authority may agree with the occupier of any land or premises from which effluent is discharged on the point or points at which, in exercise of the water authority's rights under section fifteen of the River Boards Act 1948, or under any other enactment, samples are to be taken of the effluent passing into any waters, and in any legal proceedings it shall be presumed, until the contrary is shown, that any sample of effluent taken at a point fixed under this section is a sample of what was passing from the land or premises to those waters.
3. (3) An agreement under the last foregoing subsection shall have effect in relation to the land or premises notwithstanding any change of occupation, but the water authority or the occupier for the time being may at any time declare that it shall cease to have effect.
4. (4) In default of agreement under the foregoing provisions of this section, the water authority may apply to the Secretary of State and the Minister may, after considering any representations made to him by the occupier of the land or premises and any other person who appears to the Secretary of State to be interested, fix the point at which samples are to be taken; and the Secretary of State may from time to time on the application of the water authority or the occupier of the land or premises review and vary any decision taken by him under this subsection.
5. (5) Every water authority shall maintain a register containing such particulars as the Secretary of State may direct of sampling points fixed under the foregoing provisions of this section, and the register shall be open to inspection at all reasonable hours by any person appearing to the water authority to be interested.
6. (6) In subsection (2) of the said section fifteen (which provides that the result of an analysis of a sample taken under that section shall not be admissible as evidence unless certain requirements have been complied with) references to an analysis shall include refer- 994 ences to any test of whatever kind and "analysed" and "analyst" shall be construed accordingly."

The noble Baroness said: This is another effort at amateur consolidation but this time it refers to the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Act 1961. I am well aware that there is at least one section of this Act which it would be difficult to repeal as of this moment because it could have a certain retroactive effect, and therefore I think there would be resistance to repealing the Act in its entirety at the present time. I hope the time will come pretty quickly when that Act could be entirely dispensed with. But it would be easier later on to repeal the remainder of that Act in its entirety. It really means that one would have for all effective purposes only the present Section 12 of that Act remaining. In order to facilitate a possible future repeal, I have endeavoured to include in this Bill the other substantive section of that Act; namely, Section 10. Again, I am well aware that the drafting is undoubtedly defective, but it seemed to me that it we are going to have any consolidation this might be a possible way of tackling it. I beg to move.

LORD SHEPHERD

I wonder whether the noble Baroness would agree that in dealing with this Amendment I might also speak to Amendment No. 80A, which I think goes with it. Here again we have a consolidation measure. I have said that we were happy to tackle Amendments Nos. 31 to 33 which the noble Baroness has just withdrawn. But I must say that No. 33A presents greater difficulties for drafting. I could do nothing more than to say, without commitment, that we will look at this matter. I hope the noble Baroness will accept that it is not a question of the spirit; it perhaps is the means.

BARONESS WHITE

I understand that this is rather more difficult than the earlier group of Amendments. With the assurance given by my noble friend, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 26 agreed to.

Clause 27 [Control of sanitary appliances on vessels]:

LORD CRAIGTON moved Amendment No. 34: Page 39, line 22, after ("use") insert ("by a person who causes or knowingly permits").

The noble Lord said: With the approval of the Committee, I move Amendment No. 34 but I shall not move No. 35 which I am advised is incorrect drafting and is not necessary at all.

LORD SHEPHERD

Would the noble Lord also speak to Amendment No. 36? I am advised that they could go together.

LORD CRAIGTON

Is there something here I should know? I am sorry, I did not realise it. I will speak very shortly in case I have made a mistake. The point I had in mind was that on page 60 the offence is created of having a boat on hire that is not conforming with regulations. On page 60 the phrase used is: a person who causes or knowingly permits a vessel to be on a stream"— I repeat, "causes or knowingly permits"; whereas in line 23. Clause 27(1), the words are "keeping or use", which is not the same as "causes or knowingly permits". This makes it possible for the man hiring the boat from the boat hirer to be responsible for the boat not being in shape. With those few words, I beg to move.

LORD SHEPHERD

Certainly it was not out of discourtesy to the noble Lord that I suggested he might look at my speech on my Amendment No. 36, since he might then have saved himself having to speak to his own Amendment No. 34. As I have already said to the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, I have great sympathy with his intention. My Amendment provides that regulations may be made by the Secretary of State, which would have the effect of requiring somebody about to hire a boat to explain to his customer—perhaps by a notice in the boat—what is the law in relation to discharges of polluting matter from boats, and on what areas of the water the restrictions apply.

If the hirer fails to do this he is committing an offence. But this does not make the hirer responsible if the customer disregards what he has been told, or even if the boat is not equipped so as to meet the requirements of the law. We found—I have to be frank here—that a very complicated provision would be required to meet this last case, dealing with circumstances where there is a hire purchase agreement and so forth. However, my Amendment gives a good deal of protection to the customer by making sure that he knows how the law applies. In practice, a hirer who left his clients liable to prosecution, because his boat's sanitary appliances were not sealed, would probably not stay long in business and it would usually be possible to prosecute a man for keeping such a boat on the water between hirings. None the less, we felt that some protection for the customer was warranted, and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, will be able to accept what we have produced here as a means of achieving the end that he has in mind.

LORD CRAIGTON

I am very grateful to the noble Lord. I have to apologise to your Lordships for the fact that I had just got off the plane from Glasgow and was not here to move my first Amendment. I should have spent some time studying these Amendments. However, I am very grateful to the noble Lord and, of course, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD SHEPHERD

I beg to move Amendment No. 36:

Amendment moved— Page 41, line 35, at end insert— ("(7A) Provision may be made by regulations for requiring a person who in prescribed circumstances hires out for payment to another person any vessel provided with a sanitary appliance to give to the other person notice in a prescribed form of prescribed provisions made by or under this section; and a person who fails to comply with a requirement imposed on him by virtue of this subsection shall be guilty of an offence.")—(Lord Shepherd.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 27, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 28 agreed to.

Clause 29 [Reference to Secretary of State of certain applications for consent]:

10.12 p.m.

VISCOUNT DILHORNE moved Amendment No. 37: Page 44, line 1, leave out ("If the Secretary of State directs") and insert ("The Secretary of State may, either in consequence of representations made to him or otherwise, direct").

The noble and learned Viscount said: This is a remarkable occasion. It is the first time that I have found my name associated with that of the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, on any Motion, Amendment, or anything else. However, this constitutes a precedent which I hope will be followed on other occasions and I shall always be gratified if he will follow my lead. I should like to spend a few minutes explaining this Amendment, because I think it is necessary. This series of Amendments is rather important and it may allay considerable anxiety if I do so. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, will probably recollect that I gave her some trouble on a clause in the other Bill which is now Clause 28.

There is an express provision there that a water authority shall not withhold its consent unreasonably. I have always felt some doubt as to whether it was not rather offensive to this high-powered body of water authorities to suggest that it might withhold its consent unreasonably. One would be apt to assume that such a body would always act reasonably. But the noble Baroness will remember that I pressed that if one is going to provide that it is not to withhold consent unreasonably, it should also be under a duty not to give consent unreasonably. I made some rather strong remarks about the way in which the scales were tilted in the last Bill.

This first Amendment which I am moving makes for a very considerable improvement of the position of objectors in regard to a consent being given, and it goes a very long way towards redressing the balance. It makes it clear that anyone who objects to a consent being given, can, before it is given, make representations to the Secretary of State, and it makes it clear beyond all doubt that the Secretary of State can, if he thinks fit, call in that application for consent. I do not think it would be right to impose any kind of duty on the Secretary of State to call in applications whenever he has received an objection because some objections may be frivolous. But the inclusion of these words makes it clear that if there is a valid and strong objection the right course for the objector to take may be to make representations straight away to the Secretary of State with a view to the application being called in.

Amendment No. 38 is a drafting Amendment and Amendment No. 39 is really linked with this. Your Lordships will see that under Clause 29(2), where an application is called in from a water authority, the Secretary of State may, if he thinks fit, and shall, if a request to be heard in respect of the application is made to him by the applicant or the authority, cause a local inquiry to be held. This Amendment imposes the duty on the Secretary of State, where he takes that course, to afford an opportunity of appearing before and being heard by the person who is conducting the inquiry to any person who has made representations relating to the application. So that is an advantage in that the objector will have an opportunity of appearing at an inquiry if one takes place, and of making his views known.

That is all I think I need say upon these three Amendments. They have the support of the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, and I hope on this occasion he will be able to say that I have not said anything controversial. I beg to move.

LORD SHEPHERD

It may be that anyone reading Hansard to-morrow and looking at the earlier exchanges between the noble and learned Viscount and myself might think that we were at serious odds, but of course we were not. However, I do not think I wish to be led any further on this matter by the noble and learned Viscount. I hope there will be many other occasions, perhaps very shortly, when the noble and learned Viscount will be able to walk into the Division Lobby with me and the Government, but we will wait and see. However, so far as these Amendments are concerned, I concur with their intention.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

VISCOUNT DILHORNE moved Amendment No. 38: Page 44, line 4, after ("specified,") insert ("and").

The noble and learned Viscount said: This is another Amendment in which I am joined by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd. I do not know whether I can enter into any commitment to go into the same Division Lobby with him because nowadays I never vote on any Party matters and I suspect that he usually goes into a Division on some sort of Party matter, but that I would not know. Be that as it may, this Amendment also effects a very considerable improvement to the Bill and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, for the discussions we had about this, which have resulted in this Amendment being tabled by consent.

It is important in this respect. It provides that where a water authority proposes to give a consent, and representations have been made objecting to it, the water authority must serve notice of the proposal on the objector and give him notice that he can within 21 days request the Secretary of State to give a direction to call the matter in. The subsequent paragraph (c) provides that the consent shall not be given until there is opportunity to take those necessary steps. This is another safeguard, and a very ample one, I think, for an objector. It is one which I hope will be generally welcomed. I beg to move.

LORD SHEPHERD

I am happy to concur.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

VISCOUNT DILHORNE moved Amendment No. 39: Page 44, line 16, at end insert— ("(2A) Where in pursuance of the preceding subsection the Secretary of State affords to an applicant and a water authority an opportunity of appearing before and being heard by a person with respect to the application in question, it shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to afford an opportunity of appearing before and being heard by that person to any person who, in pursuance of subsection (1)(c) or (4) of the following section, has made representations relating to the application.")

The noble and learned Viscount said: This Amendment deals with the revocation of consents and alteration and imposition of conditions. It again confers rights upon objectors because it makes it clear that they can make representations to the Secretary of State, and that if he thinks fit he can act in consequence of those representations. I beg to move.

LORD SHEPHERD

Again, I am very happy to concur.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 29, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 30. [Provisions supplementary to ss. 28 and 29.]:

VISCOUNT DILHORNE moved Amendment No. 40: Page 45, line 39, at end insert— ("(4A) Where a water authority proposes to give consent in pursuance of section 28 of this Act in consequence of an application in respect of which representations have been made in pursuance of subsection (1)(c) of this section, then—

1. (a) it shall be the duty of the authority to serve notice of the proposal on the person who made the representations and to include in the notice a statement of the effect of the following paragraph; and
2. (b) that person may, within the period of twenty-one days beginning with the day on which the notice of the proposal is served on him, request the Secretary of State in accordance with regulations to give a direction in pursuance of subsection (1) of the preceding section in respect of the application; and
3. (c) it shall be the duty of the authority not to give consent in consequence of the application before the expiration of that period and, if within that period the said person makes a request in pursuance of the preceding paragraph and serves notice of the request on the authority, not to give consent in pursuance of the application unless the Secretary of State has given notice to the authority that he declines to comply with the request;

and in calculating in the case of any application the period of three months mentioned in section 28(2) of this Act or a longer period there mentioned there shall be disregarded any period during which the water authority to which the application was made is prohibited by virtue of paragraph (c) of this subsection from giving consent in consequence of the application.")

The noble and learned Viscount said; I thought I had dealt with No. 40. I spoke to No. 40. I spoke to Amendments 37, 38 and 39 in one speech, and had just finished my speech on Amendment 40.

LORD SHEPHERD

Perhaps I can assure my noble and learned friend Lord Dilhorne, that I understand through the carrier pigeon that he spoke on Amendment 40 in moving Amendment 38, and on Amendment 41 in moving Amendment 39, but I am quite sure Hansard will get it right.

VISCOUNT DILHORNE

I thought I made it clear I was speaking to Amendments 37, 38 and 39 together and then I spoke to Amendment No. 40. I thought I had spoken to Amendment No. 41, but perhaps I did not.

LORD SHEPHERD

I think the Committee was aware of the Amendment to which the noble and learned Viscount was speaking. I think it was the manner in which they were called. I am quite certain that the necessary channels will ensure there is no misunderstanding by those who write Hansard. I should think that that would be with the agreement of the Committee.

LORD SANDFORD

So far as this side is concerned, we have been keeping quiet about this. All we require is that they should be moved.

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL

The question is that Amendment No. 40 be agreed to.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 30, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 31 [Revocation of consents and alteration and imposition of conditions.]

VISCOUNT DILHORNE: moved Amendment No. 41: Page 46, line 22, leave out ("if he thinks fit") and insert (", either in consequence of representations made to him or otherwise").

The noble and learned Viscount said: I do not think I had better say any more because I have said it already. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 31, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 32 [Restriction on variation and revocation of consent and of previous variation.]:

On Question, whether Clause 32 shall stand part of the Bill?

THE EARL OF COURTOWN

If I may, I should like to ask the noble Lord the Leader of the House the circumstances in which compensation may be paid under subsection (4) of Clause 32.

LORD SHEPHERD

May I intervene? The noble Earl was kind enough to write me a letter setting out a whole series of questions. I have a more detailed answer for him, but because of the time factor, I wonder whether I could give him the answer tomorrow. The noble Earl might then consider whether these are points that could be included in the discussion on Third Reading. They are points which I think could be elucidated for the benefit of those who are interested in the operation of this Bill. I wonder whether that would be acceptable in order to save time and perhaps to complete Part II of the Bill. I am entirely in the hands of the noble Earl and the Committee.

LORD SANDFORD

Before the noble Earl responds, can I say that for my part I would be well content with that course, but I should be grateful for a copy of the letter so that we can consider whether we want a debate.

THE EARL OF COURTOWN

I am not clear about that. The point of my asking about this now was that I wanted the matter to appear in Hansard, because I asked various interested people who could not understand it any more than I could. Do I understand that it will be put down as an Amendment at Report stage?

LORD SHEPHERD

I understand that the noble Earl in his letter asked some four or five detailed points on the clause. I am entirely in the hands of the Committee. I am quite prepared to give the answer to those points, but it will take some time. I suggested to the noble Earl that I would let him have a statement of the position, and if he felt that these were facts that ought to be brought forward I would be quite willing to ensure that they are contained in our Third Reading speeches, or if necessary on Report.

THE EARL OF COURTOWN

In view of the time, I am quite happy about that if the noble Lord will write to me.

Clause 32 agreed to.

Clause 33 [Appeals to Secretary of State]:

VISCOUNT DILHORNE moved Amendment No. 42: Page 49, line 8, at end insert— (4A) In any case where—

1. (a) a question as to whether a water authority has unreasonably withheld its consent in pursuance of section 28 of this Act, or has given its consent in pursuance of that section subject to conditions which are unreasonable, is referred to the Secretary of State in pursuance of this section; and
2. (b) representations relating to the application for the consent in question were made to the authority in pursuance of section 30(1)(c) of this Act,

it shall be the duty of the Secretary of State, before he determines the question, to secure that the authority has served notice of the reference on the persons who made the representations and to take account of any further written representations relating to the application which are received by him from those persons within a prescribed period.

The noble and learned Viscount said: I think I must apologise to the Committee. Such is my desire to co-operate with the noble Lord in making progress that I obviously went too fast. I have no doubt the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, will be grateful for my efforts to accelerate progress, but I must go a little slower sometimes. This is the final Amendment on this Part of the Bill in my name and in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd. It is an important Amendment for this reason. Clause 33 gives a right of appeal by someone who has applied for a consent, if it is alleged that a water authority has unreasonably withheld its consent, and it makes provision, where representations have been made against the granting of the consent, for the objector to have notice of the reference; and it gives him power to make written representations relating to the application. I beg to move.

LORD SHEPHERD

I am very happy to concur.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 33, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 34 and 35 agreed to.

Clause 36 [Power of Secretary of State to exempt applications, consents and conditions etc. from publicity.]

10.29 p.m.

BARONESS WHITE moved Amendment No. 43: Page 52, line 35, at end insert— ("A record of such certificates issued during the appropriate period, including name of applicant and place of discharge, shall be included in the annual report of each water authority.")

The noble Baroness said: This is a small point, but it is regarded in certain circles as of some importance. Your Lordships will have seen in Clause 35 that provision is made for registers to be maintained, and under Clause 35(1)(d) to be included in those registers will be certificates issued in pursuance of the following section, that is to say Clause 36, to which this Amendment refers. The point I am trying to make in this Amendment is that although it will be in the registers one will have to search the registers in order to find the references to these certificates. They are of more general interest than merely local. Therefore, one would like to find some way in which they could be published, and therefore more easily available to those particularly concerned with these matters. One could have asked for an annual report to Parliament, but that seemed rather over-elaborate. Therefore, I make the suggestion in this Amendment that a reference should be contained in the annual report of the water authority concerned. I beg to move.

LORD SANDFORD

I should like in principle to support the noble Baroness and to ask the Government to consider whether, if they are prepared to adopt this general idea, it is not worth considering at the same time extending it to other fields besides water.

LORD SHEPHERD

I will certainly bear in mind the point that the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, made. In regard to the certificates, thanks to my noble friend Lady White details of certificates will now be available. I am not quite sure how far my noble friend will want to press me to include as a statutory requirement on the authorities that they record certificates issued in their reports. My right honourable friend is certainly prepared to ask or, if necessary, even direct, water authorities to record in this way any certificates given. He has the power to direct the water authorities as to the content of their reports under paragraph 40(2) of Schedule 3 to the Water Act 1973. If it were made a statutory requirement, it would be the only statutory requirement as to the content of reports. Water authorities have considerable information to record which it is not so far felt necessary to prescribe by Statute. I hope that the noble Baroness will feel that, taking into account the intention of my right honourable friend and the existing powers, it is not necessary to place a statutory requirement in the Bill.

BARONESS WHITE

I can see the force of my noble friend's argument. On the other hand, as the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, has said, the principle applies to other sections of the Bill besides this one. I am willing to withdraw this Amendment at this stage. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Ashby, would have wished to have spoken to this Amendment had he been able to be here, but he has had to leave for an academic engagement in Manchester. At this point of time I am prepared to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment, but subject to further consideration and consultation with other noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Sandford and Lord Ashby. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 36 agreed to.

Clause 37 [Control of discharges into sewers]:

On Question, Whether Clause 37 shall stand part of the Bill?

10.33 p.m.

LORD SANDFORD

Before we pass Clause 37, I wonder whether I could ask the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, this: subsection (1)(b) of this clause constitutes a considerable strengthening of the clause dealing with local Acts. We left that matter in rather an unsatisfactory position on the previous Bill. I should be grateful if the noble Lord could write to me and tell me what consultations his right honourable friend has had with bodies concerned, particularly, for instance, the C.B.I., before making this change. I think that my noble friend Lord Courtown would be interested in that matter. In the light of that reply, which I should not expect now, we could decide whether we want to go further into the matter on the Report stage.

BARONESS WHITE

As I raised this matter at an earlier stage, particularly in relation to Huddersfield and other places, I should be grateful if I might have a copy of any letter which is sent to the noble Lord, Lord Sandford.

LORD SHEPHERD

It may save time if we postpone further consideration of Clause 37, since we are coming back to the Bill in Committee on Thursday. It may be that I shall then be in a position not only to give the noble Lord and my noble friend a letter, but perhaps be able to deal with this point.

This may be a suitable moment to adjourn, because there are some sub- stantial Amendments now to be considered. I think that we have done some useful work today in Committee. I am slightly disappointed that we did not get to the end of Part II, but, as my noble friend the Chief Whip knows, we cannot always hit the target, although we did so at 7.30 p.m. This is a moment when we might adjourn our Committee stage consideration, and come back to this particular clause first thing on Thursday.

House resumed.