SCOTLAND

HL Deb 05 July 1990 vol 520 cc2309-29

11.—(1) The Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972 shall be amended as provided in this paragraph.

(2) Section 56B (appropriate Minister to be planning authority in respect of hazardous substances in relation to land used or to be used by statutory undertakers) shall he omitted.

(3) In section 56D(I)(a) (applications for consent), after the word "applications" there shall be inserted the words "under this Act".

(4) In section 56D(5) for the words from "means" to "with" in the third place it occurs there shall be substituted the words "means consultations with the Health and Safety Executive and with".

(5) After section 56D there shall be inserted the following sectior —

"Fees.

56DA. —(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for fees of the prescribed amount in respect of applications for, or for the continuation of, hazardous substances consent

1. (a) made to an urban development corporation under section 56A(2) above to be paid to the corporation:
2. (b) referred to him under section 32 above as having effect by virtue of section 56F below to be paid to him;
3. (c) deemed to have been made to him under section 85(7) below by virtue of regulations made under section 97B(10) below to be paid to him.

(2) Regulations made under this section may provide for—

1. (a) the transfer to the Secretary of State of any fee received by a planning authority in respect of an application referred to in paragraph (b) or (c) of subsection (1) above;
2. (b) the remission or refunding of a prescribed fee (in whole Dr in part) in prescribed circumstances or in pursuance of a direction given by him;

and the regulations may make different provision for different areas or for different cases or descriptions of cases.".

(6) In section 56E(5) for the words "a planning authority other than the appropriate Minister" there shall be substituted the word "they".

(7) In section 56G (deemed consent: government author sation), at the end there shall be added the following subsection — (5) A government department or the Secretary of State shall, as respects any hazardous substances consent deemed to be granted by virtue of directions under this section, send to the planning authority concerned any such information as appears to be required by them for the purposes of a register under section 56N.

(8) In section 56H (applications for hazardous substances consent in place of subsisting consent subject to conditions) subsection (5) shall be omitted.

(9) In section 56N(1)—

1. (a) in paragraph (a), for the words following the word "consent" there shall be substituted the words "made to that authority:
2. (aa) to applications under section 56K(2) above made to that authority;" and
3. (b)after paragraph (d), there shall be inserted the following words—

, and every such register shall also contain such information as may he prescribed as to the manner in which applications for hazardous substances consent have been dealt with.

(10) In section 560, in subsections (2) and (3), for the words "appropriate body" there shall be substituted the words "Health and Safety Executive"

(11) In section 97B(10)(c) (hazardous substances contravention notices), after "89A" there shall be inserted "and 166".

12. —(1) Section 38 of the Housing and Planning Act 1986 (transitional provisions) shall be amended as provided in this paragraph.

(2)In subsection (4), for the words "immediately before the commencement date" there shall be substituted the words "while it was so present".

(3) In subsection (9)—

1. (a) for the words "subject to the conditions that —(a)" there shall be substituted the words "subject to —
2. (a) the condition that";
3. (b) for paragraphs (b) and (c) there shall be substituted—
4. "(b) such other conditions (if any) as are prescribed, by statutory instrument subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament, for the purposes of this section and are applicable in the case of that consent".

13. In section 87 of the Local Government. Planning and Land Act 1980 (fees for planning applications etc.). at the end there shall be inserted the following subsection —

"(9) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) above, the reference in that subsection to an application for any consent includes. in relation to a planning authority in Scotland, an application under section 56K(a) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972 for the continuation of hazardous substances consent.".")

Schedule 12 agreed to.

[Amendment No. 379C not moved.]

Clause 135 [Burning of straw and stubble etc.]:

Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 380:

Page 134, line 42, at end insert ("and such exemptions may only be granted when it appears to the Minister, and following consultation with the appropriate national bodies, that no other practicable disposal method is available.").

The noble Lord said: We now move to Clause 135 dealing with straw and stubble burning. It is one of the better-drafted clauses in the Bill and I express my general support for it. However, the Bill contains one relatively minor defect as regards the provision for exemptions. Under certain circumstances there must be exemptions from prohibitions or restrictions under the clause. However, its provisions go so far in providing for representation for those who suffer hardship, for the modified banning of straw and stubble burning and for delays in the implementation of the provisions which are necessary, that we believe that there should be a further set of restrictions on the possibility of exemptions.

In Amendment No. 380 I propose that exemptions should be granted only: when it appears to the Minister, and following consultation with the appropriate national bodies, that no other practicable disposal method is available". I am sure that the Minister will say that that is how she will be considering exemptions. If she can assure me that that is in the mind of the Government and that my amendment is unnecessary to that extent, I shall be happy to withdraw it. However, we should be clear on that point. I beg to move.

Baroness Trumpington

I know that this amendment is one that concerns the National Society for Clean Air, and an identical amendment was proposed in Committee in another place. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, and this Committee that when we receive applications for exemptions to the ban, where there is evidence of genuine need, we shall take steps to ensure that everyone with an interest is made aware of the position. We have it in mind to issue a press release. This will give organisations such as the National Society for Clean Air and any others an opportunity to make representations, and their views will be considered when Ministers decide whether to grant exemptions. The noble Lord will, I hope, recognise that there will be a degree of urgency, but there will be no secrets in our decision-making.

I can also assure the noble Lord that it is our firm intention only to allow exemptions where there is no practicable alternative method of disposal. Our guiding principle will always be the practicability of alternatives, not their costs.

Having given those assurances, which I hope are what the noble Lord was expecting from me, perhaps he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

I am satisfied with that reply. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Alport moved Amendment No. 380A:

Page 135, line 12, at end insert: ("(e) to establish a licensing system for the burning of crop residues on agricultural land and to make provision for the administration of such a system including inspection, penalties for the infringement of the conditions of any licence or the burning of crop residues without a licence and for levying a fee sufficient to cover the cost of issuing such a licence.—).

The noble Lord said: At the beginning of this Session I withdrew a Bill to control straw and stubble burning. I said that I withdrew it because I thought that the Government had shot my fox. Now that I have seen Clause 135, I realise that I was wrong; they have missed.

As it stands, the clause proves that the Ministry of Agriculture does not have the foggiest idea how to tackle the problem. As at present drafted the clause is in the vaguest possible terms. Some time ago the Government announced that they would ban straw and stubble burning after 1992. If they do that, it will make a nonsense of all the arguments which my noble friend the Leader of the House advanced against the Bills which I introduced in 1982 and 1983.

By the time I introducd my second Bill, which incidentally would have taken effect at the beginning of 1989 and would have prevented the conflagration of that autumn, I had realised that a blanket provision against burning was not desirable from the point of view of arable farming or the environment.

The burning of crop residues is an ancient practice. For example, it is mentioned in the Old Testament. To give a pledge that it would be prohibited by 1992 is either a classic example of political opportunism or sheer ministerial ignorance. As it stands the clause gives no indication of the way in which the Ministry will implement its proposals. That will be left to regulations.

When I inroduced my Bills in those two years, I carried out quite a lot of research. I reached the conclusion that the only way to control straw and stubble burning which would be effective and fair to the arable farmer and the community generally was by a licensing system. Therefore, this amendment is designed to concentrate the minds of the Minister and her advisers on the only practical solution to the problem and to give the present Minister or her successor the legislative power to introduce a comprehensive and well thought out licensing scheme.

From past experience I fear that I know what the Minister is likely to say in her reply. As she suggested the other day, I believe that I can read her lips. She will talk about grave administrative difficulties and the evils of bureaucracy. She will claim that the scheme will cost huge sums of public money, although my amendment proposes that the cost of issuing the licences will be borne by the arable industry. She will draw attention to the new code of practice issued by the NFU in conjunction with the Government, which makes insignificant changes to the code of practice which failed to control burning last year.

I remind the Committee that the National Farmers Union is now strongly in favour of a licensing scheme. The Minister will claim that the amendment is unnecessary because the clause is drafted widely enough to allow her to do whatever she wants. My understanding is that that is not so.

Perhaps I may give my advice to the Minister. She should tear up her brief and put it in the large wastepaper basket under the table. She should then accept this amendment, which is both benevolent and realistic. I beg to move.

Lord Stanley of Alderley

I understand that the amendment in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Alport is grouped with this amendment.

Today is rather an extraordinary day. For about four or five years I spent my time trying to strangle my noble friend Lord Alport and he spent his time trying to strangle me. Today, I agree with him entirely and I believe that he agrees with the point that I am making, which is very similar to the point that he makes. Perhaps I may say that it is a particular pleasure for me, because on one occasion I behaved fairly close to the knuckle, to be able to link forces again with my noble friend.

It will not come as a surprise that I am extremely doubtful about the wisdom of a blanket staw-burning ban. My reasons for doubt centre on the fact that alternative methods of disposal and the resultant change in farming practice, apart from being enormously expensive to the farmer, could be more harmful to the environment than burning. Therefore, my amendment makes it clear that the Secretary of State should take into account the environmental effects when applying the ban.

What could some of those environmental effects be? First, we shall use far more fossil fuels because of the extra cultivations. It is estimated that we shall use 4 million litres of diesel extract per year. Secondly, because straw burning aids weed control, more chemicals will have to be used to control those weeds. Thirdly, ploughing releases nitrogen into the soil. As it will be virtually impossible on very heavy soils such as those on which I farm to plant an autumn crop because of the ploughing, that leaching will continue throughout the winter. That is the most dangerous time for nitrogen leaching. Perhaps the importance of nitrates in our water is now of no account. If on the other hand it is, the quicker a crop is established, the less is the leaching of nitrates and straw and stubble burning invokes instantaneous growth.

I realise and entirely sympathise with those who suffer from smuts and dirty washing. I support any measure, such as that proposed by my noble friend Lord Alport, to minimise the very obvious nuisance. Regarding the release of CO₂ or nitrogen oxide into the atmosphere, the amount released is exactly the same whether the straw is burnt or allowed to decompose.

I know that I shall not convince the Committee, but I hope that the Minister will say that there will be environmental problems if straw burning is banned; that those problems cannot be accurately assessed, and that any proposed regulation will bear in mind the possible environmental harm that may be caused by such a ban.

Nature is very unpredictable. I want the Minister to have ample scope to alter the regulations should nature turn fickle.

6.30 p.m.

The Earl of Balfour

One of the problems that I face in Scotland is that sometimes, perhaps after a wet harvest, if I have not managed to bale the straw —particularly wheat straw —it is utterly useless and I must burn it. I agree that care needs to be taken and I always plough right round the field. Thirty years ago I may have called in a threshing mill to obtain the best wheat straw, which then went into the potato pits or was used for thatching. I use practically all the barley straw for bedding and feeding. However, until some use is found for wheat straw —perhaps for making chipboard or plaster board —I do not know what to do with it and have to burn it. I often do not burn until well into October.

The Earl of Radnor

Perhaps I may comment on the amendment of my noble friend Lord Alport. Since he first brought the issue of straw burning before the Chamber many noble Lords. including myself, have been converted to his view, previously having had views in exactly the opposite direction. However, I hope that the Minister will resist any suggestion of licensing in place of regulations. Although I am against regulations generally, this must be a case in which they are an absolute necessity.

I may have been happier if my noble friend Lord Alport, instead of putting all the answers into the mouth of the Minister, had been a little more constructive and had explained how he saw the system of licensing working. As far as I can see it would be virtually impossible. I hope that the amendment will be resisted.

Baroness Trumpington

I hope that my noble friend Lord Alport will forgive me if I say that he claims to know before I speak what I will say. In part I am not surprised. I have been writing letters to him since the 1st December 1989 on what I might say should this moment arise.

I well understand my noble friend's attachment to the concept of a licensing system under which individual farmers would be licensed to burn their crop residues, subject to stringent conditions. This was an option to which we gave very careful consideration when reviewing our policy following the disastrous situation that arose last year. We concluded, however, that it would not really provide an adequate response to the problems. It would, in fact, have little, if any, impact on the level of smoke pollution and the enormous public nuisance created by straw burning.

It would also entail major new bureaucratic procedures to grant individual licences. Some have suggested that we could restrict the licences to certain categories of farmland, or to farmers who have never been the subject of complaints about their burning practices. The first would obviously be discriminatory, and the second simply would not work. The only basis for refusal to grant a licence would be where breaches of conditions had been proven in a court of law. That would have no regard to those cases where problems giving rise to public complaint had occurred but where there was no obvious breach of the conditions. It is a sad fact that many burns conducted in accordance with the by-laws still give rise to major public nuisance.

That is why the Government concluded that the practice of straw burning, regardless of its merits as a husbandry practice, has to be brought to an end. But we have catered for exemptions to allow a degree of flexibility to deal with particular practical problems. And we are giving farmers three full seasons in which to adjust. That seems to us to be the right and fair way to approach this problem. Many in this Chamber (and in another place) agree entirely with this approach. I hope that my noble friend will withdraw his amendment, which I must resist.

I come now to Amendment No. 381. My noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley is concerned about the extra diesel used in ploughing in straw and stubble and the risks of increased nitrate leaching. I want to assure him that we took the decision to propose a prohibition of the practice of burning in full knowledge of these concerns. Nonetheless, we judged that these disadvantages are not so great when weighed against the very serious disadvantages of permitting straw burning to continue.

Regarding the point that additional diesel will be needed, it should be remembered that under the present arrangements, farmers who burn are required to plough field headlands, create firebreaks and incorporate the ash into the soil. So there is already fuel usage for these operations. It is accepted that, to the extent that the preparation of the land for a following crop will require a more thorough form of cultivation, more diesel will be used. But this will certainly not cause the kind of public nuisance that is associated with burning. The extra consumption of diesel fuel, taken in the widest context, is fairly insignificant and likely to have an infinitesimal effect on the environment.

My noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley mentioned the question of nitrate leaching. There is no simple answer. On the one hand, ploughing, rather than shallow cultivation, might enhance nitrate leaching; on the other hand, straw incorporated would immobilise nitrate in the soil. So there are gains and offsets. Again I would say to my noble friend that we have to balance the pluses and minuses. We could not, therefore, regard the considerations which he has mentioned as justifying widespread exemptions to the proposed ban. However, as I have explained, we have provided in the clause the flexibility to grant exemptions where there is no practical alternative to burning.

I would only add that when considering the question of exemptions, it has struck me that farmers with land bordering on the M.25 and M.11 have been obliged for some years to come to terms with the restriction on burning and have managed very well.

I hope that my noble friend will withdraw that amendment, since I must resist its inclusion in the Bill.

I turn to the last of the three amendments. I understand the motivation of my noble friend in moving the amendment, which would ensure debate on the regulations in both Houses.

Lord Alport

I intend to move that amendment separately.

Baroness Trumpington

I suddenly realised that my noble friend had not spoken to the amendment, but it was included in my groupings.

Lord Alport

I am a little confused with regard to the Government's policy. The NFU code for farmers, which is used to assist the Government, states, As you plan your farm operations for 1990, bear in mind that the government intends to ban straw burning after 1992". If I understand the Minister correctly, the Government do not intend to ban straw burning completely. There will be exceptions. When the moment comes for them to decide on those exceptions, they will be the same kind of exceptions, to all intents and purposes, as exist under the code. If I am wrong about that and the Government do intend to ban it completely, I shall be interested to see what happens when the time comes.

We have had a long and gruelling debate about dogs, and I do not feel entitled to ask the Committee to continue with this amendment because I have another amendment to move. However, perhaps I may be allowed to say that, in reply to what my noble friend Lord Stanley said, I am glad that after some period of disagreement on this subject we have now, on the whole, reached common agreement. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Stanley of Alderley had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 381:

Page 135, line 12, at end insert: ("(3A) Before making any regulations under this section to prohibit or restrict the burning of crop residues on agricultural land, and in exercising such powers to make exemptions from any prohibition or restriction as may be provided in any regulations, the appropriate Minister shall have regard to the implications that any alternative methods of disposing of crop residues may have for the environment, including pollution and the use of natural resources.")

The noble Lord said: Perhaps I may reply to my noble friend on the Front Bench. I shall write to her between now and Report stage because I am not clear in my own mind on one point. Should nature change its mind and be particularly unpleasant in five or six years' time so that the best way forward is to burn rather than what we have been doing, will the Minister then be empowered to say, "Yes, that particular field may be burnt"? I do not know whether my noble friend wishes to reply now; but, if not, I am more than happy to wait until Report stage.

[Amendment No. 381 not moved.]

6.45 p.m.

Lord Alport moved Amendment No. 381AZA:

Page 135, line 17, at end insert: ("( ) Regulations under this section shall not be made unless a draft of the regulations has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.").

The noble Lord said: This amendment seeks to ensure that when the appropriate Minister eventually decides that it is right to introduce a suitable scheme —I am following the wording of the clause which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, said was so well drafted but which seems to be peculiarly worded —for the solution of this problem that, constitutionally, he should seek Parliament's approval.

Clause 135 is drawn so widely and clumsily —in my opinion, at any rate —that the Minister can produce regulations which may seriously damage the legitimate interests of arable farming, particularly in heavy land where incorporation is undesirable. The Minister may introduce regulations which will have the effect of greatly reducing the production of arable crops and that will affect food supplies at a time when, according to United Nations and United States experts, grain production is now insufficient to meet demand. That will result in higher prices, which have already risen by 40 per cent. in the past few years. Reserves have been seriously depleted. The so-called grain mountain has become a molehill. In turn, this could affect this country's exports. The Minister's regulations could destroy the livelihoods of individual farmers and damage the environment by forcing farmers to adopt practices which are environmentally unfriendly.

When the Executive assumes extensive and ill-defined powers to issue regulations Ministers have a constitutional duty to submit them for parliamentary approval, and Parliament has an equal duty to ensure that they do so. This week, in the Court of Appeal, the Lord Justices criticised, The unprecedented and unsupervised powers which Parliament had delegated to the Secretary of State for Social Security". Lord Justice Purchas said, It may be in this case, in the execution of the legislative process, that Homer nodded with the result that wholly exceptional and, it might be thought by some, objectionable powers without any Parliamentary fetter or supervision … were achieved by the Secretary of State". When Clause 135 was considered in another place the House of Commons, perhaps like Homer, seems to have nodded; but there is no reason why we should do so now, even at this late hour.

As it stands the clause gives the Minister power to issue regulations arbitrarily and recklessly without consultation with the industry, the local authorities and environmental interests, or by making it subject to any proper parliamentary supervision. I consider that that is not good enough. In the case before the Appeal Court to which I have referred, the Lord Justice said: No previous Act had given such wholesale unregulated and unsupervised powers to the Secretary of State". Here is another example of the progressive erosion of the constitutional responsibilities of Parliament by a powerfully entrenched Executive.

I hope that the Government will consider this amendment and that it will be accepted, because it is time that we realised that legislation by regulation has to be carefully controlled. That has been the point of view of Parliaments over a long period of time. I beg to move.

Baroness Trumpington

I must once again apologise for jumping the gun, but I now finally come to the last of the three amendments on this subject. We have accepted that industry needs some time to adjust to new cultivation techniques and to invest in the necessary equipment. We believe it right to allow the farmers three seasons to do so. We hope that advances in technology will be encouraged by notice of the ban. For example, I have challenged the agricultural machinery section of the industry to find machinery which will cope with stubble in heavy land.

However, turning back to the amendment, I can understand the motivation of my noble friend in moving this amendment which would ensure a debate in both Houses on regulations introducing the prohibition and any exemptions; but there will be such opportunity under the negative procedures if noble Lords do not like the measures that we introduce. I must point out that the use of the affirmative procedure is normally restricted to secondary legislation which alters the effect of primary legislation or which affects government finance. Neither of those considerations applies to regulations to be made under this clause.

I hope that explanation satisfies my noble friend, but I can assure the Committee that I have others if it does not.

Lord Alport

I am grateful to my noble friend for her explanation, and I do know that there is always the negative procedure. The whole point is that the affirmative procedure makes it essential that the Government bring their proposals before Parliament; the negative procedure rests with the initiative of Members of either House to bring the resolution forward.

However, I do not want to pursue this matter further. I have dealt with this subject for two years and this may well be my last effort. I hope that the Government are successful but I am willing to take a bet with my noble friend —a small bet —that in two years' time, in 1992, my noble friend or her successor will come before this Chamber and say, "We are very sorry but we have not been able to find a satisfactory way of controlling straw stubble burning. Either we must continue to rely on the code, which has not worked, or introduce a nice little system such as my noble friend the late Lord Alport introduced some years ago". I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 135 agreed to.

Lord Addington moved Amendment No. 381ZA:

After Clause 135, insert the following new clause: ("Licensing of medicinal products: environmental considerations In section 19 of the Medicines Act 1968 (factors relevant to determination of application for licence) there shall be inserted after subsection (1)(c)— (d) the need to safeguard the environment;"").

The noble Lord said: The amendment is concerned with trying to tidy up legislation on controls of various types. It is probably the direct result of certain kinds of legislation in the past not being tuned in to environmental problems.

The two Acts with which it is particularly concerned are the Medicines Act 1968 and Part III of the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985, and the difference between the two. The use of certain types of chemical, for instance, in veterinary medicine, is not restricted in certain fields in the same way as in others, due to the overlapping of the two Acts which cover them.

The particular case involved is the preparation nuran. If it is used on land as a medical preparation dealing, for instance, with fowl or chicken batteries, it is controlled under the environmental legislation because it is a toxic red list chemical.

If it is used in a fish farm, it is used as a veterinary preparation and it is not controlled because it comes under the Medicines Act 1968. This confusion has left me reasonably muddled, and the amendment seeks to correct the problem. I beg to move.

Baroness Trumpington

This amendment addresses an important aspect of the assessment which all medicinal products must undergo before they are licensed. It is particularly important for veterinary medicinal products, which, because of their nature and the circumstances of their use, are most likely to have an impact on the environment. It has therefore been standard practice in the Veterinary Products Committee for many years to consider the environmental aspects and impact.

The Act requires us to take account of the impact which a medicine may have on the health of animals generally. That allows us to take account of environmental considerations. I accept that the Medicines Act could be more explicit. The Government therefore welcomed a Commission proposal to add an explicit requirement to look at the, potential risks the medicinal product might pose to the environment", to the provisions of Directive 81/851, which is the Community Directive on Veterinary Medicines Licensing Procedures. The Council adopted on 25th June, a common position accepting this proposal. The proposal has still to undergo the co-operation procedure, and so will not become law for some months. However, I have no doubt that this particular clause will survive.

The Government will therefore need during the next 12 months to consider how to incorporate this Community provision, which we support and which has the same aim as the noble Lord's amendment, into UK law. At the same time we shall be considering how to implement other provisions in the proposed directive. In these circumstances, I think it would be premature for me to prejudge that consideration. I hope that, in the light of what I have said, the noble Lord will allow me time to consider this matter further.

Lord Addington

That is one of the most encouraging answers I have received from the Dispatch Box. It is evident that the problem has been recognised and is being dealt with. I take it that the fact that such a potentially dangerous chemical could find its way into any type of natural ecosystem has been fully recognised. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 381ZB not moved.]

Clause 136 [Financial assistance for environmental purposes]:

[Amendment No. 381A not moved.]

Clause 136 agreed to.

Clauses 137 and 138 agreed to.

Clause 139 [Power to give effect to Community and other international obligations etc.]:

Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 382:

Page 137, line 23, at end insert: ("(4) This section, in its application to Northern Ireland, has effect subject to the following modifications, that is to say —

1. (a) in its application in relation to Part VI and sections 13, 131, and 132, the reference to Her Majesty's Government 2320 in the United Kingdom includes a reference to Her Majesty's Government in Northern Ireland; and
2. (b) in its application in relation to the Radioactive Substances Act 1960, the reference to the Secretary of State shall be construed as a reference to the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland and the reference to Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom shall be construed as a reference to Her Majesty's Government in Northern Ireland; and regulations under it made by that Department shall be a statutory rule for the purposes of the Statutory Rules (Northern Ireland) Order 1979 and shall be subject to negative resolution within the meaning of section 41(6) of the Interpretation Act (Northern Ireland) 1954.").

The noble Lord said: The purpose of this amendment is to clarify the interpretation of Clause 139 in respect of Northern Ireland. I beg to move.

Clause 139, as amended, agreed to

Clauses 140 to 143 agreed to

Clause 144 [Regulations, orders and directions]:

The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Murton of Lindisfarne)

There is a mistake under Clause 144 in the marshalling. Amendment No. 382ZB comes first.

[Amendment No. 382ZB not moved.]

Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 382ZA:

Page 139, leave out line 26 and insert ("69(7), 120(2), 121(3) or 128(2) above or section 147(3) below").

The noble Lord said: I beg to move.

Clause 144, as amended, agreed to

Clause 145 agreed to.

Schedule 13 [Consequential and Minor Amendments of Enactments]:

The Earl of Balfour moved Amendment No. 382A:

Page 198, leave out line 1.

The noble Earl said: Section 3 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 will be repealed under Part II of Schedule 14 to the Bill. That can be seen on page 204. Section 3, the prohibition of unlicensed disposal of waste, is fairly well covered by Clause 32 of the Bill. I feel that to leave the first line on page 198 is unnecessary. This is a probing amendment to some extent. I beg to move.

Lord Reay

My noble friend has again demonstrated his eagle-eyed attention to detail even in these obscure recesses of the Bill. In this case, however, I am afraid that he has been a trifle too enthusiastic. We deal here with a quite significant provision by the standards of consequential and minor amendments. This change to the Transport Act will have serious consequences for anyone who commits a pollution offence involving waste. If they operate a goods vehicle, they will risk losing their goods vehicle operator's licence. This is directed especially at fly-tippers. The list of offences therefore covers the main fly-tipping offences likely to be committed by lorry drivers or operators.

My noble friend has spotted that one of these offences under Section 3 will be repealed by the present Bill. This is true, but it does not mean that we do not need to include it here. The licensing authority, in deciding whether a person should hold a goods vehicle licence, will take account of past offences. These would include offences committed before the Bill became law. It is also possible that Schedule 13 will be brought into force before the replacement of Section 3 by Clause 32 of the Bill. Until then fly-tipping offences will continue to be prosecuted under the 1974 Act. That is why we need Section 3 in the list of relevant offences in this paragraph. I hope that my noble friend will be persuaded by this to withdraw his amendment.

The Earl of Balfour

I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Reay for that explanation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne moved Amendment No. 382B:

Page: 98, line 30, at end insert:

("Sale of electricity: Scotland

11A. In section 170A(3) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 (restriction on sale of electricity by local authority) after the word "prescribed," there shall be inserted the words "or in cases where it is produced from waste,".").

The noble Earl said: In moving Amendment No. 382B, I should like to speak to the other Scottish amendments to Schedule 13, Amendments Nos. 383 and 383ZA. The Government are committed to encouraging both recycling and energy efficiency. These twin goals can be realised by producing more energy from waste—a field which recent developments in technology have now opened up. This amendment will clarify the law by removing from the existing Scottish legislation a possible obstacle to local authorities exploring fully this option.

Amendment No. 383 makes a purely drafting change to Section 56(6) of the Control of Pollution Act 1974, which applies only to Scotland. The change is consequential on the repeal of Section 30 of the 1974 Act in Schedule 14 of this Bill. Amendment No. 383ZA achieves the same effect for Scotland as Amendment No. 219D, which amended Clause 49 achieved for England and Wales; that is, it makes clear that local authorities have a duty to dispose of the refuse deposited at their civic amenity sites. I beg to move.

7 p.m.

The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne moved Amendments Nos. 383 and 383ZA:

Page 199, line 42, at end insert: ("Exclusion of Part 11 of Control of Pollution Act 1974 for radioactive substances: Scotland 14A For subsection (6) of section 56 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 (interpretation of Part II) there shall be substituted the following subsection — (6) Except as provided by regulations made under this subsection, nothing in this Part of this Act applies to radioactive waste within the meaning of the Radioactive Substances Act 1960; but regulations may —

1. (a) provide for prescribed provisions of this Part of this Act to have effect with such modifications as the Secretary of 2322 State considers appropriate for the purposes of dealing with such radioactive waste;
2. (b) make such modifications of the Radioactive Substances Act 1960 and any other Act as the Secretary of State considers appropriate in connection with regulations made under paragraph (a) above.".").

Page 200, line 4, at end insert: ("(1A) In subsection (1) at the end there shall be inserted the words "and to dispose of refuse so deposited".").

Lord Reay moved Amendments Nos. 383A and 383B:

Page 200, line 30, leave out ("Section 14") and insert ("(1) Sections 14 and 15").

Page 200, line 31, leave out from ("amended") to end of line 41 and insert ("as follows. (2) In section 14, after subsection (2) there shall be inserted the following subsection — (2A) Subject to the following provisions of this section and to sections 15 and 16 of this Act, a highway or roads authority may also make an order under subsection (1) or issue a notice under subsection (2) above where the authority is satisfied or (as the case may be) where it appears to the authority that traffic on the highway or road should be restricted or prohibited for the purpose of enabling the duty imposed by subsection (1)(a) or (2) of section 86 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (litter clearing and cleaning) to be discharged. (3) In section 15(8), after paragraph (b), there shall be inserted the following paragraph — (c) if issued under subsection (2A) of that section, for more than five days from the date of the notice:".").

The noble Lord said: These are both drafting amendments. I beg to move.

Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 383BA:

Page 200, line 45, at end insert: ("Registers of deposits etc. at sea: Northern Ireland Assembly control of regulations

In section 25(3) of the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985, after paragraph (a)(ii) there shall be inserted the following sub-paragraph — (iii) in section 14(8), for the words from "and any such power" onwards there shall be substituted the words "and any such regulations shall be subject to negative resolution within the meaning of section 41(6) of the Interpretation Act (Northern Ireland) 1954; and").

Lord Reay moved Amendment No. 383C:

Page 201, line 17, at end insert: ("Exclusion of Water Act 1989 controls of exercise of trade effluent functions in case of prescribed processes

1. (1) Section 74 of the Water Act 1989 (control by Secretary of State of exercise of trade effluent functions in certain cases) shall be amended as follows.
2. (2) In subsection (1), after the word "shall" there shall be inserted the words "subject to subsection (3), below".
3. (3) After subsection (2), there shall be inserted the following subsections— "(3) The provisions of Schedule 9 shall not apply in relation to any trade effluent produced or to be produced in any process which is a prescribed process designated for central control as from the date which is the determination date for that process.
4. (4) The "determination date" for a prescribed process is —
1. (a) in the case of a process for which an authorisation is granted, the date on which the enforcing authority grants it, whether in pursuance of the application or, on an appeal, of a direction to grant it;
2323
2. (b) in the case of a process for which an authorisation is refused, the date of the refusal or, on an appeal, of the affirmation of the refusal.
5. (5) In this section, "authorisation", "enforcing authority" and "prescribed process" have the meaning given in section 1 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and the references to designation for central control and an appeal are references respectively to designation under section 4 and an appeal under section 15 of that Act.".").

The noble Lord said: This amendment disapplies Schedule 9 to the Water Act 1989 to processes prescribed for integrated pollution control under Part I of the Bill. Schedule 9 is not appropriate to such processes, as the conditions of the operation of the process would already have been considered by HMIP in setting the conditions of the authorisation. I beg to move.

Schedule 13, as amended, agreed to

Schedule 14 [Repeals]:

[Amendment No. 384 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]

Lord Reay moved Amendment No. 385:

Page 204, line 6, leave out ('Section 100").

The noble Lord said: This is a drafting amendment. I beg to move.

The Earl of Balfour

It is always a great pleasure to see the Minister's name in front of mine on the Marshalled List. Equally, I should like to extend my thanks to my noble friend Lord Hesketh for the helpful meeting I had with him and for his answers to my many questions about the Bill.

Lord Reay moved Amendments Nos. 386 and 387:

Page 204, line 20, at end insert ("sub-paragraphs (1) to (9) and sub-paragraph (11)")

Page 204, line 22, at end insert:

("1990 c.

Environmental Protection Act 1990

In section 33(3)(b), the words following "below".")

The noble Lord said: These are both minor technical amendments. I beg to move.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

I am totally puzzled by Amendment No. 387. First, it tries to take out in the repeal section a paragraph which is in the Bill; in other words, rather than deleting it from the Bill, it repeals something which has not yet been enacted. Secondly, it refers to: In section 33(3)(b), the words following 'below' ". I should point out that in that section there are no "words following 'below'". Therefore, in two respects, I find the amendment incomprehensible.

Lord Reay

I do not know whether I can enlighten the noble Lord on this issue. However, I can tell him that Amendment No 387 is consequential on an earlier amendment to Clause 33. That amendment added the holder of a waste disposal licence under the 1974 Act to the persons to whom waste may be transferred under the duty of care. This is only a transitional provision to enable the duty of care to be brought into force in advance of replacement of the 1974 Act's licensing provisions by Part II of the Bill. This amendment provides for the repeal of that transitional provision at a later date.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

I am not sure whether that explanation is very satisfactory. The Government are moving an amendment to the Bill and then amending their own amendment by way of a later amendment. I should have thought that this ought to be brought forward on Report rather than at this stage. In order to avoid a certain impropriety in this respect, I suggest that the Government would be well advised not to move Amendment No. 387 and to bring it back, if they think fit, at some time when it is comprehensible.

Lord Reay

I am afraid that I cannot accept the noble Lord's proposal. I must insist that the amendment be proceeded with.

[Amendment No. 387ZA not moved.]

Lord Reay moved Amendments Nos. 387A to 389:

Page 205, line 25, at end insert:
("1990 c. 8.	Town and Country Planning Act 1990	In Schedule 17, paragraph 1.").
Page 205, line 37, at end insert:
("1986 c. ii.	Berkshire Act 1986	Section 13.
1987 c. xi.	Exeter City Council Act 1987.	Section 24.").
Page 205, line 39, at end insert:
("1990 c. vii.	London Local Authorities Act 1990.	Section 43.")

The noble Lord said: These are purely technical amendments. I beg to move.

Lord Hesketh moved Amendments Nos. 390 to 390A:

Page 206, line 20, in column 3 at end insert ("In Schedule 1, paragraphs 9 and 11."). Page 206, line 25, column 3, at end insert: ("In section 46(2), the words "and (2)".") Page 206, line 38, at end insert: ("Part Enactments relating to hazardous substances

Chapter	Short title	Extent of repeal
1972 c. 52.	Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972.	In section 56(A)(1), the words "and to Section 56B.below". Section 56B.
		In section 56E(2)(e) and 56K(5)(b), the words "or Health and Safety Commission".
		In section 56F(1),the words "and (3)". Section 56F(3).Section 56H(5).
		In section 56J(5), the words from "other" to "applies".
		In section 56M(3), the words "Subject to subsection (4) below," Section 56M(4).

The Deputy Chairman of Committees

At this stage I must call Amendment No. 402ZA. This amendment was printed on page 23 of the Marshalled List in error.

Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 402ZA:

Page 206, line 43, column 3, at end insert ("Schedule 4.").

Schedule 14, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 146 agreed to.

Clause 147 [Short title, commencement and extent]:

Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 391:

Page 140, line 11, at end insert:

("section 93; section 99 in so far as it relates to paragraphs 7, 13, 14 and 15 of Schedule 5;").

The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 392, 393, 394, 397, 398, 399, 400, 401 and 402. These amendments are designed to rationalise the drafting of the Bill. I beg to move.

Lord Hesketh moved Amendments Nos. 392 to 394:

Page 140, line 16, leave out ("(and Schedule 12)").

Page 140, leave out line 23 and insert:

("section 145(1) in so far as it relates to paragraphs 3, 4 and 15 of Schedule 13;

section 145(2) in so far as it relates to Part III of Schedule 14 and, in Part VIII of that Schedule, the repeal of section 100 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974;

section 145(4);").

Page 140, leave out lines 25 to 28.

Lord Nathan moved Amendment No. 395:

Page 140, line 29, at end insert ("on the first anniversary of the day on which it is passed or").

The noble Lord said: The purpose of the amendment can be stated shortly: it is to put a date by which the provisions of the Bill, in so far as they are not brought into force under Clause 147(2), shall be brought into force. The amendment provides that the Bill shall come into force: on the first anniversary of the day on which it is passed", or an earlier date on which it or part of it is brought into force by order. It is always unsatisfactory that there should be an open end to the date upon which an Act is to be brought into force. We have had seven arduous days of debate on the Bill in Committee, and no doubt there will be further arduous sessions on Report and perhaps subsequently. It therefore seems reasonable to say that there should be a date by which it will be brought into force in its entirety.

It may be said, and if so, there must be good reasons allied to the argument, that the first anniversary is too short a period. If that were so, I would not object to it being the second anniversary.

What is objectionable is the type of experience which we had in relation to the Control of Pollution Act 1974 where Part II did not come into force for 10 years. Even then, the whole of Part II has not come into force. It is wrong that government should be at liberty to bring into force, or not, an Act which has been passed through both Houses of Parliament. Therefore, some provision along the lines of Amendments Nos. 395 and 396, to which I have referred, are appropriate. I beg to move.

Lord Hesketh

I was under the impression that the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, was to be taken with Amendment No. 395.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

I beg the Minister's pardon. Amendment No. 396A is indeed grouped with Amendments Nos. 395 and 396, which, incidentally, we support. A situation where part of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 has still not come into force is clearly unsatisfactory. What is proposed is not a change in the timetable but that there should be an obligation on the Secretary of State to give a timetable within two weeks of the date upon which the Act is passed.

We cannot require the Secretary of State to make an accurate assessment, but we ask him to make an estimate. That would be enormously helpful to many people, not least the local authorities, which will have to implement the many parts of the Bill, especially those dealing with waste on land. I hope that the Minister will feel that the provision does not in any way fetter the freedom of the Government or the Secretary of State but provides a useful service for the benefit of those who will have to implement the Bill when it becomes an Act.

Lord Hesketh

We believe that setting a general date on the face of the Bill for all the many provisions would not be the best answer. For example, it could lead to less consultation on proposals under the Bill. We certainly intend to consult on regulations to be made under the Bill. But if our implementation programme were to be delayed next year and those amendments were included on the face of the Bill, we could be faced with a choice between meeting an obligation on the face of the Act to implement the Act within a year or bringing forward inadequately prepared secondary legislation without any public consultation.

There can be no doubt of our intention to consult widely. For example, we have already consulted on the duty of care proposals under Part II. We have said that we intend to allow two months for consultation on regulations to be made under Part I, and that has been welcomed. We shall also be consulting on guidance issued under that part of the Bill and on diverse regulations and orders contained in statutory instruments elsewhere in the Bill. I should hate to see the prospects for consultation jeopardised, even inadvertently. I do not think that it is the intention of the amendments but that could be their practical effect.

We have sympathy with the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. We do not see a need for an amendment to the Bill to achieve what he wants, but I can assure him that I am willing to publish our proposals for implementing the Bill once it is enacted. I hope that, given that assurance, the noble Lord will feel that we have gone some way towards satisfactorily answering what he requires.

Lord Nathan

I recognise the point made by the Minister that consultation is extremely desirable, but surely there is a limit of time within which it must take place. It would not be bad for governments to be under some pressure to hasten the process forward. As I said earlier, if the period of a year (the first anniversary) is thought to be inappropriate for the reason that he has mentioned, or otherwise, then let us have the second anniversary. To leave it completely open-ended, in view of the experience we have had with environmental legislation closely allied to this, is unsatisfactory. I therefore feel that I must reserve the position for a later stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 396 and 396A not moved.]

Lord Hesketh moved Amendments Nos. 397 and 398:

Page 140, leave out line 32 and insert: ("(4) Only the following provisions of this Act (together with this section) extend to Northern Ireland,").

Page 140, leave out line 37 and insert: ("Part VI in so far as it relates to importation and, without that restriction, section 117(2) in so far as it relates to the continental shelf: section 130 in so far as it relates to importation;").

Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 398A:

Page 140, line 40, at end insert: ("section (Public registers relating to deposits in the sea and incineration at sea);")

Lord Hesketh moved Amendments Nos. 399 to 402:

Page 141. line 1, leave out ("(and Schedule 12)").

Page 141, line 2, at end insert: ("section 139 in so far as it relates to Part VI and sections 130, 131 and 132 in so far as they extend to Northern Ireland and in so far as it relates to the Radioactive Substances Act 1960;").

Page 141, leave out lines 5 to 7.

Page 141, line 8, leave out ("section 145 above") and insert ("this Act").

Clause 147, as amended, agreed to.

In the Title:

[Amendment No. 403 not moved.]

Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 403A: Line 25, after ("substances;") insert ("to amend the law relating to the control of hazardous substances on, over or under land:").

The noble Lord said: I beg to move.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

I should like to take the opportunity to thank all noble Lords who have assisted in the lengthy scrutiny of the Bill. Three of I the sessions went on far too late at night. I am grateful to all my noble friends and others who collaborated in a scrutiny of the Bill which I hope the Committee feel was not a waste of time. Certain, perhaps minor, improvements have been achieved. We shall be seeking many further improvements in the Bill as it proceeds. I am grateful for the consideration given by all noble Lords, including the Government Front Bench, and for the work that has been done on the Bill.

Lord Hesketh

I should like to take the opportunity on behalf of the Government to thank all noble Lords and in particular the noble Lords, Lord McIntosh of Haringey and Lord Addington, who have sat through a lengthy period of time, and, as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said, three excessively late nights. From these Benches we are grateful for the good humour that has been maintained throughout the Bill's passage which has made it a pleasure for us to be here.

Title, as amended, agreed to.

House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.